Worst Possible things for FO3?

[Fatty Lumpkin]

A "Teen" rating

Oh god!

Don't even bring that up...

LOL, I've already been properly chastised for that. Also, I read Bethesda is shooting for a "strong Mature" rating, so it is a dead issue in that regard too.

 

[Gekko]

The worst thing is that bethesda makes fallout 3. I love morrowind but 3d fallout just sounds... horrible! HORRIBLE!!

OOOOOHHH SOOOO HORRIBLE!!!!!!

NOOOOOO!!!!!

THE FATE THE FATE!!!!

 

[Dove]

I think Fallout in 3-d can be done well, so long as it's still third person isometric. With zoomable/rotateable maps.

I'm more worried about it going realtime, closest I think it should get is pausable real time, like UFO Aftermath.

Worst thing possible that could happen is the story being written horribly. Imagine being part of a military group trying to bring the people of the wastes back together.

 

[Lord 342]

I think loss of total turn-based gameplay would jeopardize its "Fallout-ness", there should at least be a mode for true turn-based.

Also, F3 could be ruined by losing sight of the stuff that made F2 so wonderful; focusing on one thing could be deadly. For example hyping up, say, gory combat, or the fact that there's lot of people to sleep with, or even just the very fact that it's Fallout/Post-apocalyptic could ruin it; all these elements (Setting, good stories, gory combat done in a well-executed (No pun intended) manner, sex and other "Vices", and some gallows humor) need to come together around a competent engine and the SPECIAL system to make a true Fallout game.

 

[Fatty Lumpkin]

I've always thought pure turn-based combat was a little hoaky, but very fun. Hoaky in the sense that I can run right up to a crowd of gun toting highwaymen and deck one of them twice before anyone ever squeezed off a shot. An experienced stealth type maybe, a newb to the wastes.....not so much. But it is very fun in the sense that you can carefully analyze and plan every move you make.

So how about this:

Have combat operate so you still use action points, targeted shots, etc., but everyone uses them at once, and they use them only as you use them. For example, you expend 3 action points maneuvering for a head shot at they guy with the shotgun, and while you walk those three points, everyone else uses 3 points also (maybe someone squeezes off a fast shot or burst, runs the other way, etc.). It would operate alot like real-time with pause.....without all the "space-bar pausing", as the pauses would occur after your action was complete.

This I think could easily be converted to real-time as all the user would have to do is disable the automatic pauses after the PC's action, thus satisfying the "no turn-based" crowd.


*Fatty Lumpkin assumes the fetal position in a corner and prepares to be beat down*

 

[Roshambo]

It ignores many aspects of Fallout's combat and makes others even more burdonsome or of a chore. The same flaws in FOT and Lionheart would also be present in some form. It would become a nightmare for a large number of enemies, of which TB combat is supposed to be great for gun warfare as it tends to give the perilous but manageable merging of representing skill and ability to fight against more than one enemy at a time. That's another headache of RT systems, is that they rely on playe reflexes, especially towards the early game if they are unforgiving.

Phase-based, as you describe where everyone decides and then moves depending upon the commands and what goes one, is a pretty decent system for some simulations. I've found the best applications of this were for sports and vehicular games. Gun battles tend to be a clusterfuck, removing a lot of ability to quickly dodge away, and it tends to be a little less of a strategic combat and more of a zerg strategy. Many aspects of Fallout's combat system, especially with knockback, would have to be thrown out of the window.

 

[Marat Sar]

OK. I`ve looked around a little and gotten a nice perspective on this forum and the heartfelt, sincere love we all share for the franchise. I could have said all this in the "greatings" sector, but it felt kinda... template.

I especially liked the "Dear Bathesta" subject by Radwarrior. It pretty much said everything that was on my mind and I believe that if the guys from the company were to read and analyse that subject - and take it seriously, nothing horrible would happen.

F1, in my oppinion was pretty much perfect. I liked the compressed nature of it - everything was drawn out with exeptional talent and care. although ideas like the intelligent racoon community will probably haunt me forever for being left out - the result was a brilliant thing.

