Sorry to derail a little, but this topic had a weird error..
Todd Howard Q&A on Gamespot
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Role-Player
A Smooth-Skin
Lopan said:
Nice attempt at several strawmen there, but it only falls on the "amusing" category; it miserably fails on the "relative" one.
The reason why you made yourself look like an ass is because like others before you, your 'good intentions' have been regurgitated on the forums several times already. People should learn how to do a minimum of forum searches before flooding with posts which bear no interest to the ongoing discussion. What you've said isn't news to anyone. The same kind of apologetic discourse would have likely been shrugged off if the entire irrelevance of branding 'elitist' to people and hoping that bullshit would fly wouldn't have appeared.
Like has been said before, if you want to do something constructive, then don't just parrot points which are being made several times a day by clueless forum newbies. And specially, don't try to pass off others' ill made perceptions of us in an attempt to catalogue us.
Role-Player
A Smooth-Skin
Odin said:
No kidding? I made a long post which i didn't save and it went KABOOM!
Saint_Proverbius said:
Just for amusement's sake and Bethesda's chagrin, I'll air out their dirty laundry that even some PA trolls would likely be naive of.
Battlespire.
That, I think, is all that needs to be said. I do recall that the speech trees weren't anything impressive, if they could be called that.
Or how about the other, Redguard?
Hmmm, I still recall some people wanting a patch for that one. Well, some fans apparently made a couple. That sounds rather familiar...
Magic & Mayhem: The Art of Magic? Was this the one that led to a developer leaving the "game world" because of the reception from this title? If it weren't for a couple of high scores, the averages would be competing in the Limbo of Crap Games with F
OS. How low can you blow?Then there's Pirate of the Caribbean. I'm not going to touch that one, I don't have to. Other than to say "Todd Howard". I jest a bit, since he was just in the Special Thanks, but a few of the people from PotS worked on Morrowind.
Uh...what other RPGs?
That just leaves TES and one other, and it's now painfully clear that while they do develop TES well in regards to the previous games in the series, they should just stick to TES as that's obviously where their strengths lie. I have played the TES series for some time, though I still haven't played Morrowind to the end. The monotony of the game is starting to feel more like a MMORPG than anything.
Other than that, to be honest, their "RPG titles", even those considered to be CRPGs by other sites, have SUCKED. Except for Sea Dogs, which is more of a sim than a CRPG. The patching support for it was also...ah...comical. Many have also noted the rather poor testing of the game as well.
Great contributions to the CRPG genre? All I've seen are some mediocre titles that are mostly dull in terms of anything regarding role-playing unless you mean increasing stats. TES is good in its own way, but after other recent matters, I have very little reason to trust Bethesda unless they otherwise prove they can be trusted. About the only game that they could be trusted to "patch" until the bugs were fixed was TES. Okay, I lie. It was just with Morrowind. Some of us HAVE been paying attention to their work.
Stay tuned, where Troika announces that they'll be developing Diablo 3.
Odin said:Heh..erm...ericjones said:
Bwahahaha!
Darque said:
Or he must die!
"Fallout... Fallout never changes."
Role-Player said:
Probably the post that screwed it up, can't seem to find it tho.. oh well..works now..
Per said:
Damnit, forgot there were so many Scandinavian people here
Saint_Proverbius said:
Honestly, you are the only one who is repsonsible for keeping your expectations from being inflated; BethSoft isn't. So my recommendation is to not get your hopes up and stop complaining.
I would rather someone try to make a sequel and fail then to have no one ever try again out of fear that some rabid fan will kill them in their sleep. If all of you really would rather the series die instead of be handled by someone else other than former Black Isle employee's then just stop covering Fallout 3 news on the site and go on and replay Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 till your heart is content.
If Fallout 3 is not a good game, it does not retroactively diminish the quality of the games you guys so love. Some people have expressed concerns of the dryness of Morrowind. You guys are correct, Morrowind is High Fantasy stuff thats fairly serious. There is not a lot of humor in the series, but it isn't non-existent. I found a couple humorous side-quests in Morrowind, and were darkly humorous at that, but that isn't the theme of the game. That doesn't mean they won't be able to inject humor into Fallout 3.
