Todd is on a rampage

DarkUnderlord said:
... Actually, that doesn't make any sense, seeing as I like both the original Fallout's (No# 1 better than No# 2) AND still have both of them installed on my PC, versus Morrowind, which was removed about a week ago.
Click to expand...

Me too, except I removed Morrowind after about one week of playing it.. boooring..
 
*sigh*

Nowhere in that excerp does Todd state that FoT failed because of the engine. It failed despite the same isometric engine and turn based combat. That there's more to Fallout than just those elements. MORE. How can this be percieved as the end of times for Fallout3 ?

Okay, so he changed the emphasis of Fallout being Fallout away from the engine and more towards the atmosphere and player choices.

Sure, be all down about that if you care - Say that all the elements need equal emphasis for the series to remain true.

Fine, that's an opinion (and one I'm inclined to agree with) - but don't start accusing Bethesda for being complete idiots who never even played the game.

-Gerko, believing himself to be in hostile territory.
 
Gerko said:
Nowhere in that excerp does Todd state that FoT failed because of the engine. It failed despite the same isometric engine and turn based combat.
Click to expand...

Still why say it ? What's the point of saying something like that if you're not looking at the option to change the viewpoint/combat.. There isn't any ?!

Gerko said:
Fine, that's an opinion (and one I'm inclined to agree with) - but don't start accusing Bethesda for being complete idiots who never even played the game.
Click to expand...

He's clueless as to why FOT failed, that's for sure. Otherwise he wouldn't have said what he said, unless............ they want to change it.......
 
Gerko said:
Nowhere in that excerp does Todd state that FoT failed because of the engine. It failed despite the same isometric engine and turn based combat. That there's more to Fallout than just those elements. MORE. How can this be percieved as the end of times for Fallout3 ?
Click to expand...

Because why else say it, as Odin as pointed out. There is really only one point for what Todd said.

"but he did point out that the strategy spin-off Fallout Tactics retained those elements and still didn’t resonate with series fans"

What for? Why this distinction and point? It only serves to use as some possible "answer" as to the view and combat system. It is also a very spineless bit of "reasoning", as the flaws in FOT should be quite obvious to anyone who has played the games and has a mental capacity above that of a flatworm. It is quantifying the flawed IMPLEMENTATION into a generalization of the mechanic's CONCEPT that I find most dishonest about this. It is about the same juvenile illogic that breeds a mentality akin to "the RT combat in Arcanum sucked, so all RT combat sucks", used as a "sacrificial lamb" to possibly excuse the lack of such elements in future games. I really don't know how to better explain this.

The marketing sleaze of "what Fallout did for RPGs" and "next generation" in the game line raises further suspicions. I'd hate to break it to them, it wasn't because the universe was different from everything else out there (which it was not wholly). It was because it WAS an RPG in the terms of how the genre was coined and not by the inane blatherings of some Nintendo or Sega-preened shitwad in the "gaming press" who can't hold any other jobs except for "game reviewer" and "fast food".

I think Todd has his titles mixed up. The trendy clickfest action that came out the same year was Diablo, not Fallout. I'm sorry Bethesda mixed up the two. It's great that he knows there's hookers and drugs in the setting, but I'm suspect he learned that from the F:POS press video, if anything.

So, by their own words given the the core vision behind Fallout (including design principles), they intend to bring back what made Fallout distinctive from the real-time, multiplayer and online games at that time (Diablo and clones). A return to P&P roots, with gameplay style much like that which inspired the genre. Yes, that is exactly what Fallout did, it's great to hear that Bethesda is interested in doing so.

They might want to say that, or actually say what they mean. The dancing around is pure bullshit. If they think Fallout's design is "old", they need to also look around the gaming industry. Yes, everybody is copying everyone else and has been ever since the First Good Thing came about. But as any competent marketing monkey can tell you, it only works if you're the Leader, not the little trend-chasing me-too whore who is trying to cash in on a buck. Imagine the want of Something Different when the rest of the market is too bent on being alike, which is prevalently a modern problem.

We aren't interested in what Fallout would have to be converted into in order to appease the stupidity of the French Invasion. We aren't interested in games that deviate from Fallout's formula.

F:POS proved that NOBODY ELSE IS, EITHER. FOT proved that, as well, and it had nothing to do with the presence of said mechanics, either. I will have to point out again the actual state of said mechanics and how they were implemented had more to do with the fact that the game did poorly. An aspect's presence alone is not indicative of the quality of said aspect. Todd's on very loose ground at this point.

If you're not going to make your fans happy, just quit now and save yourselves the effort of coming up with excuses later like Chuck.

Fine, that's an opinion (and one I'm inclined to agree with) - but don't start accusing Bethesda for being complete idiots who never even played the game.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many missions it would take of playing through FOT until you, too, understand how Todd is a little out of touch with reality....well, at least the topic.

And the first game did a brilliant job of putting you in a harsh, unknown wasteland that was full of people who [hoped] humanity would survive.
Click to expand...