For me it is obvious that F3 should NOT take the cheap road of 3D animation that Interplay intended to take. Every genre has it`s bullsh*t, surface, for-the-masses crap. Fallout is somewhat of a crown achievement of the gaming industry. It is the singular reason why I am not ashamed, but proud to be a gamer. It is the deep end my girlfriend will never understand. Without it she and other sceptical peaople would be almoast right to say that computer gaming is for the hardcore freaks and easely entertained.

Though animated backrounds are a complicated, time-absorbing way to go the end result is much more valuable and rememorable. Time, as it always does, will forget the millions of cheap 3D games with their "camera angle corrections" and remember the masterful examples of art, storyline and the unexplainable magick that gives games a cult following and takes up weeks upon weeks to play. In my oppinion, even watercoloured backrounds (in the fashion of the mindblowing consept art for F3 by Interplay - "Road to denver" and "Denver") would be a way to explore, rather than the boring, pointless 3D models that never really involve an intelligent gamer who respacts artwork and FEELING.

Another critical point I, as an art student would like to address is the general gamma, the colour management of the game`s graphics. I believe it to be far more important than the quality of the graphics themselves. Fallout has always been ubout smudged orange, corroded green and bleeched yellow - the wasteland tones. Both colour-theoretically valuable and immensely adequate for the unique universe that is Fallout. If the colours are even a little bit more cheerful (BOS Tactics) the general feeling will shift out of place.
Thus, if the colours were less perfectly harmonised (the way it always is with 3D surfaces) the whole thing would drop not one, bu at least 3 notches on the scale to ten. Ordinary gamers and even graphics experts rather often are not aware of the power that colour-management has on the imagination and immersion quality of the graphics.
To tie a knot on this subject I will cut it clear - if Fallout 3 DOES NOT look like an old, bleeched-by-the-sun photograph, the cult following will not feel at home in the universe and Bathesta will have to work REAL hard on everything else to make up.
This section of my posting, I would really love the guys at Bathesta to read. It is THAT important.

That said, other horrible things would be - (did I mention 3D? Oh yes... I did)

- poor dialogue. You guys are gonna have to hone your cynicism, social attitudes and humor pre-production. Your gonna have to start writing down jokes from Nabokov`s Lolita, watch Full Metal Jacket, and spend A LOT OF TIME respecting the value of a fat, juicy dialogue option that makes you LOVE your character.

- too much STUFF.
A car is nice. Perhaps a GasBot sidekick as seen on the consept art of the shelved Interplay F3, but a bunch of jolly freak companions, a vertibird, lots of cybernetic dogs, "an armada of vehicles from tanks to trucks", that you can write on the back of the box as a commersial gimmick is a Big No-No.

- Too much companions.
The primary mistake of F2. Fallout is very character centered. It`s all about being the man with the one-sleeved leather jacket. The wasteland MUST NOT be a jolly ADandD-ish travelling party thing. It must remain a desolate, empty, survivalist place where a friend is a thing of true value and a rare sight. That is the reoson everyone loved Dogmeat. That`s why silent Ian ruled! That`s why Marcus, the deathclaw etc. were all nice ideas but didn`t go together.

- A thin storyline.
Pergaps the most importabt thing of all. when everything aelse I`ve addressed is just half of the product - the FEELING. The storyline is what will makse the game what it is. Catch up on your reading! I wanna FEEL the lonelyness, I wanna TOUCH the hoplessness, I wanna SEE the unjustice - that`s when I will want to make things better.
The storyline and the general direction of the world must be bleak and hopeless. This is not a joly green Forgotten Realms kinda place. It`s not called the End of the World because Elvis has died.


I read someones signature - sorry, forgot yyour name. that said "Fallout fans are most terrible kind" or smth. and continued to express why. I totally agreed. I am HORRIBLE. But you don`t see that much love in "horrible" very often, now do you. Mistakes scrape away at my heart. They make me loose sleap. That`s how horrible I am. I am horrible because I feel powerless to protect the integrity of something I respect and love. I hope the developers will protect that integrity for me.