For an example of this look at Blizzard. Blizzard puts out Diablo, while its RPG Lite the setting doesn't lend itself to a lot of humor, but its still dabbled in there while being straight dark fantasy. Blizzard also puts out starcraft, Warcraft, Rock N Roll Racing, and the Lost Vikings, which have plenty of humor in them. Don't limit a studio just because of your own perceptions of them. Personally id rather see BethSoft do Fallout the Blizzard, even though Blizzard has a better record in regard to sales and reviews. That's because I know BethSoft likes to put out open-ended roleplaying games.
As for Roshambo, I don't know why it takes JE to call you on bein an asshole for you to start (key phrase is start) to calm down, but please take 10 deep breaths. It seems you may have worked in the videogame industry but that doesn't mean your experience automaticly puts the value of your opinion above everyone else's. It does mean that you have more experience to base your opinion on, but unless you provide evidence (ie from your experience) to explain your reasoning it just makes you come off as an asshole.
Also you should realize either have been or are in the industry that alot of studio's work very differently in the design phase. Some companies will extensivley test prototypes of games and then scratch the whole thing together and start over if it is not working (Nintendo and Blizzard), while others have less leeway and must stick to specifications and are unable to make drastic changes. BethSoft may have ideas of where they want to go, but may want to prototype some of them before even talking about how they are going to handle it.
A good thing to realize is the BethSoft tends to work slow, I wouldn't even expect to see this game till 2007 at least, barring any contractual obligations to get it out earlier. BethSoft also has alot of autonomy along the lines of Blizzard, which means they can work on it as long as they want till they are satisfied with it. There are things BethSoft needs to do to stay true to the series that they have not done alot of in the past. Pretty much it comes down to dialog trees, and theirs suck.
Conversation in their games is less about roleplaying then is it about getting information about the story-line and moving on to the next quest. That does need to change, but that is a design choice that is easily remedied, and since this isn't a TES game and the developers know that, I wouldn't worry about it.
As for previous attempts at expanding the Fallout franchise, no one here was under the impression that FO
OS, as it is so lovingly called here, was a sequel to Fallout. No one was forced to buy it, or play it, and I never saw FOOS advertised as anything other than an action spin-off of the Fallout universe. I think BethSoft got the rights of the series on more than just money, though I'm sure they did probably out bid other people. BethSoft bridged the console/PC gap with Morrowind in a way few other developers have. Pretty much only Bioware has had the same success with Knights of the Old Republic. It should also be noted that BethSoft didn't choose to port Morrowind to the xbox till far into the developement of the game and only after it was apparent they would not have to compromise their design goals to make it fit the xbox. Read it again, they did not develop Morrowind to fit the xbox.
I think BethSofts statements that platform is irrelevant is because that by the time the game comes out the next generation of consoles will be out and like JE said earlier is that TV resolution will be the only real limitation on the game and then only in how the interface is designed. You will also notice that with Morrowind they came out with interegrated expansion package for the Xbox, even though Morrowind was in bargain bins for a $11-15 dollars at the time. I call that dedication to a fanbase, even one that may be relatively small (those who would go and buy the integrated expansion aftered already purchasing the original game for 50 bucks).
Also, BethSoft is a developer that listens to their fans, that does not mean they always agree. When the beast races were not going to be included in Morrowind, Bethsoft put them back in after hearing from the fans. When fans were bummed about not to being able to be werewolves, they included it in an expansion. Would I rather see this in the hands of Trokia or Obsidian than BethSoft, sure I would. I'm just glad it went to a company like BethSoft instead of EA.
My suggestion is to go over to their forums and let them know your concerns in a respectfull manner, and don't slober all over them while you rabidly maul them. At this early stage they will listen.
You know, if JE was given the rights to do Doom 4, I wouldn't expect Doom 4: Hell in the Antarctic The Roleplaying Game. Just because he worked on two D&D games set in an icy place. I would expect him to do his best to stay true to the series (ie it would be an FPS) while still trying new things.
I expect BethSoft to do the same, and if the game sucks, oh well we still have FO1/2.
