Why do so many people here think First Person excludes RPG?

Re: Why do so many people here think First Person excludes R

Shattering Fast said:
Ouch, ya got me, hoss! My evil plot to undermine the debate...foiled again!
Click to expand...
I just wanted to make sure everyone saw what you were trying to do. Think of it as a public service to the good people of NMA.

Oh, and do you have those numbers Per asked for yet?

In all seriousness, though: in the debate over whether Fallout 3 is a true "Fallout" title - taking into question it's FP perspective, it's lack of "dark humor", and it's real-time combat - there really aren't any points to be made besides opinions. The fact of the matter is that I think a Fallout game is made of different things than you do. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I think you're on to something here. Maybe it really is just my opinion that the original developers deliberately created a trimetric, turn-based roleplaying game with the intention of emulating the pen-and-paper roleplaying experience.

It's not a "fact" that Fallout 3 is a lesser game because it diverges so much from its predessecors...it's an opinion. This debate has always been about opinions.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should differentiate between opinions of Fallout 3 as just a game and Fallout 3 as a Fallout RPG? Unlike you, I'm not going to claim to have some sort of statistical evidence, but my general impression of Fallout 3 here at NMA is that it is a good game (at least better than Oblivion) but not a good Fallout RPG.

My own opinion is that Fallout 3 is a great shooter/RPG hybrid with a slick bombed-to-hell retro-futuristic setting. But it's not Fallout.
 
Public said:
So it shouldn't be called Fallout 3 then.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Fallout: Tactics wasn't called Fallout 3 because it is primarily a tactical game. Fallout 3 shouldn't be called Fallout 3 because it is primarily an action-RPG with strong FPS elements.
 
Re: Why do so many people here think First Person excludes R

Shattering Fast said:
Ouch, ya got me, hoss! My evil plot to undermine the debate...foiled again!

In all seriousness, though: in the debate over whether Fallout 3 is a true "Fallout" title - taking into question it's FP perspective, it's lack of "dark humor", and it's real-time combat - there really aren't any points to be made besides opinions. The fact of the matter is that I think a Fallout game is made of different things than you do. It's as simple as that.

It's not a "fact" that Fallout 3 is a lesser game because it diverges so much from its predessecors...it's an opinion. This debate has always been about opinions.
Click to expand...
No.
We can objectively determine why the original games were designed the way they were, and what their core design features were.

We know for a fact why the original games were designed the way they were, we hence can also easily see that Fallout 3 does not adhere to almost all of those core design tenets. Hence, factually, Fallout 3 is no good as a faithful Fallout sequel.

Whether you find the game enjoyable is entirely opinion. Whether the game is a good Fallout game isn't.
 
Public said:
So it shouldn't be called Fallout 3 then.

You've got that one right!
Click to expand...

That is the number one problem of Fallout 3.

If Fallout 3 was called Fallout: East Coast, Fallout: Capital Wasteland or the like, Fallout 3 would be considerated a good spin-off that follows the canon mostly to the letter, with some deviations and a stupid ending. Its much better than being considerated a failed sequel.
 
Ad Astra said:
Public said:
So it shouldn't be called Fallout 3 then.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Fallout: Tactics wasn't called Fallout 3 because it is primarily a tactical game. Fallout 3 shouldn't be called Fallout 3 because it is primarily an action-RPG with strong FPS elements.
Click to expand...

Fallout:Tactics also lacks the 50's feeling and dialogue. That is why it was called a spin-off and a "post nuclear tactical game". And sill, tactics looks more like a sequal to Fallout 2 than Fallout 3 to Fallout 2. It had improved graphics and mechanics from the original games, and the game looked beautiful!

If Fallout 3 was called Fallout: East Coast, Fallout: Capital Wasteland or the like, Fallout 3 would be considerated a good spin-off that follows the canon mostly to the letter, with some deviations and a stupid ending. Its much better than being considerated a failed sequel.
Click to expand...

It should be called Fallout: The Parody :P
 
FPS with Strong RPG flavour

imo if FPS wanted to have strong RPG flavour.

Action sequences : They would need believable animations for hits, misses and critical hits/misses for the PC and the monsters. FPS shooters have 100 percent hits if cross hairs is over the mob. Tat is 100percent hit rate as far as rpg combat systems go.

If in a game...any game...FPS or ISO my guns almost always hits no matter wat my stats. Then im roleplaying a gunfighter. A very good gunfighter.

Some rpgs have main characters being very good @swords or guns because it fits the story. Not sure if it applies to FO3.

anyways RPG's have combat systems, social systems, etc....that they believe is good for the world that the rpg is based. IF having a default good hit rate on guns is good then that is the kind of world they want. This pro guns slant is not part of the FO1 and FO2 world. But its part of FO3. They have the creative license to create that world, i agree. But fans will debate that its not faithful to the FO1 and FO2 world created by interplay.
 
Public said:
Ad Astra said:
Public said:
So it shouldn't be called Fallout 3 then.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Fallout: Tactics wasn't called Fallout 3 because it is primarily a tactical game. Fallout 3 shouldn't be called Fallout 3 because it is primarily an action-RPG with strong FPS elements.
Click to expand...

Fallout:Tactics also lacks the 50's feeling and dialogue. That is why it was called a spin-off and a "post nuclear tactical game". And sill, tactics looks more like a sequal to Fallout 2 than Fallout 3 to Fallout 2. It had improved graphics and mechanics from the original games, and the game looked beautiful!

If Fallout 3 was called Fallout: East Coast, Fallout: Capital Wasteland or the like, Fallout 3 would be considerated a good spin-off that follows the canon mostly to the letter, with some deviations and a stupid ending. Its much better than being considerated a failed sequel.
Click to expand...