 

[Wooz]

Fallout FPS, the game where you kill warehouse after warehouse full of giant rats in order to impress prostitutes.

This had me literally rolling on the floor.

Ontopic, the combat issues set aside, the worst scenario for FO3 would be a stereotypical crappy story, set in black and white morals.

What else? Crappy dialogue options, no chance of passing the game with different character-types.

All in all, the worst thing that could happen is that it'd turn out to be something else than Fallout.

 

[Lord 342]

Yeah, Fallout 3 can't have nothing but "Black & white morals" as Wooz put it so eloquently. The joy of Fallout 2 was that you could help the expansion of the Lawful NCR, or the autocratic Vault City; you could pit them against eachother or help them form an alliance, or, if you wanted, you could join the ranks of New Reno mobsters. I must say I especially enjoyed the John Bishop quests; assassinating politicians, sleeping with is wife *and* daughter, then arranging an "accident" Ala Body Heat to remove the crime lord from his newfound power! Classic.

I realize that I'm only seconding the motion, but it's true that dialog is vastly important; it's disappointing to have to make your character say some canned line; there needs to be variety. Sometimes you should be able to say something out of pure meanness and spite, sometimes something out of pure kindness, and frequently something out of irony or sarcasm, and always something useful in-between. The Dialog options, and their diversity, are what, in my opinion, make the Fallout series a true "role-playing" experience.

 

[Burnov]

that I can run right up to a crowd of gun toting highwaymen and deck one of them twice before anyone ever squeezed off a shot.

JA2 used a system that involved interrupts if a unit noticed you during your turn. Which was probably one of the better pure turn-based solutions out there.

However, turn based isn't nearly as bad as watching two avatars idling like idiots in real time hitting each other in a timed cycle. It's very Diablo, it's very Baldur's gate. It's very NWN... it's gay... I'm sorry but it's the most uninteresting combat around.

If that's the case, then we might as well consider removing any ability to move around in the field of combat, and have it play like those horrible console RPGS where they have those spiky-haired androgenous anime guys leaping back and forth doing a single slash or fireball and then leaping back again. If one actually enjoys -that- type of combat, well. They might as well just shoot themselves in the face.


The beauty of Fallout is being able to shoot someone in the nuts and then smash their head in with a sledgehammer while they're stunned flat on the ground.

 

[billcd]

Allright, I'm gonna add my 2 cents here:

First, stop obsessing about Van Buren and what could have been. I've heard rumors from some reliable people that, well, as much as the cool stuff you heard from people at Interplay, the game just wasn't there. Any developer that used it would have had to basically build the entire game using a little work and a lot of ideas.

Second, I played Fallout very early on, and I absolutely loved it. It was and still is one of my favorite gaming experiences. Going back and playing it now, however, it feels very lacking. It is very small, something that Bethesda could fix, and honestly, the gameplay isn't as fun to me as it was before. Playing many other games I felt like Fallout doesn't give you as much control and excitement in combat, it's just not as involving. Maybe this is because I never played RPGs (I mean non-CRPGs), but neither has a lot of the gaming community. It just doesn't appeal to many people. Fallout could do with some changes.

Third, one thing sets Fallout apart from every other game I've ever played: the environment. I mean, from the opening sequence to the writing to the gloom and color- all this has been described all over the site. The feeling of the fallout world is what makes it great. Honestly, if someone could pull this off in a game that played like Morrowind (and I doubt they could, or that Beth would try) I would love it the same. Sure, third person iso tb is unique to FO (which makes many fans obssess about it) but it's not essential to FO. Tactics had all of that, and yet it lacked the feel that makes FO special. I never played FOPOS, but from what I've heard, and the rantings on this site, the chief complaints were around the music in the backround, terrible missions and bad writing, not the way combat played out. In the end, combat and play is a mechanical difference, not a change in the soul of the game. Obviously, no one wants FO:FPS, but would a FO, I mean a game true to the spirit of fallout, that played like KOTOR really be that bad?

