Tim Cain interview on Matt Chat, part 2

[bonustime]

Like I said initially it is pointless for someone to voice an opinion of praise for Fallout 3 here unless their goal is to argue with people whose minds will not be changed.
The fact of the matter is this community as an almost unanimous whole has decided that Fallout 3 is a bad sequel, if not a bad game when judged by it's own merits. I am certain there are other Fallout communities that have the consensus that it is a fantastic game and even ones where there is no consensus at all. Those would be fantastic places to air your opinions(unless your goal is just to do a bunch of pointless arguing).

You are free to voice any opinion you want sure, but there is still the question of WHY you want to do so here. What is your motive? As far as I can tell you are either ridiculously optimistic about your ability to change the minds of others, ignorant of the community in which you are posting, or you want to do what is frequently regarded online as "trolling". I sincerely suggest people wise up to the fact that there is no point fighting with these instigators. That is unless you guys are also enjoying all this pointless arguing.

 

[decline]

Fallout 3, as much as I didn't care for it as a fallout game, or as an rpg but won't go into those reasons here, still has another 11 years left on it to survive as long as fallout 1 has to date.
So we can revisit it in 2021 and perhaps determine a bit better how "good" it was.

 

[kyle]

 

[Lexx]

Check out steakfish. But I don't like the direction of this...

 

[tekhedd]

I see. Well, maybe I was foolish to get involved. I'll keep my thoughts on the subject to myself in the future.

No, continue to share ideas here please. You seem like a clever person, and although I disagree with almost everything that you wrote, I had a good time reading

Agree--your opinion is important too! I mean, just keep in mind that no matter what you say (pro or con), someone here probably violently disagrees with you.

I pretty much lost a friend over F3, when we had an argument over whether F3 was a 'true fallout game'. Sacred ground, and all that. Actually, it probably wouldn't have been a problem if he hadn't started spouting spoilers at me. But anyway. (Yes, I still think it is, but that's a different discussion.)

 

[SharkClub]

Check out steakfish.

Would this one be New Vegas then?

 

[Tagaziel]

That's my opinion of New Vegas. It might not be steak, but damn, will it be close to one.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Bethesda had a lot of money so they bought Fallout, raped it, and turned it into a completely different kind of game. Whether it's good or bad matters very little to me, since I'll never get another real Fallout now. You remember Fallout? Generally accepted as one of the greatest games of all time? Until Bethesda made it "better."

I hope they buy Civilization because they can undoubtedly make that game "better" and more "immersive" too.

Whoops! Beating a dead fish - again.

 

[SharkClub]

X-Com fans are already getting the FPS treatment with the new XCOM game being developed by 2k. I've noticed on other forums that they generally just put themselves in the same bucket with old-time Fallout fans.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I cant hold it against them.

Thing is. What ever a "ture" sequel might be now. But changing all those old names in to new immersive first person combat sure is a bad evolution in my eyes.

Kills diversity. Maybe I am to cynical. No clue. But thats always what I loved about gaming in general. Regardless which platform and such. But you know you had a wide range for different games to play and love. And that helped very much to overcome those times when you got nothing in one part. Like no good shooter around ? Check what the recent real time strategy was doing, wow a new Sim City ! Awesome. Or if there was a down time you could always try some RPG. And so on. The diversity was always great.

Now it feels all quite bland to me as RPGs feel more like fast pased action shooters and without most RTS games going the way of C&C ~ See Supreme Commander 2. Of course there are often enough exceptions but mainly from some smaller teams. But in general less and less games catch my interest as they do not only look very similar but they also feel very similar. Anyway. Good for my health at least as I have no more time to do sport.

 

[OakTable]

Tim sounds like a cool guy. I hope he likes his new job.

By the way, there's an interview with Todd Howard, Ken Levine, and some other guy up on the Vault. Could you guys post that up on the News?

 

[DarkCorp]

Aren't there enough FPS shooters out there already??

I believe a lot of resentment comes from the fact that the games folks here love will never be made. Meanwhile there are assloads of FPS shooters out there already that plan to do much better than what Bethesda did. You have Lost Planet, Rage, Just Cause, Uncharted, Crysis, Red Faction, COD, Kane And Lynch, GOW, Halo, Resistance, Battlefield, Stalker, Metro 2033, FEAR, Dead To Rights, Quake, Far Cry, Killzone, etc, etc.

