Worst Possible things for FO3?

[Ashmo]

:: resists urge to make use of his cluebat ::

Roshambo: After reading all that, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. You dismiss entire communties - ones that will be judging Fallout 3, like it or not - and I just can't get behind that.

He dismisses communities that have never been interested in Fallout and aren't the target audience of any past or future Fallout title.

Fallout fans are one aspect of Fallout 3's market, but it would be foolhardy to assume that it is the only one. Gaming has changed considerably since Fallout 2's release; What was acceptable during that period of time may or may not be acceptable today. Some say thats a bad thing, some say thats a good thing. Me, I try not to judge like that - its far too messy.

Gaming HASN'T changed as much in the past eight years as you make it sound. Apart from the rise and fall of MMORPGs and the shift of FPS games towards online gaming there haven't been too many notable changes.
Of course there have been technological advances too: pixel shading and graphical effects have improved, so have the capabilities of 3D engines due to higher performance of graphics cards. But that's just prettier eye candy.

You're right that Bethesda cannot make a pan-genre game, but there's certain aspects of gaming that have been overwhelmingly accepted by gamers, regardless of genre. Sure, you'll have a few games here and there that defy them, but they are the exception: not the rule.

Fallout WAS the exception to the rule. It has always been. It was a niche game to begin with and Half-Life, Unreal, WarCraft 2 and Diablo were far more successful market-wise than Fallout was.

The 2D/3D stuff here is a prime example of that. How many people, nowadays, would tolerate a overwhelmingly {?completely} 2D game? The answer, I suspect, is comparatively small, counted against those who would perfer {?demand} 3D games.

You're still talking out of your ass rather than using the brain. The term "3D" appearing on the box has become so normal it's simply not recognised anymore. It's not a "requirement" or "expectation", it's what people have become used to.

It's not about tolerance. Apart from you only the marketing departments think 2D would not be "tolerated" by the target audience. As a matter of fact, the crowd of gamers doesn't know jack shit about the technology involved (other than the "pro" gamer buzzwords about polycount and all the nice buffering and anti-aliasing features of graphics cards and drivers) and apart from a few geeks they only care about what they see rather than what's used to produce that effect.
If Bethesda WOULD go 2D and do a good job while at it, it could still be visually appealing to its target audience.

If they can pull off the same quality (and by that I mean atmosphere -- the only atmosphere I've seen implemented decently in 3D engines so far was suspense and you only need a lack of lighting and hammering ambient music for that; which amazingly IS all most games seem to be using for that) with a 3D engine so be it, but the simple idea that 2D would be perceived like a black person at a Texan KKK meeting is simply not true.

2D just means you have less buzzwords to fuel the hype, but nothing good ever came from hyped games so far.

I'm sure you'd comment that numbers do not define something being good or bad. I'd agree with you. However, Fallout 3 is a commercial product, and Bethesda will have to yield to them. Since they will have to, I will as well.

Fallout 3 is a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2. It's not an easy title to sell. Two products have tried living just off the title alone and provide market compatible gameplay and both have been commercial nightmares.

If you wanted to make a commercially successful game you have to go for action based gameplay with low expectations. Serious Sam sold very well and it fully met all the expectations the customers had: instant action with lots of guns and lots of stuff to use them on.

A Fallout title cannot boost your bank account. However if you pull it off the right way you can increase your reputation with it. It's a tough title to work with and the expectations are high, much higher than they could be for any Diablo or Doom.

If you manage to meet these expectations you can however make a classic and by that I mean a real classic, not just a market-successful game a lot of people will have played, but a game some people might even consider a piece of art.

If Bethesda screws Fallout 3 up, they'll be remembered as the company that destroyed Fallout. If they succeed, they'll be remembered for making a great and fulfilling game.

It's more about what you want people to associate with your company name than about making a quick buck.
Fallout 1 and 2 didn't sell well, but they sold. And kept on selling. And people loved them and created communities that far outlived the company that caused all that to happen.

Bethesda also has genre players to consider. Even what a role playing game is right now is quite different than what one was when Fallout 2 was released. Again, some consider this bad, some good. Regardless of how you see RPGs being taken, however, its clear that Fallout 3 must also meet their requirements.

Fallout was quite different from what a role playing game was back then. You really don't understand what was so special about Fallout and why it was successful.

It sold BECAUSE it was different. Not despite of it.