Fourth, I really enjoyed Morrowind and KOTOR. I liked them, but in the end they weren't all that special. By the time I finished Morrowind, it felt like a big empty island. No depth to characters, no good writing. KOTOR did better on this front, and I like it's storyline and quests A LOT more, it still lacked special elements like those that made FO great. However, these games were still fun, and that is what makes them big hits that can spawn franchises, as opposed to FO. FO is a "thinking man's game:" it takes dedication and commitment to really enjoy, but when you put in the time it feels like a good book or movie. However, it lacks all those mindlessly entertaining elements that, let's face it, we all love. Personally, I have no problem combining the two.

Fifth, and finally, don't knock commercial endeavors. I've seen fan games and mods, and they just don't cut it. People have lives and dayjobs to take up their time, so a fan mod just doesn't meet the standards of commercial games. These games are good because you get a coordinated team of people working eight hours a day to churn out a quality game. And to pay these people to do this, a game needs to be a commercial success. Thus, a game must combine some mindlessly fun elements. I think Bethesda is capable of pulling of a good FO game, but they need one thing: good writing and the right environment. Obviously, MW blew at this. Seeing the screenshots from Oblivion, however, Beth can make a good environment- if they could make a forest as good as those screens they could make a wasteland too. All they need then is a good team of writers to give the game the feel it needs. And, seeing how they react to certain news and events, they probably know it too and I hope they will do well. There are always going to be purists who hate that this game won't be a FO 1/2 clone, but in the end I'm sure this will be a good game, maybe even worthy of the title of Fallout.

 

[Odin]

Honestly, if someone could pull this off in a game that played like Morrowind (and I doubt they could, or that Beth would try) I would love it the same.

It would be another sellout..

Tactics had all of that, and yet it lacked the feel that makes FO special.

Oh really, get your facts straight. Tactics failed because the whole story deviated from the Fallout universe (and lots of other stuff), and it had isometric view because, well that's how a tactical game should be.

I never played FOPOS, but from what I've heard, and the rantings on this site, the chief complaints were around the music in the backround, terrible missions and bad writing, not the way combat played out.

Erm, I guess you never paid attention to our news posts either. Because we did complain about the combat..

In the end, combat and play is a mechanical difference, not a change in the soul of the game. Obviously, no one wants FO:FPS, but would a FO, I mean a game true to the spirit of fallout, that played like KOTOR really be that bad?

Yes it would, Fallout is isometric and it shouldn't change. Especially when you consider the fact that you have cNPCs to look out for and probably lots of enemies, which makes the combat more tactical than a FPS. Why do you think all RTS have isometric view? (and I don't mean 2D..)

 

[Claw]

Playing many other games I felt like Fallout doesn't give you as much control and excitement in combat, it's just not as involving.

Playing many other games, I feel you are on crack. The only games that give me more control in combat are Action or Strategy games. In other words, combat-oriented games. Now that comes as a surprise, doesn't it? Next you'll tell me Adventure games have better puzzles than Unreal Tournament and RPGs a better story than NASCAR Racing. What is the world coming to?

Maybe this is because I never played RPGs (I mean non-CRPGs), but neither has a lot of the gaming community. It just doesn't appeal to many people.

So CRPGs should appeal to people who don't like RPGs rather than people who like RPGs? Brilliant.

Honestly, if someone could pull this off in a game that played like Morrowind (and I doubt they could, or that Beth would try) I would love it the same.

I wouldn't, because MW played horribly and I'd break all the keys on my board in frustration.

Sure, third person iso tb is unique to FO (which makes many fans obssess about it) but it's not essential to FO.

Realm of Arkania has iso tb combat too. And that rules. Iso tb combat rules on it's own, and while not every game with iso tb combat may rule, it's a great bonus.