Hawkmoon said:
why don't you try something other than repeating the same empty bullshit that was thrown around during FO:BoS? call me crazy, but less similairity to that situation could ease things. do you actually know who said exactly what you have, up there? Chuck Cuevas. Chuck Cuevas of fucking Interplay. that's a way to help things along, isn't, anonymous voice of reason? i feel like Bethesda and Interplay are a few more miles apart, now. thanks.
Hawkmoon said:
where'd get that epiphany? it couldn't have been from here, because the big trouble here isn't about Fallout 3 going to a developer without Black Isle employees. do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about, or are you leaving reality out because it interferes with what you're saying?
Hawkmoon said:
are you saying, and stop me if i'm wrong, that a bad Fallout 3 -won't- go back intime and alter history? well, goodbye worries. it's okay if it turns out shit, everyone. glad that's fixed.
Hawkmoon said:
why are you on about humour?
Hawkmoon said:As for previous attempts at expanding the Fallout franchise, no one here was under the impression that FO
the only thing i can think of to say about this right now, is fuck you and your PR-speak bullshit.
Hawkmoon said:
did you figure that out before or after you read that Bethesda won the liscense on a purely monetary basis?
Hawkmoon said:
by gamers, for gamers. can you hear me now? obey your thirst.
Hawkmoon said:
i hope you don't represent Bethesda in any way, here, because i really don't want their "we've insulted Fallout fans this many times" count raised to 2.
Hawkmoon said:
you clueless prat
jr. said:
Honestly I didn't follow anything that happened with FO:BoS because I wasn't interested in it. From what I gather its a shitty game, but how does that infringe upon me or you for that matter? It should only piss off the people that bought it. Why do you care so much about what happened with a game that wasn't even target toward hardcore PC gamers?
jr. said:
I brought that up because if Trokia or Obsidian had bought the rights to this franchise and were being just as non-descricpt about what they were doing with the franchise, ie viewpoints, realtime/turn-based, this extreme response would not have occord.
jr. said:
We'll some people seem to be acting like its the apocolypse.... just tryin to tell em its not.
jr. said:Hawkmoon said:As for previous attempts at expanding the Fallout franchise, no one here was under the impression that FO
the only thing i can think of to say about this right now, is fuck you and your PR-speak bullshit.
Nice retort good man.
jr. said:
I wasn't in the room when the decision was made, so I am speculating, but if you could link a reliable source with the specifics of the deal and why it was made I would appreciate it.
jr. said:
I tried to provide evidence for my claims instead of resorting to witticims as a defense, I'd suggest the same to you.
jr. said:
No, I do not work for or represent Bethesda in anyway, so I guess I just insulted you. I'm sorry you read an insult in my post. That was not intended.
jr. said:
And what about me expecting BethSoft to treat the series with respect makes me clueless?
I'd respond to most of that drivel, but I think I already have. In this very thread, in fact.
One strike for not bothering to lurk before posting any ol' bullshit you want.
See? How was I an asshole about that? It's my job to curtail the clueless, of which you really seemed to have skimmed over a few posts and decided to go straight into rebuke mode.
I know I'm harsh, I've said that before.
Maybe because what Obsidian and Troika do is FAR more in common with Fallout's design, and many have experience of years in that design, than ANYTHING Bethesda has done. If you hadn't noticed, the design of Fallout and TES are completely different.
We're not talking about superficial fanservice and matters that We're talking about points that NEED to be addressed NOW. They already obviously had some ideas for the license, given that they spent that much money on it. Now they aren't talking and their PR guy is causing more problems than anything every time he opens his mouth for an interview.
Maybe you need to unplug your head from your ass and see what the PR fellow, of all people, has been saying and the number of design points that really do need to be adhered to in order to keep the basic spirit and presentation of what people expect from the name of Fallout. Turning it into something else, we've seen where that has led to, and many of us with their experience in the game industry have seen where game series have failed because someone decided to cash in on trends, etc. etc. I'm tired of repeating myself.