And lord knows how many undefinable levels of "existing Fallout fan" there is. There's likely a lot of people who have never touched Fallout since Fallout 2. They remember it enough to be interested.

And they are just as likely to be turned off by a Fallout that is nothing like they remember it. Your point being?

So to make a long-as-hell answer shorter: Sure, Bethesda needs to look at the existing Fallout fanbase, but it is hardly the only one. Compromise will, most likely, be the order of the day for Fallout 3.

Fallout never was about compromise. If you want the compromise, play Restricted Area. From what I've heard it's not selling too well because it's pretty much a Diablo clone. Go figure.

 

[brother bozar]

I believe most people who have played and known of the fallout games for a few years perhaps will have had time to acknowledge the fame that fallout has. - In magazine articles over the last 3 years or so i've heard many developers talk of fallout as an inspiration and favorite game also i've met other gamers who have played fallout, and invariably, like myself rate it as their favourite game ever.
Fallout is simply a very well known and respected game and fallout 3 will go a long way towards selling itself. When it is released the gaming magazines are all going to be devoting quite a few pages i imagine to previews,reviews and features on fallout 3 and everyone is going to know about it.
Selling fallout 3 is not going to be a problem however they make it.
I'm confident it'll look good whatever and from reading the interviews with the team i imagine Bethesda would like to stay as true to fallout 1 and 2 as possible, as they've said they would, so i'm not 'too' worried about 3d polygons and spinny cameras.
Sure ,they can mix 3d and 2d. 'Sacred' had 3d characters against a 2d world and they packaged and marketed it well and sold shedloads of copies. 'Lionheart' had flattened 3d characters against a 2d world and looked great although i don't know how it sold.
Look at those van bueren screenshots to see how bland and empty a 3d vault would look like.

 

[Roshambo]

Roshambo: After reading all that, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. You dismiss entire communties - ones that will be judging Fallout 3, like it or not - and I just can't get behind that.

Again, which is the point you've been cluelessly waffling over, why should Fallout be made for people it has by design no appeal to? Right now, you're advocating the same stupid mentality that brought about FOT and FOS. Apparently you didn't pay attention to how those were received, nor do you apparently care. I have seen companies a lot larger and more productive than BethSoft fail because they dumped the design in favor of the Lowest Common Denominator.

The rest of the people who have been following Fallout's history and design have noticed those cheap cash-ins on the name, cash-ins that didn't follow with what the fans wanted and therefore they died. Delude yourself with whatever inbred marketing trash you want to believe, it doesn't remove the fact that unless the core fans like it, the game doesn't get community support. It might surprise you, but FOT had the highest number of pre-orders in the history of Interplay's online store. The following sales died off rather quickly when it was obvious that Interplay wasn't interested in releasing a quality title that fit into the Fallout universe.

Now take your uneducated trash back to wherever hole you crawled out of, because I tire of the poor me-too trolling attempt.

Fallout fans are one aspect of Fallout 3's market, but it would be foolhardy to assume that it is the only one.

Disenfranchise the core audience, then you are left with NOTHING. Interplay believed that with "consoles = $" and "Fallout's name is known", therefore "Fallout on console = $$". It didn't work out too well.

Gaming has changed considerably since Fallout 2's release; What was acceptable during that period of time may or may not be acceptable today. Some say thats a bad thing, some say thats a good thing. Me, I try not to judge like that - its far too messy.

Bullshit, you have already judged, and you still want to make Fallout into the same action-based garbage that is filling up the market with forgettable copycats.

You're right that Bethesda cannot make a pan-genre game, but there's certain aspects of gaming that have been overwhelmingly accepted by gamers, regardless of genre.

"OMFG! Real-time combat I don't have to think about!"

"Kewl particle effects, dude!"

Yeah, I notice the similarities between genres. Unfortunately, the design does NOT suit the Lowest Common Denominator. Nor should it ever. To insist otherwise...go back to playing Morrowind and enjoy one of the post-apocalyptic mods offered for it, and cease trying to convince fans of a game that it should be changed.

Your arguments are as asinine and flawed as suggesting that Oblivion should have turn-based combat.

TB combat does exist well in this day, as does properly used 2d graphics. The latter I have noticed, again, that you didn't address the actual points of that topic, but instead said it should be 3d because some people don't care to touch anything that isn't 3d.