Tactics had all of that, and yet it lacked the feel that makes FO special.

It also wasn't an RPG, But that's probably just a mechanical difference, not a change in the soul of the game. The changes in the soul were an additional bonus.

In the end, combat and play is a mechanical difference, not a change in the soul of the game.

I ain't got a nice reply in store for this bullshit. I can't tell how many discussions about gameplay I've witnessed. It's damn bloody important to people, this gameplay. People decide which games they play because of it.
If someone makes a game that has a "soul" I like but a gameplay I despise, is that supposed to make me happy? More like an epitome of frustration. It'd be Simon 3D all over. Burn in the deepest pit of hell.

Fifth, and finally, don't knock commercial endeavors. I've seen fan games and mods, and they just don't cut it. People have lives and dayjobs to take up their time, so a fan mod just doesn't meet the standards of commercial games.

I've seen fan games and mods on par with commercial products and sub-par commercial products. You ain't got a clue.

I'm sure this will be a good game, maybe even worthy of the title of Fallout.

Now THIS is truly encouraging. Maybe it'll be worthy of the name. You sure spread confidence like a wildfire.

 

[billcd]

Wow, piling it on me. No way to treat a noob. First, let me empasize something: this game will not be made without commercial backing. Unfortunately, Fallout would not sell like Beth would want it to, so they will tweak it a bit. That is inevitable. The choice is between a slightly different but still good Fallout and no Fallout at all. I choose the former.

billcd wrote:
Honestly, if someone could pull this off in a game that played like Morrowind (and I doubt they could, or that Beth would try) I would love it the same.


It would be another sellout..

Yes, but what if it still had all the elements that made Fallout great? Just because it isn't identicle to the original doesn't mean it would suck. Also, I would love it just as much as you if it had the same design as the original.

billcd wrote:
Tactics had all of that, and yet it lacked the feel that makes FO special.


Oh really, get your facts straight. Tactics failed because the whole story deviated from the Fallout universe (and lots of other stuff), and it had isometric view because, well that's how a tactical game should be.

What do you mean by "deviated by the FO universe?" That's a pretty ambiguous statement. The feel of FO, to me, is the way the stories were written and the environment of the game which is, in essence, the FO universe. You're splitting hairs here. My point is only that 3rd person iso doesn't make the game, which you have proven here.

billcd wrote:
I never played FOPOS, but from what I've heard, and the rantings on this site, the chief complaints were around the music in the backround, terrible missions and bad writing, not the way combat played out.


Erm, I guess you never paid attention to our news posts either. Because we did complain about the combat..

I realize, but by and large the complaints were that the quests were shitty, the music was shitty, the writing was lame, and Harold died. Bad combat was an added bonus. I'm not saying the combat was good (obviouslly, as I never played it) but that, in my mind at least, this game sucks because it ruins the FO experience and, as you put it, the FO universe.

billcd wrote:
In the end, combat and play is a mechanical difference, not a change in the soul of the game. Obviously, no one wants FO:FPS, but would a FO, I mean a game true to the spirit of fallout, that played like KOTOR really be that bad?


Yes it would, Fallout is isometric and it shouldn't change. Especially when you consider the fact that you have cNPCs to look out for and probably lots of enemies, which makes the combat more tactical than a FPS. Why do you think all RTS have isometric view? (and I don't mean 2D..)

Except fallout isn't an RTS. As someone said earlier, FO is a character driven game, not a party driven one. NPCs acted however they wanted during combat. And KOTOR had NPCs as well, that never proved a problem. Also, that game had an insane amount of enemies to fight (star forge), more than anywhere in fallout. I'm not saying that the KOTOR system is better, but basing this off of comments people got pissy about when a Beth dev mentioned KOTOR. I'm just saying that it could work within the fallout universe.

billcd wrote:
Playing many other games I felt like Fallout doesn't give you as much control and excitement in combat, it's just not as involving.