As some others have said, if all Hollywood and videogame companies do is dish out shallow shit for a quick buck, thats all joe public expects to get.

A game like Van Buren could have revitalized the Fallout name just as well as bethesda could have as long as it had media attention and was given the chance. Instead of getting a proper sequel to F2 oh so long ago, we had FBOS to sully its name. Then we had Tactics which was good for a tactical squad game but again it didn't do much to encourage the development of a true sequel. Then we get F3. Again, the Fallout series gets shitted on, its core spirit of PNP gameplay, C&C dialogue, shelled out by a company that fails at large to do any of the above things when compared to the likes of Troika or Obsidian.

Honestly, how can people expect to see in-depth PNP RPG design succeed if its never given the chance, or the IP gets whored into something completely different than what it was originally.

 

[SharkClub]

So instead of allowing a company like Troika try to revive a franchise like Fallout and show how these games can be profitable, their chances get quashed simply because game companies cannot wait to just shit out another FPS just to earn a quick buck.

We all wish we could change it, but we can't.

That's just how the gaming industry of today is - FPS and TPS. And Action/Adventure games with an RPG sticker stuck on them.

 

[rcorporon]

I just have this to add. Words of wisdom from an expert.

When asked why Diablo 3 was keeping the isometric viewpoint, and not following the trend of making it a first person perspective, Leonard Boyarsky, the lead world designer for Diablo 3, had this to say:

Leonard: There was never any question that we'd be using the isometric view. The advantages for this camera angle are many: It is the established camera angle for the series; we want our game to expand and improve on the classic Diablo feel, which is irrevocably tied to isometric gameplay;

But what does he know? He only designed a huge chunk of the original Fallout.

Oddly enough, didn't a developer at Beth say that Blizzard was making a poor decision in this regard? Diablo III would be much better in FPS mode... moar immershun.

X-Com fans are already getting the FPS treatment with the new XCOM game being developed by 2k. I've noticed on other forums that they generally just put themselves in the same bucket with old-time Fallout fans.

I can't wait to see another of my all time favourite games end up in FPS mode... Hell, I remember, back in the 90s playing Xcom with my friends thinking to myself: Self, wouldn't this game be a lot better if it played like DOOM?

Ugh... I really hate the gaming industry right now.

 

[SharkClub]

Oddly enough, didn't a developer at Beth say that Blizzard was making a poor decision in this regard?

Oh god what.

 

[Lexx]

This was Todd Howard and it was towards StarCraft 2, if I remember correct. He said something like "I wish they would tried something else" or something like this. Must be somewhere between the Fallout 3 news threads, when SC2 was announced.

 

[Ausir]

Actually, it was Ashley Cheng, not Todd.

 

[Lexx]

Actually, now I remember. He wrote it in a blog post, then everyone was jumping up on him.

Close enough tho'. :>

 

[Per]

Ashley Cheng[/url]]I must say I am disappointed that Blizzard has stayed on the conservative side in terms of design with their updates to Diablo and Starcraft.

It received a fairly disproportionate backlash.

 

[mor]

I just have this to add. Words of wisdom from an expert.

When asked why Diablo 3 was keeping the isometric viewpoint, and not following the trend of making it a first person perspective, Leonard Boyarsky, the lead world designer for Diablo 3, had this to say:

Leonard: There was never any question that we'd be using the isometric view. The advantages for this camera angle are many: It is the established camera angle for the series; we want our game to expand and improve on the classic Diablo feel, which is irrevocably tied to isometric gameplay;

But what does he know? He only designed a huge chunk of the original Fallout.

Oddly enough, didn't a developer at Beth say that Blizzard was making a poor decision in this regard? Diablo III would be much better in FPS mode... moar immershun.

not FPS but FP as in FirstPerson and diablo 3 in FP will be god of wars clone with inventory.

btw why some many {It's "p-p-l". and i'll write whatever the fuck i like.} regard diablo as an RPG?! its a god damn hack&slash!