Sorry, but trash like that probably wouldn't care to play a CRPG anyways, so why pander to them? Why are you using the same moronic train of thought that has been shot down repeatedly and proven to not work over decades of failures by series that were loved by millions more than Fallout.

If a game's inherent design will allow for it, that is one thing. Those series got a reputation and a large following because they held to a certain design, but made it better with each new incarnation. The bad part about Ultima VII? The stupid RT combat that had to be kludged into the game. Where the series started to die was with Ultima 8, and how it was turned into an action game in order to appeal to the Nintardo kiddies. Ultima IX was everything the "industry said it should be", but it failed in the fans' eyes because it WAS trash designed to appeal to the cattle. It sold a bit, mainly because it carried the title, but uh...where's Ultima X? Aside from the "ending" of UIX, the fans didn't care to see another mangling of their world, and therefore UXO was a colossal failure even before it hit gold.

But when you purposefully change the core of a game intended to be a real CRPG, then you're just being dense for the sake of being dense, and this trolling will soon be put to an end.

I and others have said it before - we would rather see Fallout die than become another crappy Fountain of Dreams, Might and Magic 9, Super Avatar Brothers/Virtue Raider, X-COM: Enfarcer, Heroes of Marketing Morons 4, etc, etc, etc.

So, too, would the industry, as repeated failures have been noted. In fact, there hasn't really been a game that has survived such a drastic change to peddle it to the masses of morons, so evidence is against you. All you are left with is mindless blathering about how you would make design decisions based on the rest of the market.

Hmmm, have you talked to Herve about a job? You sound just like someone he needs to work for him. Maybe you would even consider it an "honor" to work in the game industry and not be paid to act like a marketing drone's polyp.

Sure, you'll have a few games here and there that defy them, but they are the exception: not the rule.

How about this, kid? Fallout was a good CRPG when the market was drying up with real CRPGs. I am certain you are not too young to notice that Diablo was released the same year, yet Fallout has a certain character to it that set it apart from Diablo. Now, you're mimicking some marketing chimp by saying it should be like Diablo (or D&D Diablo, BioWare's fucked up set of rules), at least in terms of combat. It should be like Morrowind in terms of map design, just because, and you can't be bothered to think about what it really means for the game's style and presentation other than it must be done so it will appeal to the Lowest Common Denominator.

The 2D/3D stuff here is a prime example of that. How many people, nowadays, would tolerate a overwhelmingly {?completely} 2D game? The answer, I suspect, is comparatively small, counted against those who would perfer {?demand} 3D games.

Funny, the issue of graphics with CRPGs has only been whether it facilitates the gameplay, versus shiny effects. Shiny effects are for console trash, FPS games, and other games that do not require an extensive back-end to facilitate the RPG gameplay.

Another straw man argument, chopped and burnt.

I'm sure you'd comment that numbers do not define something being good or bad. I'd agree with you. However, Fallout 3 is a commercial product, and Bethesda will have to yield to them. Since they will have to, I will as well.

How about the sales figures for FOT and FOS, and how those were received? Really, until you get a clue and stop the clueless blathering and humping on Flashkiller's points like a lonely dog on a mailman, don't bother posting here again.

Bethesda also has genre players to consider. Even what a role playing game is right now is quite different than what one was when Fallout 2 was released. Again, some consider this bad, some good. Regardless of how you see RPGs being taken, however, its clear that Fallout 3 must also meet their requirements.

"P&P RPG" paints a very clear picture of style, kid. Forget Nintendo, look towards tabletop games, in particular the ones D&D and others took their roots from, tabletop strategy games.

To further cut down this bullshit straw man argument, Final Fantasy was thought to have been the new face of RPGs, but the design principles behind the series really haven't changed, except for the notable failure of FFVIII.

Oh, hey, guess what? It's combat is TURN-BASED.

And lord knows how many undefinable levels of "existing Fallout fan" there is. There's likely a lot of people who have never touched Fallout since Fallout 2. They remember it enough to be interested.

So, of course, we should make it like GTA so those fans would enjoy it, too. While we're at it, why not dumb down the game and get rid of all that useless text, since I am sure those fond of FPS games don't care to read. While we're at it, why doesn't everything get pandered down into a shallow amalgam of itself so it can be easily marketed as "kewl" to the console crowd.

Oh, wait. It was already tried and outside of console trash, FOS is loathed.