Playing many other games, I feel you are on crack. The only games that give me more control in combat are Action or Strategy games. In other words, combat-oriented games. Now that comes as a surprise, doesn't it? Next you'll tell me Adventure games have better puzzles than Unreal Tournament and RPGs a better story than NASCAR Racing. What is the world coming to?

Okay, this is just a personal difference. Point, click, wait gets boring after a while, even if you can dictate everything. At least more animated combat would be good, like someone mentioned above, taking all turns at once. This was actually a feature in Van Buren (or what I heard of it) so don't get so angry.

Quote:
Maybe this is because I never played RPGs (I mean non-CRPGs), but neither has a lot of the gaming community. It just doesn't appeal to many people.

So CRPGs should appeal to people who don't like RPGs rather than people who like RPGs? Brilliant.

No, I like the RPG aspect of the game. But take this quote in context. As evidenced by the sales of FPS games and games like MW, people like games with more action. That sentence was just to indicate that fallout could do with more action, at least it would be more fun to watch combat unfold. Also, read my post and the part about marketability. You can talk about a great game for RPG lovers, but if it doesn't sell no one will make it. It's a little compromise or no game at all.

Quote:
Honestly, if someone could pull this off in a game that played like Morrowind (and I doubt they could, or that Beth would try) I would love it the same.

I wouldn't, because MW played horribly and I'd break all the keys on my board in frustration.

Not the phrase "I doubt they could." Obviously this isn't MW with guns. Nor should it be. My only point is that the FO universe and feel should be more important to you than the mechanics of the game.

Quote:
Sure, third person iso tb is unique to FO (which makes many fans obssess about it) but it's not essential to FO.

Realm of Arkania has iso tb combat too. And that rules. Iso tb combat rules on it's own, and while not every game with iso tb combat may rule, it's a great bonus.

I realize that. Arcanum is one of my most favorite games along with fallout, although I never played Arkania. I think tb iso is good. But I don't think it makes or breaks the game.

Quote:
Tactics had all of that, and yet it lacked the feel that makes FO special.

It also wasn't an RPG, But that's probably just a mechanical difference, not a change in the soul of the game. The changes in the soul were an additional bonus.

That is EXACTLY my point. Tactics was identicle to the mechanics of FO yet lacked the soul. I would much prefer a game with the feel of FO than obsessing over the mechanics of it.

Quote:
In the end, combat and play is a mechanical difference, not a change in the soul of the game.

I ain't got a nice reply in store for this bullshit. I can't tell how many discussions about gameplay I've witnessed. It's damn bloody important to people, this gameplay. People decide which games they play because of it.
If someone makes a game that has a "soul" I like but a gameplay I despise, is that supposed to make me happy? More like an epitome of frustration. It'd be Simon 3D all over. Burn in the deepest pit of hell.

Look, this won't be MW with guns, as has been said many times. It will be at least a step closer towards what FO fans want. Surely the exact mechanics of FO aren't the only type of game you can ever play.

Quote:
Fifth, and finally, don't knock commercial endeavors. I've seen fan games and mods, and they just don't cut it. People have lives and dayjobs to take up their time, so a fan mod just doesn't meet the standards of commercial games.

I've seen fan games and mods on par with commercial products and sub-par commercial products. You ain't got a clue.

Yet no fan made FO as widely anticipated as this. Obviously it was quite a task to mod FO and there would be no fan-made FO3 that could rival a big company picking it up. Otherwise you wouldn't care what Beth does with FO because you could play a fan game that is so much better.

Quote:
I'm sure this will be a good game, maybe even worthy of the title of Fallout.

Now THIS is truly encouraging. Maybe it'll be worthy of the name. You sure spread confidence like a wildfire.

Alright, then I guess you're okay with not playing any new fallout game again. I'm saying that Beth can pull off a good game even if it's not identicle to the original FO instead of saying that I'm going to destroy my keyboard as soon as it comes out. I think I can safely say that I'm the optimist here.