The fans here have pretty much stated that they are waiting to see what Bethesda does, but their PR guy doesn't help at all. We want to know what they are doing with the direction of the series, and people are insanely moronic enough to believe we don't have any right to speak about the concerns of design and more. People say that we shouldn't be so pressuring towards them, yet they have the Fallout title for no less than three days (pay close attention to this part, Spanky) and then they announce that they are going to design differently from the formula of the game. There, I hope that at least gets through your amentia.
Post ignorant shit at your own risk.
Post pathetic spin-doctoring at your own risk.
That goes for anyone.
One strike for not bothering to lurk before posting any ol' bullshit you want.
See? How was I an asshole about that? It's my job to curtail the clueless, of which you really seemed to have skimmed over a few posts and decided to go straight into rebuke mode.
I know I'm harsh, I've said that before.
Maybe because what Obsidian and Troika do is FAR more in common with Fallout's design, and many have experience of years in that design, than ANYTHING Bethesda has done. If you hadn't noticed, the design of Fallout and TES are completely different.
We're not talking about superficial fanservice and matters that We're talking about points that NEED to be addressed NOW. They already obviously had some ideas for the license, given that they spent that much money on it. Now they aren't talking and their PR guy is causing more problems than anything every time he opens his mouth for an interview.
Maybe you need to unplug your head from your ass and see what the PR fellow, of all people, has been saying and the number of design points that really do need to be adhered to in order to keep the basic spirit and presentation of what people expect from the name of Fallout. Turning it into something else, we've seen where that has led to, and many of us with their experience in the game industry have seen where game series have failed because someone decided to cash in on trends, etc. etc. I'm tired of repeating myself.
The fans here have pretty much stated that they are waiting to see what Bethesda does, but their PR guy doesn't help at all. We want to know what they are doing with the direction of the series, and people are insanely moronic enough to believe we don't have any right to speak about the concerns of design and more. People say that we shouldn't be so pressuring towards them, yet they have the Fallout title for no less than three days (pay close attention to this part, Spanky) and then they announce that they are going to design differently from the formula of the game. There, I hope that at least gets through your amentia.
Post ignorant shit at your own risk.
Post pathetic spin-doctoring at your own risk.
That goes for anyone.
Hawkmoon said:
so you came into this totally stupid to a major bit of Fallout history, and offered a helping hand without considering that big haps may have gone down when you weren't looking. i'll help you around.
when the first press release for FO:BoS came out, people saw that the game would to a flop. from then until the game's release, where it flopped, there were Interplay apologists laying out bullshit. that -exact- same bullshit, word for word, is now being repeated about Bethesda. pretty worrysome, huh?
you could have clued yourself in, so don't play stupid about being out of the loop. you -decided- that you were right, and came in to offer your glorious input without taking one second to bone up on reality first.
Hawkmoon said:
i'm sorry, i thought you didn't follow the FO:BoS situation. now you know where the game was targetted. are you lying about not following it, then, or talking about something you've got no knowledge of?
Hawkmoon said:
i asked where the hell you could have gotten that from, pal, not why you brought it up. thanks for evading it, but my question still stands. as for volunteering why you asked, pay attention to the reasons people are growing increasingly upset and worried. if you just decide that you know, you're going to wind up saying baseless shit like the above.
Hawkmoon said:
great. why're you hanging around here instead of going off to help those poor people, though?
Hawkmoon said:
if you throw around the official Interplay apologist ruitine about FO:BoS, and you did, then yes, fuck you.
Hawkmoon said:
are you also illiterate? are you uninterested in making a factual argument? what's your excuse for jumping in without an effort to know what you're talking about?
Hawkmoon said:
you haven't provided evidence for jack shit, except for the possibility that you stepped in without caring whether or not you were right.
Hawkmoon said:
should have quoted that better. that's my fault.
i ment that you're a clueless prat about saying "oh, well we'll still have Fallout 1/2". you know, that's -especially- news to Fallout fans.
Saint_Proverbius
Vault Senior Citizen
Hawkmoon said:
I hate to break this to you, but when you decide to buy a license, you're buying people's expectations in addition to the trademarks. That shouldn't come as a huge surprise.