So to make a long-as-hell answer shorter: Sure, Bethesda needs to look at the existing Fallout fanbase, but it is hardly the only one. Compromise will, most likely, be the order of the day for Fallout 3.

I am sure they can get a few sales from making it TES: Fallout, yet I doubt it would get much recognition outside of the media whores glossing over it.

Just like how FOS was supposed to be so good and appealing towards BGA players, yet we have seen the reception of it. Really, your arguments for making this game haven't been any more brilliant or logical than the last troll we've had pop around (before Flashkiller, and I linked to said troll's futile garbage), and they could do better than argue weakly for the Lowest Common Denominator.

A game isn't defined by turning into everything else out there, it is defined by being distinct. Lose that, and you end up with Super Avatar Brothers and other spectacular failures of titles that marketing departments of your mentality thought it would be "kewl" to attempt to "amalgam it" into as many genre models as possible.

 

[Rampancy]

It was a niche game to begin with and Half-Life, Unreal, WarCraft 2 and Diablo were far more successful market-wise than Fallout was.

And with the aid of Bethesda - with Morrowind, arguably a more mainstream developer - Fallout 3 can be more than a niche game. It could be the next Half-Life, Unreal, Warcraft, or Diablo. Ain't that a good thing, to have new blood enjoying a game? Do you want Fallout to remain in that "Games that critics and serious fans think are awesome, but your average gamer doesn't know a thing about it"?

I'm sure Bethesda doesn't want that.

The term "3D" appearing on the box has become so normal it's simply not recognised anymore. It's not a "requirement" or "expectation", it's what people have become used to.

Exactly.

nothing good ever came from hyped games so far.

Most of the "hyped games" for the past few years that, even if they've failed to meet up with the hype, have been very solid commercial products. Obviously something is being done right.

Fallout 3 is a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2. It's not an easy title to sell. Two products have tried living just off the title alone and provide market compatible gameplay and both have been commercial nightmares.

Glad we agree. Then why are you complaining that it may just be in Bethesda's - and Fallout's - best interests that this fate be avoided.

If Bethesda screws Fallout 3 up, they'll be remembered as the company that destroyed Fallout. If they succeed, they'll be remembered for making a great and fulfilling game.

But what if, after F3 was released, there's 1000 people who think they made a great and fufilling game, for every one person that thinks they destroyed it?

It sold BECAUSE it was different

Just like Looking Glass games. Oh, and Elixir's. Oh, and that Troika company. They were different.

If you want the compromise, play Restricted Area.

Or Bethesda's Fallout 3.

Selling fallout 3 is not going to be a problem however they make it.

Exactly. The question is, who is it going to sell to? What if it sells to people that you dismissed out-of-hand?

'Lionheart' had flattened 3d characters against a 2d world and looked great although i don't know how it sold.

Not good.

Disenfranchise the core audience, then you are left with NOTHING.

Yeah, the exodus of Marathon fans left Halo without anyone. And its sequal didn't break the 1-day records for sales. And the exodus from KOTOR1 seriously hampered KOTOR2's sales. The exodus of Magic The Gathering players during Arabian Nights didn't actually make Urza's Saga the most well-sold Magic set.

If you're not picking up the theme, you can offend the core audience - they'll buy it anyway - and get away with it just fine. Bethesda knows this.

Disenfranchise the core audience in a way that appeals to the non-core audience, and you're left with a sizeable amount of people.

cease trying to convince fans of a game that it should be changed.

Your job is to convince Bethesda one way or another. I just posted what I thought would be bad for FO3. My opinion doesn't matter. Bethesda's does. They are the ones making the sequal to Fallout 2.

we would rather see Fallout die than become another crappy Fountain of Dreams, Might and Magic 9, Super Avatar Brothers/Virtue Raider, X-COM: Enfarcer, Heroes of Marketing Morons 4, etc, etc, etc.

I can understand your point... luckilly, those actually making Fallout 3 disagree. Heh.

I am certain you are not too young to notice that Diablo was released the same year, yet Fallout has a certain character to it that set it apart from Diablo

It set it apart indeed - one is remembered my most gamers, one is not.

humping on Flashkiller's points like a lonely dog on a mailman, don't bother posting here again.

Who the hell is Flashkiller? My first post in this thread only had what I felt the worst things for F03 would be.

Oh, wait. It was already tried and outside of console trash, FOS is loathed.

