Voodoo 3D looking ahead to Fallout 3

[Brother None]

I don't understand why so many people on these boards think Fallout 3 is going to be a first-person shooter.

I believe it is hyperbole, everyone here realises Fallout 3 will be as much an RPG as Oblivion was, at the least.

But combat-wise, it will play fairly similarly to an FPS. That doesn't make in an FPS, but it'll play like it.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I don't understand why so many people on these boards think Fallout 3 is going to be a first-person shooter. If Fallout 3's gameplay looks similar to any type of game on the market, I'd say it looks similar to Mass Effect.

I could say 'looks like, smells like...' except from the way combat has been described (in and out of VATS) it sounds more like a first person joke. But then I'm just sick to death of first person games. They say you can play it in the other views, but didn't they also say it'll zoom into first person when you activate VATS?

Honestly... step back and think about it for a second. Doesn't it seem possible that maybe the only reason you don't like the direction Bethesda is taking is because you're not allowing yourselves to open your minds to a new experience?

New experience? Really? What's new about it? I've already played Mass Effect (which was fun, I enjoyed it but as a third person shooter, it was a pitiful role playing experience). I've already played FOT a hybrid, got the details wrong and screwed up the setting, Fallout spin off. I've already played STALKER a post apocalyptic first person shooter, that was more than just a shooter. So really what new experience should I be opening my mind to?

In the meantime, I am really happy to soon be able to experience a fictional universe I love in a more immersive way than was possible a decade ago.

Immersion is relative, truncated blinkered views and massive bloom are far less immersive for me than games from a decade ago.

 

[Mord_Sith]

Am I a freak, I like to read my games more than play them, I loved the text based games because unfortunately the mind's eye is still a hell of a lot better than Bethsoft can ever create with their pseudo-rpgs.

I also like to have my mind challenged, the most challenging thing in Oblivious was how to get on a damn horse. For an evening with Paris Hilton, play Oblivious' new mod Fallout, to actually work that forgotten muscle up in your bloody skull, try playing something that has more text in it.

It's kinda sad (to me anyways) that the games that have little to no graphics in them, tend to interest me more than those that have the bloom 'n doom syndrome. You would think that the game would get better with the graphics but I'm finding it more and more to be a difference, pretty games have very little substance on average, and vice versa the workable graphics ones tend to be far more enjoyable from the gameplay angle.

Then there's just the bad ones in general... (Damn you Adventure company, you put out Sam & Max and I trusted you with Dead Reefs, how could you!)

 

[Moving Target]

I'm with you on that Mord. I can still have an amazingly fun time playing Planescape: Torment, even though I've memorized damn near every optional quest and how best to go through them, because of all that text. Hell, besides specifically text-based games, PS:T has pretty much been the most text-heavy RP experience I've ever had.

Pretty graphics are, at best, a secondary concern for me. Actually tertiary or lower: 1) Immersive storyline, 2) Non-irritating interface (Arcanum sometimes had problems with (2) but DAMN that was a great storyline) then a distant 3) Graphics.

It's related to why I can get lost in a book.... lose hours at a time just reading, sometimes forget to eat or realize "oh, it's dark now, I should probably turn on some lights," and even get my heartbeat raised by a good book.

 

[Sorrow]

I love text based RPGs too. If they have good mechanics. P:T had awful mechanics.
A lot of properly written text is good for my immersion. Also, I find isometric games very immersive. I played Entomorph: The Plague of Darkfall today and I got very immersed in it. I don't think I would get so immersed in it if it was FPP, because I don't find FPP RPGs immersive.

To me most important features are:
1. Works on my computer, 2. Good mechanics and interface, 3. Good setting and story, 4. Good writing, including good quests and dialogues, 5. Aesthetic graphics.
Personally, from some time I treat technological level of graphics as something that is completely unnecessary for my enjoyment of game, but makes game not work on my computer.

I loved the Arcanum setting, graphics, dialogues and mood, but I hated its mechanics, so I didn't even finish it because they made playing it a chore.

 

[Brother None]

Arcanum's mechanics are really weak and imbalanced, but it might be one of the strongest games available on your points 3-5.

Yes, I agree with you, gameplay comes first because these are games, not books, but in some cases, like Planescape: Torment and Arcanum, the rest is so strong that you should try and live with the shoddy gameplay to get to the juicy story & setting.

 

[Sorrow]

When I started playing Arcanum, I got put off by mechanics (especially by character creation and development) after a day of playing.
I started playing it again only after I got a character editor so that my character wouldn't be the only level-1 character in the whole world XD .
It was a lot better, but I still didn't like the combat system.

 

[Ravager69]

Well, I too like games with a lot of text (Black Isle's games for example, even ICWD II, which was more an action RPG than a true RPG had a decent amount of it), but I never liked reading books. I just don't and never will. Yes, there were a couple of them I read, some I liked, but I always prefered video games. Books are just too boring to read them often to me.

 

[Morbus]

even ICWD II, which was more an action RPG than a true RPG

I always thought of it as a strategy RPG... :\ But it did have some pretty cool dungeon crawling IMO.

 

[Ravager69]

even ICWD II, which was more an action RPG than a true RPG

I always thought of it as a strategy RPG... :\ But it did have some pretty cool dungeon crawling IMO.

True, but there is a lot more action than roleplaying in it, so I though word "action RPG" is more apt.

 

[Sorrow]

Heh . It had more Role-playing than both BGs .

 

[Morbus]

Heh . It had more Role-playing than both BGs .

I only played IWD2, though I have the first. Are you sure of this? I mean, more role-play that BG1, well, that's easy, but more than BG2? I never really noticed, although IWD2 has some very very neat situations.

 

[Sorrow]

BG series allow only to role-play an average person with average intelligence, mediocre wisdom and low charisma, which happens to be a son of a god.
IWD2 allows roleplaying people from different classes with different diplomacy skill and different intelligence.