There's more to Fallout than its engine.

Silly man :D

Doom, Wolfenstein and Duke Nukem 3D were actually 2.5D games. I don't know the technicalities, but basically you could not have one room on top of the other (unless the engine cheated). Height was suggested with l33t programing tricks. It wasn't true 3D. The first engine capable of true 3D was Looking Glass's (Ultima Underworld & System Shock), then Bethesda's Xngine (Terminator Future Shock & Daggerfall) and then iD (Quake).
That's what I wanted to say.

Anyhow, get on with it.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Doom, Wolfenstein and Duke Nukem 3D were actually 2.5D games. I don't know the technicalities, but basically you could not have one room on top of the other (unless the engine cheated). Height was suggested with l33t programing tricks. It wasn't true 3D. The first engine capable of true 3D was Looking Glass's (Ultima Underworld & System Shock), then Bethesda's Xngine (Terminator Future Shock & Daggerfall) and then iD (Quake).
That's what I wanted to say.

Anyhow, get on with it.
Click to expand...

You forgot Descent, which was fully 3D in 1995, before Quake was released in 1996 and the same year as Daggerfall.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Those games were made by Akella, not by Betheda.
Click to expand...
eh. my bad. i knew that some of their upcoming games were made by diff developers, just didn't realize sea dogs and pirates were also.

For Morrowind, they licenced the Netimmerse engine (Dark Age of Camelot, Freedom Force, the Lego games) and adapted it to suit their needs. The game engine was quite stable (I didn't experience that much crashes). Most of the bugs were gameplay bugs.
Click to expand...

i don't know. i've heard horror stories about random crash to desktops. i've experienced them also, though not to any great degree. it was enough to cause me to save the game every minute, though.
 
So, Morrowing was made with an engine used to power LEGO games?

*Falls of his chair with laughter*

I know, I know. There's Nothing wrong with LEGO games! :P
No, really. :lol:
 
That really isn`t a problem for me Brutulf, if it didn`t caused so many slowdowns everywhere. But i`ve heard their new DX9 engine is something completely diferent, with all type of graphical bells and whitles and more stable. I hope so, and i really hope it alllows for an iso view.
 
I think that's one of the reasons why they didn't adopt the Van Buren engine (besides the fact that learning someone else's code is hard). I bet they had to pay Interplay extra money to licence that engine and they said "screw that, we're not paying for a totally unknown engine when we're making our own in-house engine"

If SPECIAL was a seperate licence, then I'm not sure the Van Buren engine is a part of the "Fallout licence and all of it's assets".
 
Well, honestly I have never played a LEGO game, so I would have no idea about the engine, but I just got cracked up by a mental image of the morrowind world populated by small red/yellow/green LEGO men :lol:
 
A troll, I am not.

However, I would like to be directed to the Bethesda FO3 forums, too, and see if I can't give them a piece of my mind. We are, second to the developers of the Fallout universe, the most important group of people for Bethesda to talk to. They can disparage us at their own peril; we can sink this venture as fast as they can inflate it. Look at the negative feedback towards FO: BOS.

Carmack's Wolfenstein 3d engine was not full3D since it only rendered walls. Floors and ceilings were simply blocks of color on the display, rather than mathematically represented polygons. As such, vertical mobility was impossible. Doom used a pseudo-3d engine. It rendered floor polygons but did not render ceiling polygons, allowing the gamer to increase and decrease their elevation but not allowing them freedom of view. Descent and Quake were the first full3D engines in which every viewable surface was a texture-mapped polygon.

But that's beside the point. The question is: What will Bethesda do with the Fallout license? Perhaps more pressing is, "Will we survive no matter what they do with it?" They have an opportunity here to bury Fallout: rape the license and bury the genre.

For this reason, I think that we need to be reasonable as much as they need to be reasonable. They sunk money into this project: they're not going to drop it because we deem it to be unreasonable. However, they sunk money into it to make money: if, by a few select compromises, we can keep them more true to the Fallout universe, we both win.

But, finally, there's the question of Van Buren. I think we should talk to Bethesda about the possibility of their finishing the work on FO3 (if they have the rights and engine) and bundling it with the PC version of MorrowindFallout. We've waited and suffered long enough; the work of Black Isle should not be in vain.