Never played BOS.

I am sure they can get a few sales from making it TES: Fallout, yet I doubt it would get much recognition outside of the media whores glossing over it.

They'd get enough recognition from sources other than the serious Fallout fan. My point is that it may be enough.

But, we'll see, eh?

 

[Quaid]

Fallout 1 is the greatest game ever made to date, and I certainly don't want to see Fallout 3 go the way of FOS.

That being said, there are gamers out there that have played P&P RPGs, and that have played CRPGs (since Wasteland on the C64), that also enjoy the console as a gaming platform.

I agree that most of my great CRPG experiences have been on PCs (of course), but I would like to see the bar raised and the stereotype erased of what a 'console' game is supposed to be (action/click-fest for short attention span kiddies).

As much as Morrowind began to bore me, I am glad they released it on the XBOX. It showed that a 'non-traditional console game' can be done on a console. I understand the fear that the 'traditional PC game' (such as a CRPG or Strategy) will lose its heart and soul to the mindless eye candy for the masses if released on a console, because I too share this fear.

But I also share the hope that well-made, deep, engaging, story driven games (perfect examples - Fallout and Wasteland) can and will be made on platforms such as consoles without falling into the 'gotta have this formula to be a console game' mentality.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Disenfranchise the core audience, then you are left with NOTHING.

Yeah, the exodus of Marathon fans left Halo without anyone. And its sequal didn't break the 1-day records for sales. And the exodus from KOTOR1 seriously hampered KOTOR2's sales. The exodus of Magic The Gathering players during Arabian Nights didn't actually make Urza's Saga the most well-sold Magic set.

If you're not picking up the theme, you can offend the core audience - they'll buy it anyway - and get away with it just fine. Bethesda knows this.

Disenfranchise the core audience in a way that appeals to the non-core audience, and you're left with a sizeable amount of people.

But what's the point? You might as well just make a new game in a new setting rather than set out to drastically change an established franchise. All they'll end up doing is creating bad blood between them and the original fan base and get a reputation as a company that cares more about a quick buck than quality.

There's a place for niche games, just as there is for speciality foods or the advant garde, not everything has to widely accepted. People are different and have different tastes, everything would be bland and boring if we were shoveled the same old, all the time. You can make money catering to the speciality markets, maybe not as much in a short period of time but over the long run you'll have people coming back for more and new people looking for a taste of something different.

The way to make a sequal sell isn't always to change things so that it becomes unrecognisable and therefore appeals to a wider audience, but to make something really good that the original fans love. When you have something great that people can't stop raving about others will give it a go to see what the fuss is about.

 

[Roshambo]

It was a niche game to begin with and Half-Life, Unreal, WarCraft 2 and Diablo were far more successful market-wise than Fallout was.

And with the aid of Bethesda - with Morrowind, arguably a more mainstream developer - Fallout 3 can be more than a niche game. It could be the next Half-Life, Unreal, Warcraft, or Diablo. Ain't that a good thing, to have new blood enjoying a game?

Not if it's at the expense of the integrity of the game and design style. We have debunked your load of idiocy before, we have heard the same garbage before for years and now you're repeating yourself without having any real point.

Do you want Fallout to remain in that "Games that critics and serious fans think are awesome, but your average gamer doesn't know a thing about it"?

The reason those mainstream games do well, o uneducated one, is due to their simplicity. That is precisely the worst thing for a real CRPG and conducting a discussion on this forum.

I'm sure Bethesda doesn't want that.

If they would rather try to make the game more "mainstream" for the benefit of mass-media appeal or sales, then that is their mistake. It has been tried before, twice, and failed. The market for Fallout is no longer interested in cheap cash-ins. I am sorry you are too newbie to understand this, but check through the goddamn forums before you make yourself into a further idiot.

The term "3D" appearing on the box has become so normal it's simply not recognised anymore. It's not a "requirement" or "expectation", it's what people have become used to.

Exactly.

That still doesn't make it a requirement, especially in presentation terms. Thank you for ignoring all the rest of the discussion relating to that, instead citing the one sentence you could easily grunt out a single word to.

EDIT: Now, to further prove you an idiot, you should have looked at another popular, modern game. Rise of Nations.

In case you are a total Microsoft Whore (and I know you are), you can take their words for it. Which is exactly what we've been saying, but you're not even paying attention to the explanations.

nothing good ever came from hyped games so far.