Saint_Proverbius said:
To put it into marketing terms that have long died out, "responsibility towards customers". As I've said before, this was a long time in the deciding and nobody would blow that kind of money without having some idea of what they are going to do with it. Well, if they had any sense with their money. Then some people try to act as if this was just a sudden surprise? Please.
No communication would have been better than the fiasco the PR guy caused. Stating from just about day one that you're going to change parts of a game you're developing the sequel to because "that isn't what you do well", and then decide that you're not going to elucidate further the extent that you do or do not plan to adhere to the original design that has elements that are vital to the presentation, pretty much would mean suicide to anyone with reason.
I still think it's funny that people expect Fallout fans to rejoice, especially since they've seen the butchering of the franchise before. It's funny that people expect us to be happy that Bethesda is developing, which has never had a game published that was anywhere close to Fallout in terms of playing like a P&P RPG (the point of the game), whose PR guys says that they will do what they do best.
So...we're supposed to be happy that it has the name of Fallout but already looks like it will not resemble Fallout in many ways, unless we're also to expect BioWare to develop TES: IV, with pausable real-time "top-down isometric" combat that features a lot of fanservice and RTS play in the Forgotten Realms setting, since that is what they do best. Does that sound appealing to TES fans, and a sufficient metaphor for some?
Roshambo said:
Actually most peoples responses in here, yours included, tend to be of this nature, saying if its not my way then it will be shit or not Fallout enough for me. Well fine, it won't be the Fallout you want, big surprise. None of you have responded in a reasonable manner, with reasons why it *must* be turn-based other than to say you don't like it. Big deal, don't buy it... but your opinion nor anyone elses on this board will determine the succes of Fallout 3.
I know in previous posts you say word of mouth matters, etc. But I'd like to see you go on a crusade and crush its success, and if you can make any viable link between your opinion and the success of Fallout 3 I'd like to see it. As for my "rebuke", it was not intended as such and I try to act civily here, I just tried to offer my perspective.
Roshambo said:
I feel so much better now.
Roshambo said:
Yes, but again nothing they have said makes me believe they are going to make Morrowind with Guns, as it is so commonly put.
If Fallout 3 is a real-time game, first person or not, but is able to capture the same story and roleplaying depth (not nessisarily strategy and tactics based combat) then I think it will succeed as a Fallout game. That's a tall order, and I am skeptical the BethSoft will be able to pull that off given TES but guess what, it is a different series.
Roshambo said:
Yeah they have *some* ideas for the license but guess what, those are just ideas. Alot of successful companies and franchises don't give out their ideas this early in production because of how much changes and then when companies do ask for input like BIS often did, they had concrete info for fans to digest and critique, not just ohhh we may include both real-time and turn-based, or some other generalizing. As for the NEED to address them now, they dont NEED to do anything, given how long BethSoft takes to release the TES games, I figure they have the means just to sit on it if they wish and do nothing. BethSoft probably doesn't NEED to do anything and lastly they don't NEED to appease you.
Roshambo said:
You're right about that, and they should have just issued the press-release and then held all comments from them for a year.
Roshambo said:
You mean what you and the people on this board expect?
Roshambo said:
You are right, and you should let BethSoft know you want a turn-based game and at this point I think they are aware that allot of folks on if not all NMA wants a turn-based and iso-view game. That does not mean you need to continue to be beligerent, nor should you be in the first place. Guess what, if Troika or Obsidian got this franchise I bet you they would change the formula of the game (ie the mechanics). This would have happened had any developer or publisher got ahold of the franchise.
Roshambo said:
Actually nothing you posted is new to me, I am aware they may do something *different* with Fallout than what you or I may want, but again I don't think that I'm going to change the minds of Bethsoft just because I can be profane and insult people. Don't get me wrong, the game could suck for a number of reasons, but roleplaying games are not wholly defined by how combat is defined, unlike pure action games.
Hawkmoon
Hawkmoon said:
Wrong, McFlamebait. Including myself, people have pointed out why certain aspects are key to Fallout's design and what constitutes the claim of being a P&P RPG on computers. It isn't "Fallout: A Post-Apocalyptic Action Game".
Now that's mouth-stuffing. Would you like to join the rest of the trolls who have attempted the same?