It should be called Fallout: The Parody :P
Click to expand...

There is nothing anybody can ever say to me to convince me that Fallout Tactics is nothing other than a fucking abomination on the level of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. I can't stand the stupid trend of taking a successful RPG series and making a "tactical" version of it, they did it with Final Fantasy (just as controversial to those fans) and imo it was utter shit.

Fallout games should be RPGs, even if they're not very good RPGs I will still play them, as long as they're not combat-only.. I mean you can't even really have proper conversations in tactics. Fuck that pathetic-ass spinoff.
 
I like tactics a lot more than 3.
There's at least some consequences to the few choices you get to make.
The plot is better, even though you can't roleplay it.
It actually introduced a new faction, if not two.
It didn't recycle the plot from previous games.
The combat isn't a walk in the park throughout the entire game.
The Browning M2.

Playing tactics is a bit like playing PnP with a bunch of people that are only interested in the combat part and make charachters with only combat skills and 2-handed swords. But I still enjoyed it more than 3.

I think it's great how you say what you just did and then still argue on about how great fallout 3 is. What makes you think there's something you can say that will convince others that it's not a fucking abomination, if they happen to think that?
 
I enjoyed tactics, as a spin-off. The game was nicely done, looks beautiful even when it's 2D graphics. Just like Dead Guy says, it's like a PnP game focused mainly on the combat part.

I'm not sure if you, Yazman, haven't noticed, but Fallout 3 is not even called "a post nuclear Role Playing game" under the title :P This is apparently how Beth treats this franchise.

Fallout 3 is not an RPG, not a proper FPS, and not even a proper Hybrid! It's just an unfinished product with lots of ideas thrown on it, and called "new-gen RPG". Probably guys at Beth made it up before even knowing what they were actually going to do with the franchise.
It was something like:

Todd: Gosh! We've got Fallout franchise, guyz!!

Pete: Lolz, that's awesome!

Emil: Yea!! We're going to do the best game eva!!

Todd: Nu-gen RPG!!

Pete: Yes, you're right darling!

Emil: I love you guyz!!

And then after that, they went having a hot night together filled with alcohol, drugs and unprotected sex with old ladies.
 
:lol:

You can't even complain about another game without complaining about Bethesda!

Anyway, I liked Tactics. It could have been a lot better, but as far as being a good game in the Fallout world it succeeded. It wasn't Jagged Alliance 2 but it was fun.

There weren't so many bad parts as there were useless parts, thinking back.

To say it's a better sequel than Fallout 3 is ridiculous, but arguing about it would be even more ridiculous.
 
Herr Mike said:
To say it's a better sequel than Fallout 3 is ridiculous, but arguing about it would be even more ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Only that people are classifying it as a spin off, not a sequel :wink:
 
If Bethesda had the imagination and talent to create their own post-apocalyptic world, and Fallout 3 was the game they made minus the Fallout props, I would be completely accepting of it.

It's when you name it "Fallout 3" and rip the artistic style of the first two games, that my expectations become quite high.

It's not that the game is totally terrible, it's just that it's a terrible Fallout game.
 
TheRatKing said:
Another disadvantage of FFP is that it is *much* harder to create a believable game world.

When you are actually looking at a raider through the barrel of a gun and seeing bullet by bullet by bullet hit him in the eye dead on, the immersion is gone. The original fallouts solve this problem by having a system based on imagination. If you shot a guy in the head for 0 damage, it probably hit his helmet and ricocheted off. If you shot a guy in the head for 5 damage it probably simply nicked hit jaw or something. When I emptied barrel after barred on some of the harder enemies, it felt very strange, when it wouldn't have playing the originals.
Click to expand...
That's why any co trying to fuse the 2 needs to think long and hard about how to do it right. F3 is just a mess IMO. RPG doesn't have to die with a FPP game BUT certain abilities/skills will have to be scrapped in order to not make the game idiotic. Other skills/abilities will need to be re thought and modified as needed to make some sense in a FPS world especially one in which bullets & explosives are involved since bullets & explosives don't care if leet gun skill McCoy fired the shot or cretinous idiot pulled the trigger. All the bullet/explosive cares about is did my user point me in the right direction before he pulled the trigger.

"Skills" in F3 such as heavy guns, small guns, energy weapons, explosives are all fine BUT they need proper implementation. Meaning DAMAGE should be taken OUT of the equation for my reason just mentioned. Those skills should ONLY affect your accuracy, fumbled reloads and possibly also your ability to even USE certain weapons. Like say if you have poor big gun skill you don't even know how to reload the minigun. Or you have low energy weapon skill your PC looks at the gun in bewilderment when it comes time to reload for ex and can only manage to pull the trigger on one already loaded. So the way beth implemented those skills is just flat out stupid IMO. But that's what I expect from them so...no disappointments really.
 
I was hoping someone would bring that up.

I LOVED Wizardry 8. Still haven't played the first seven, but I've got them on disk... If I can get my hands on a PC that isn't infected with malware... er... doesn't have Vista on it... I'd probably be playing them right now.

They also forgot Realms of Arkania and Ultima Underworld.
 
Yes, but those games aren't as ancient and venerable as the early Wizardry's or Might and Magic's.
The point is that those games are older than most top down/isometric titles that people seem to identify the "golden age" of this genre with the most.

Even Akalabeth primarily used a first person perspective, its release date was 1979.

1979.

If you don't think a game is an RPG if it makes use of the first person perspective, then you are a complete neophyte when it comes to gaming history. Although I'm certain I haven't heard too many people make that assumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top