Most of the "hyped games" for the past few years that, even if they've failed to meet up with the hype, have been very solid commercial products. Obviously something is being done right.

That just means that idiots like you bought the hype.

Fallout 3 is a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2. It's not an easy title to sell. Two products have tried living just off the title alone and provide market compatible gameplay and both have been commercial nightmares.

Glad we agree. Then why are you complaining that it may just be in Bethesda's - and Fallout's - best interests that this fate be avoided.

He was talking about the spin-offs, dumbshit.

But what if, after F3 was released, there's 1000 people who think they made a great and fufilling game, for every one person that thinks they destroyed it?

We've heard of this empty bullshit reasoning before. Unless they do appeal to the mass-market, upsetting those that are already jaded to the spin-off bullshit treatment of the title is near suicide.

And yet you want it to appeal to the mass market just so it sells.

Fuck it. You are a troll, or you just don't understand what you're saying.

Just like Looking Glass games. Oh, and Elixir's. Oh, and that Troika company. They were different.

Straw man argument. Those companies went under due to having a good audience, yet publisher problems kept them hampered in development. Namely the brainless marketing division, which insist that games become as brainless as possible for them and you to enjoy.

If you want the compromise, play Restricted Area.

Or Bethesda's Fallout 3.

Fuck off and die, cockroach.

Selling fallout 3 is not going to be a problem however they make it.

Exactly. The question is, who is it going to sell to? What if it sells to people that you dismissed out-of-hand?

Since you haven't been paying attention and keep repeating yourself, I think I have a solution for this.

'Lionheart' had flattened 3d characters against a 2d world and looked great although i don't know how it sold.

Not good.

And why? Because the system got trashed due to the same moronic mentality you display on a frequent basis.

Yeah, the exodus of Marathon fans left Halo without anyone. And its sequal didn't break the 1-day records for sales.

Straw man argument. Halo is about the best console kiddies can get for a mainstream, overhyped game. It appeals to the Lowest Common Denominator, as apparently, so did your mother.

And the exodus from KOTOR1 seriously hampered KOTOR2's sales.

Really? I thought that Obsidian took BioWare's engine and kept it fairly the same, and made some improvements. That isn't saying much, though, since the shareware games of Geneforge and Prelude to Darkness both spank the monotonous, Lowest Common Denominator, dry bullshit of BioWare's pet kiddy dungeon brand of design.

The exodus of Magic The Gathering players during Arabian Nights didn't actually make Urza's Saga the most well-sold Magic set.

Funny that you should try to use this. While Magic has had it's bad moments, it could still be played with the original cards that could be added to with a wide selection of cards. Really, keep pulling irrelevant straw man arguments out of your ass. Oh, wait, you can't.

If you're not picking up the theme, you can offend the core audience - they'll buy it anyway - and get away with it just fine. Bethesda knows this.

Disenfranchise the core audience in a way that appeals to the non-core audience, and you're left with a sizeable amount of people.

I think we've pointed out that this mentality has failed to work, twice over. The first introduced clannie trash to Fallout, the second introduced the few morons that mistakenly bought the game.

cease trying to convince fans of a game that it should be changed.

Your job is to convince Bethesda one way or another. I just posted what I thought would be bad for FO3. My opinion doesn't matter.

Obviously, since it is certainly that of a Nintardo.

Bethesda's does. They are the ones making the sequal to Fallout 2.

Should I post more amusing quotes, or are you ever going to understand where your asscheeks have a death grip upon your neck, to drown you in your own uneducated load of bullshit?

I can understand your point... luckilly, those actually making Fallout 3 disagree. Heh.

Bye, troll.

It set it apart indeed - one is remembered my most gamers, one is not.

So why haven't we had the fortune of the latest idiot on this forum lacking knowledge of Fallout?

You are here, so therefore any common idiot can be aware and know of Fallout. They prefer Diablo, since it appeals to what they like. That doesn't mean that Fallout needs to or should be changed to follow Diablo's gameplay.

Who the hell is Flashkiller?

I had already warned you to read the thread, and now I am not going to bother repeating myself.

BANNED.

My first post in this thread only had what I felt the worst things for F03 would be.

Which were, ironically enough, almost directly taken from Flashkiller's stupidity.

Never played BOS.

It sounds your speed, kid.

They'd get enough recognition from sources other than the serious Fallout fan. My point is that it may be enough.