This has already been explained, at length, before you decided to grace us with your ignorant assumptions.
Funny, most people consider posting flamebait and using mouth-stuffing statements as rude.
Then you completely miss the ENTIRE point of Fallout's design. It was meant to be a CRPG, as it called itself in the title. Not an action hybrid. It was also developed with certain design aspects in mind. The loading screens were a good example of the style Fallout was designed in. With that missing, then there's a removal from what made the game Fallout. The interface and graphical design wasn't just a shallow field to point and click as it is with most games. It was designed in terms of the game's style, too.
That's something a LOT of the newbies have no clue about, because that was known from an IRC chat with the developers a long time ago.
But hey, if you like Superman buttfucking Aquaman on your Wheaties box because it's the "in" thing, more power to you.
This is quite true. However, Bethesda obviously knew what they were going to buy and do with the rights, as they've been drooling for the good part of five years about it.
Might I just simply answer this by pointing out the success rate of non-TES games, including those outside of the core series? As for the timing, yes it does need to be now, before they start working on it and suddenly come up with the realization of why Fallout had an isometric viewpoint and how that would in fact make the game even better with the Bloody Mess perk and many other aspects of the game.
You haven't seen when companies have tried that, have you? it's not too pretty. Usually it results in nearly everyon going "EWWW! WTF?!?!" when it is finally revealed and a lot more information is available. Ultima 8, for instance, although there was the optomistic people for that one, too. Whew, irony that the years don't change much...
No, I mean the design points that are intrinsic to Fallout's design and were meant to be that way. Some things, like the engine being 3D but retaining the same style or perhaps a better graphical style that still follows the same artistic design, wouldn't be detrimental to the series.
I have already pointed out why game series have flourished and failed. It still comes down to the fact that people bought Fallout 2 because it was what they wanted, not something changed into the Flavor of the Year, like the other spin-offs that set a sufficient example.
Funny, I am beligerent because I am stating that what Fallout is and what the PR guy says are two completely different things, and beligerent for having to deal with a number of ignorant trolls?
You know, I've heard the exact same argument before, almost to the word. Except for one problem. You, like they, were too ignorant to pay attention to Troika and Obsidian's preferred styles of development. There may have been some changes, especially to improve many aspects since those at Troika and Obsidian would know the system well. Actual improvement may vary.
Unlike you, I have some basis in what I do and I do it in a manner that presents the problem, tells of other happenings of the exact same thing(s), and is truthful without any asskissing or naive fluff in regards to game development. Your aptitude for game design is pitiful and yet you're trying to discredit the critiques and warnings from someone who has been around the design, knows why it was done the way it was and why it's integral to the setting, and has watched this series go through one mangling or another.
Seriously, if Bethesda wants to try and make Fallout 3 into something else, then I doubt that many of the people who played Fallout were looking for something else other than Fallout when they think of the term "Fallout 3". We're tring to steer Bethesda away from making the same mistake others have done. Yes, they are good at what they do. That has nothing to do with how well they can make Fallout 3 unless Fallout 3 is supposed to resemble what they do best instead. However, Fallout fans that liked Fallout want pretty much more of the same but with some improvements, but that's how sequels are done. If it isn't what they expect, why is it considered a sequel to Fallout? Why then should they buy it if it isn't what they wanted? They don't recommend it, and then that spreads around. Just like with Super Avatar Brothers, etc.
Do you follow this logic now?
jr. said:
I still don't see your point, FO:BoS flopped big deal, does that ruin all other attempts at the franchise? No. Yeah so the PR may sound similar, but alot of PR sounds similar.. its just that, PR. So far BethSoft has said the obvious, that they will change things, and that it will piss people off. You know what , it has. But at the same time I don't expect Fallout El Diablo or Morrowind with Guns. FO:BoS was never intended to be anything other than Fallout El Diablo and if your pissed off because they tried to sell it as something good, well thats their job, deal with it.
jr. said:
I never said that I was right, or that BethSoft will make the ultimate Fallout game, or that you guys shouldn't voice your opinion.... I'm just saying BethSoft doesn't want to make a craptastic game, that isn't their goal, which it seems that you guys are hellbent on convincing us they are. I just tried to offer a different perspective.