Bloody clueless. I'm seriously getting a chuckle at how "full" and "hope" have any relation, mainly because life was cheap and people didn't care much for each other - unless they still had a strong upbringing of pre-War or Vault-taught morals. The wasteland bred a more harsh people over generations, and the general consensus was that humanity was fucked without much hope.

Of course, I could be watching the wrong intro and was playing a completely different game. Oh, wait...that's right. I HAVE played the games.
 
Odin said:
Still why say it ? What's the point of saying something like that if you're not looking at the option to change the viewpoint/combat.. There isn't any ?!
Click to expand...

Of course they're looking at the option of changing the viewpoint/combat. It's a newly acquired license, with elements they themselves have little to no experience in. Of course they will be looking at different possibilities - they have to, being the devellopers. Whether they'll decide to stick to Isometric, TB combat in the end or not does not change the current situation - that no decisions have been made. Todd likely was asked about these things, and he had to answer, right ?

And just imagine the outcry if he were to 'promise' (or just hint at) Iso/TB and later come back on that decision ?

Odin said:
He's clueless as to why FOT failed, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm clueless as well - I never really kept up to date with Tactics' developments. To me, FoT failed because it wasn't a proper RPG, that it lacked the open-endedness and player choice of the originals. Some too liberal art changes, and that sucktastic semi-turnbased/realtime-AP combat. (I only played the demo, to be honest)

Now, Todd mentions at least the first two. Is that clueless ?

-Gerko, can't believe himself defending Bethesda's right to screw up the Fallout license.
 
Gerko said:
Perhaps I'm clueless as well - I never really kept up to date with Tactics' developments. To me, FoT failed because it wasn't a proper RPG, that it lacked the open-endedness and player choice of the originals. Some too liberal art changes, and that sucktastic semi-turnbased/realtime-AP combat. (I only played the demo, to be honest)

Now, Todd mentions at least the first two. Is that clueless ?
Click to expand...

Yes, since the first one is a fallacy and the second one is quite easy to see. After that, Todd departed from reality and/or apropos context.

Of course, I could bring up the point of "Why bother saying it unless it has some importance?" but then I think that's too obvious to remark upon, it'd be insulting.
 
Tactics didn't fail because it wasnt' an RPG. We already knew as much during development that it was meant to be a tactical combat game. It failed because it was basically lacking in many areas.
 
Role-Player said:
Tactics didn't fail because it wasnt' an RPG. We already knew as much during development that it was meant to be a tactical combat game. It failed because it was basically lacking in many areas.
Click to expand...

Yep, true that.
 
PsychoSniper said:
All Fallout Craptics had going for it was the iso viewpoint and the FOish interface.

Essently everythiing else sucked, from it's not being a RPG to the 90's retro feel of it.

EDIT

Pukk, you were a tester for Craptics ?

Let me ask, did any of the testers happen to point out how it didnt even look like FO ? Not blaming you, just wanting to see what the dev reaction to the game was.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't remember. Imentioned quitea few inconsistencies (like the Humvee, for example) with the Fallout universe, but actual details are a blur. That happens in QA - you end up going through so many games, they almost all seem alike after a while.
 
Yeah, though I doubt that the Iply upper managemt would have listen much even if you had cited a shitload of stuff, afterall they had spend $$$ having it devolped, so not like those cheap bastards woulda stoped to fix it (afterall, it couldnt have been fixed.)
 
It would have been a realively simple task to change the humvee into a different vehicle and any related text that refers to it. I sure it would be an easy enough mod to do, if we had the tools to make the SPR files....

Too bad that Interplay wont release them.

This is probably one of the exciting things about FO3, Bethsadia tends to release good modding tools! This way at least it should be possioble to mod the game :)

I dont understand why some game dev's dont want to release the tools, I mean its easy enought to put a clause int that says you cant sell any mods you make.

Heck ID software released the source code for Quake 1 & 2! Whats the problem with reasing the code to the fallout 2 engine after this ammount of time? Its not like they can make any money off of it by now :?

Maybe we shoudl ask Bethsaida if they plan on releasing the code after a given time span (say a couple of years after FO3 is relased)
 
yes I think we all carry that secret hope....

note to any ex Interplay employees: *hint* *hint* *knudge* *knudge* *Wink* *Wink*
 
Wild_qwerty said:
This is probably one of the exciting things about FO3, Bethsadia tends to release good modding tools! This way at least it should be possioble to mod the game :)
Click to expand...
And you'll finally be able to give up working with sprites ! :wink:


You know, he raised the point of "why fallout made such an impact", and a great part of that was because it was a proper rpg, if you people remember well, rpgs were deader than point and click adventures back then, but Fallout, Diablo on the action/ "rpg elements" aspect and FF7 on the consoles sparked public interest on the term rpg again (even tough those other two weren't rpg (wich doesn't mean i didn't like them)) . The sad thing is, Final fantasy sells like hotcakes, Diablo II had record sales, and we only get jail-raped, again, and again, and again....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top