But, we'll see, eh?

My point is, you've wasted enough bandwidth with your idiocy.

Goodbye.

 

[TorontoReign]

Arguments are fun.......

 

[Evil Feline]

To Rosh: New taunts, alright.

Now lets get down to business.

Turns to Rampancy:
WHAT THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE!
What is your point? You seem to want Fo3 to be a commercial success. But you don't give a fuck about the fans wishes.
Or did I miss something?

Just who the hell are you anyway? Duck fucking Chuck Ceuvas, out to get revenge? Herve Caen, showing of your stupidity?
Or just some moronic Bethesda PR guy, who has somehow mistaken this forum for a marketing meeting?

Let me just answer the question you asked you asked in a now vatted thread:

Do you think it would have been better if the game did poorly, but was more true to what you consider Fallout?

The answer is simple: FUCK YEAH!

I Couldn't Possibly give a Flying Horse-Ass Fuck about Popular Opinion.
Especially when it comes to games.
Think of all those jackasses that never played Planescape:Torment or Grim Fandango. But spend a fortune on crap like Enter The Matrix.
Its there loss. Not mine.

It is sad when perfectly good games gets ignored by the masses while crappy ones are praised. But thats the state of gaming today.
And that doesn't give you, or anyone else the permission to exchange quality for profit.

Thanks for listening.
Steps down from soapbox.





PS.

Arguments are fun

Aye.

 

[Claw]

1. Turn-based combat systems just purely sucks. It is boring unrealistic and it is not necessary with todays fast computers.

Why don't people seem to understand that the problem is the interface, or user speed?
Whatever makes people believe computer speed was even an issue? Was Pong ever turnbased? Or Space War?

 

[Santa_Claws]

-It would suck for Fallout 3 to have realtime combat and melee would have combos and stuff, aka Mortal Kombat .
- And linearity and in the end an outro movie where you go into the sunset in a vertibird with the chick.
-MAGIC and elfs and ogres
-journal instead of Pipboy
-action to take place in China :idea:
-in the game scenario to go in the past and stop the War

 

[Santa_Claws]

The game publisher to be EA Games

 

[brother bozar]

I wouldn't mind hearing some recent stats on how many copies fallout 2 has sold TO DATE, that's including all the re-release budget copies. I bet it's sold absolutely loads. I also think more people have played fallout(s) than we may imagine, particularly since the popularity of PC gaming and internet use has increased so mutch just in the last few years .
I've noticed lots of new members (like myself) who've registered with this forum just in the last couple of months...and it's been ages since the last (real) fallout game was released and it'll be ages until the next, so interest is high and the forum is doing well.
I'm just trying to say that the belief that hardly anyone knows about fallout is....outdated.

 

[Simbay]

Should I post more amusing quotes, or are you ever going to understand where your asscheeks have a death grip upon your neck, to drown you in your own uneducated load of bullshit?

Now thats poetry

 

[Simbay]

And if that is not an option (if you travel around the globe or something) you can always make a hybrid of the two... if you want to go the distance in-game you can but if you don't you take up the world map and go straight to your destination but then miss all the fun stuff on the way.

You know if you really want to you can walk to other locations. All you gotta do is get on the world map, click on a square and it will take you right into that part of the desert, then you run to the end of the screen and then click on the next square on the desert when the world map appears again. Sometimes you may find some stuff you can kill that way too but I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that. Well you sound like you like that kinda stuff so go ahead run around, will be fuuuuun

Fallout Tactics was good in this area but it was lacking too much to compare to the first two overall.

Actually when I played FOT I just couldn't get that combat system, it was real time but with action points : I thought it would be a much better game if it was TB, would have more strategy to it. But I dunno, my personal taste.

 

[brother bozar]

"Actually when I played FOT I just couldn't get that combat system, it was real time but with action points I thought it would be a much better game if it was TB, would have more strategy to it. But I dunno, my personal taste."

-Actually you could have set up FO Tactics (in options) to play turn based just like FO 1&2

 

[Wooz]

Excuse me. Would someone care to take a moment of their precious time and explain these last posts' point to me?

 

[doro_69]

1'st person, the graphics too smooth..

 

[Dresnar]

I'm not sure if this has already been stated but I hope its not a main item based quest game. Such as finding a Waterchip or the Holy G.E.C.K. They need to find something more original to base the game around.