jr. said:
Why would they market a console game to PC gamers? It seems pretty obvious they wouldn't. Look at Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, I'm not holding that up as a pinacle of game design, or even saying that is was a decent game, but it was never marketed as Baldur's Gate 3 to the PC crowd and being a PC gamer myself, never felt it was. The same is true for FO:BoS.
jr. said:
That is the impression I got from this board.. It seems no other developers have under the defintions presented in this board to make fallout the way it should be made. Look at Roshambos comments if you need proof. Who are the developers that have had experience that would fit? Former BIS employees that worked on Fallout. Then ya just put two and two together....
[quote="jr.]
if you throw around the official Interplay apologist ruitine about FO:BoS, and you did, then yes, fuck you.
[/quote]
Why should Interplay apologize to you? Unless you actually bought FO:BoS, then you might deserve an apology and a refund, but then again maybe you should read reviews. Of course thats only in the unlikely scenario that you bought FO:BoS.
jr said:
Previously in the thread....
jr said:
You were saying....? I just want to know where this info comes from....
jr said:
Right about what? There's nothing to be right about yet, we all understand the implications of BethSofts statements... we are not arguing about that.
Also, I don't see how you can either see FO:Tatics or FO:BoS as important parts of Fallout History, other than they weren't Fallout 3 and the games you guys wanted. To call them important gives them more credit than they deserve, well at least FO:BoS. BoS from what I've heard is crappy and Tatics is just *ok*. Again I didn't play either title.
*shrugs*
Hawkmoon
Saint_Proverbius said:
That is true, that's why you buy a lisence in the first place, but it depends on which expectations they want. BethSoft gets all of em no matter what they want, but then it becomes what is most important to BethSoft from a licensing point of view, and that is a marketing standpoint.
I don't believe thats the *only* reason BethSoft bought it but it could be, and from a marketing stand-point they are only interested in the name recognition and association at the licensing phase.
For people who never played Fallout, but have heard the game was good, or casually played Fallout 1 or 2, and might pick up BethSoft's Fallout 3 just because of the name. That's why you license. Hardcore PC gamers keep up on new games and new franchises pretty well... In other words its easier to sell a new franchise to the hardcore than the casual gamer, hence no need for a license.
What I was trying to get at is if you extremely high expectations for anything, your bound to be let down... *shrugs*
Roshambo said:
You mean not cowering before the majority?
Roshambo said:
Did that stop this simpleton from enjoying the game? No. And since I missed the ENTIRE point of the design and still liked it, then for me it must not be integral to my Fallout experience. You know if the developers of Fallout think less of me because of it... well I don't know what to say to that. I enjoyed their games and hope that's good enough for them. I hope I will enjoy Bethsoft's Fallout 3.
Roshambo said:
I'd forgoten about Ultima 8... boy it's been awhile since I've even thought of the Ultima series. Though I can't remember if EA published Ultima 8 and if so, what impact that had on its developement.
Roshambo said:
No your beligerent because you constantly insult people.
Case in point...
Roshambo said:
I didn't ass kiss... I just used the info I had at hand to present an alternate perspective. I did not say, *OMFG* BethSoft is the best developer handed down from the heavens and they will do an awesome job and make us cum in our pants, etc... jeeze.
As for my aptitude for game design... dunno till I try, maybe they will let me work on Fallout 3?
Then all your fears will be realized, I'll try to get BethSoft to turn it into a DDR clone. Maybe they could make a cool USB mat for us to dance on.<insert sarcasm>
Roshambo said:
See my remarks about licensing I posted in response to Saint_Proverbius.
In a previous post...
Roshambo said:
Actually as long as BioWare didn't literally do a Forgotten Realms/TES crossover setting; I wouldn't mind playing a BioWare developed TES game that had psuedo realtime squad based combat mechanics from 3/4 view perspective, even if it was called TES 4; provided I enjoyed playing it.
Hawkmoon
Saint_Proverbius
Vault Senior Citizen
Hawkmoon said:
U8 was the one pumped out the door so they could get cracking on UO. U9 repeated this, but UO2 was cancelled.