Regards,
Dibujante
 
Dibujante said:
But, finally, there's the question of Van Buren. I think we should talk to Bethesda about the possibility of their finishing the work on FO3 (if they have the rights and engine) and bundling it with the PC version of MorrowindFallout. We've waited and suffered long enough; the work of Black Isle should not be in vain.
Click to expand...

Why exactly? I see people often claiming they want to see the Van Buren engine used for the upcoming Fallout 3, but why do they want it? The game wasn't being developed under ideal circumstances. The SPECIAL system had been changed quite a bit. It was going to accomodate turnbased and realtime, and was going to have multiplayer (of all things), which already posed some questions to the structure of the system. Who's to guarantee the remains of Van Buren would make a good game, or even a better one than what Bethesda is trying to accomplish?
 
Because it had an engine similar to Silent Storm and TB with an iso view and dialogues tree were there as important things since the start :)

But that doesn`t mean in th end it would be good, but it really doesn`t also mean it would be bad either, it was too soon to tell.

Of course i was enjoying the way it was beeing developed since i`m a sucker for MCA story and the intricate ways it worked inside the world, wich according to Kharn means i`m biased and to Saint means i`m crazy :D
 
Very true, Briosa, however my point is that people shouldn't automatically assume it would be better than what Bethesda will do.
 
No idea if the engine for Van Buren is going to be any good at all. However, it was developed by the Black Isle team, and, despite the circumstances, I have confidence in them. Additionally, some Black Isle team member said a while ago that all of the hard stuff was done: What was left was mainly voice-acting and other hard to screw up things.

I'm not arguing that Van Buren is or is not better than MorrowindFallout, but it would be such a tiny effort on Bethesda's part, and such a gift to the community, to allow us to see what Black Isle had in store for us.
 
Dibujante said:
I'm not arguing that Van Buren is or is not better than MorrowindFallout, but it would be such a tiny effort on Bethesda's part, and such a gift to the community, to allow us to see what Black Isle had in store for us.
Click to expand...

Pete says Bethesda wants to start their Fallout 3 from scratch, so i'd guess Interplay still has Van Buren. if that's right, then the demo wouldn't be released to save the universe.

if Bethesda has it, doubt they'd release it either, wanting to "start fresh" and all. probably wouldn't be too interested with people telling them "you'd better make it alot like Van Buren".
 
There's no way Bethesda is going to use the Van Buren engine.

Firstly, it's very unlikely they're aiming for the same mechanics, ie: what's the point if you're going to rewrite it anyway? Secondly, they'd have to get into the codebase, which is no small task. And finally, they already have a capable 3d engine for both PC and console platforms that they are familiar with.
 
Sorry to Derail, but

Briosafreak said:
Because it had an engine similar to Silent Storm and TB with an iso view and dialogues tree were there as important things since the start :)
Click to expand...

Ugh, all this talk abou Silent Storm, gonna have to play through that again when i get some time... And all you uncultured swines should do the same if you have any respect for yourselves (or any love for tactical combat).
 
I don't understand why we as fallout fans need to be reasonable with bethesda. We are the the most likely and most reliable market for this game. Just like with FO:POS.

Some of their current customers might buy FO:3, but most probably want. They are fantasy people. A lot of them just kind of balk at the thought of guns, and real world issues like nuclear holocaust, drugs and prostitution. I'm a fantasy fan and I don't balk at these things, and maybe some of you don't either, but a lot of fantasy fans do.

I'm not saying we should adopt a hardline and issue like an ultimatum or a list of demands, because that's stupid. I just think we should pursue rational discourse and just try and convince them that they can make other games in the fallout universe to play with. Just as long as they make FO:3 what we want.

Although a nice concise list would probably be best. Just so that if somebody from beth asks one of us, "ok, fine, what do you jerks want?" We can say something.

Iso-topdown (ok maybe 3d like silent storm but with better camera control)
Turn-based (no hybrid thanks.)
We want the "war, war never changes." guy.

Yeah, something like that.

Oh yeah, lol, I forgot, it must be S.P.E.C.I.A.L.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top