 

[Janeus]

Leisure suit Dweller

Now that could have potential. It wouldn't be Fallout, but I bet it would be fun.

Anyway, my choices ...

No SPECIAL system.
1st person only.
Lack of dialog choices, and/or unimaginative dialog choices.
Being able to beat the game in <10 hours real time.

Those are about the only things that would, without a doubt, ruin it.

DAMNIT you sig is desturbing(sp most likley)!!

 

[Claw]

Wow, piling it on me. No way to treat a noob.

Are you suggesting you don't deserve a reply at all? Nevermind then. 8)

 

[billcd]

Heh, just that I didn't expect that much reply so quick. Don't worry about me though, I managed to get to all of it just fine.

 

[Odin]

Wow, piling it on me. No way to treat a noob.

Had you done some research you would have not said all these stupid things..

First, let me empasize something: this game will not be made without commercial backing. Unfortunately, Fallout would not sell like Beth would want it to, so they will tweak it a bit. That is inevitable. The choice is between a slightly different but still good Fallout and no Fallout at all. I choose the former.

So a Sellout..And who's to say it wouldn't sell if it was a TB, isometric Fallout ? Don't give me that crap about TB not selling because Silent Storm did sell.. Fallout is a huge brand name in the industry and we loved it because it had all the elements it had, including isometric view and turn based combat..

Yes, but what if it still had all the elements that made Fallout great? Just because it isn't identicle to the original doesn't mean it would suck. Also, I would love it just as much as you if it had the same design as the original.

What are those elements ?

What do you mean by "deviated by the FO universe?" That's a pretty ambiguous statement. The feel of FO, to me, is the way the stories were written and the environment of the game which is, in essence, the FO universe. You're splitting hairs here. My point is only that 3rd person iso doesn't make the game, which you have proven here.

Guess you can't read either, I said: "it deviated from the Fallout universe".. Jesus kid, did you ever stop to wonder why the countries went to war in Fallout ? RESOURCES! How the hell can they have running vehicles, which gulps down oil like George Bush.. And not to mention the ever so great Vault 0, which never existed in the earlier story. Gee..one would imagine that a huge Vault like that would have come up...These are only a few errors they did on FOT, not to mention the balancing of the game, the horrible CTB combat and the ever growing numbers of guns which never existed in the Fallout universe.

I'm not saying the combat was good (obviouslly, as I never played it) but that, in my mind at least, this game sucks because it ruins the FO experience and, as you put it, the FO universe.

They why the hell talk about something you've never played ? Lesson to learn here kids, do not talk about something you know nothing about..

I've played it...just FYI...

Except fallout isn't an RTS. As someone said earlier, FO is a character driven game, not a party driven one. NPCs acted however they wanted during combat.

Wow, you do know that Fallout was a combat oriented RPG right ?
And who's talking about party driven? I was talking about having a overview of the situation...

Okay, this is just a personal difference. Point, click, wait gets boring after a while, even if you can dictate everything. At least more animated combat would be good, like someone mentioned above, taking all turns at once. This was actually a feature in Van Buren (or what I heard of it) so don't get so angry.

We've never said, do not change A THING.. Sure the combat can be changed, no doubt about it..

Ignorance is trouble around here..

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

I think the most devestating thing would be the lack of a uber desert eagle that you could shoot children with when they stole from you.

*EDIT* OR the lack of the ability to put a brick of armed c4 into somones pocket without them knowing.

 

[PhredBean]

going 3D (bwah!)

3d would be no means weaken the feel of the game, and would make it take a lot less time and resources to develop. I'm not going to even mention what the 2d enviroments did to my computer every time I passed under a beam or roof in Fo:T.

introducing modern perks like 'dual wielding' or 'bullet time'

Modern? Fans have been calling for dual wielding since FO1 came out. I really wouldn't mind having a colt in each hand slot and going to town. Say what you will about that opinion. Bullet time, I have to agree, would be dumb.

changing isometric perspective and/or the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system

I agree, both iso and SPECIAL are 100% required for any fallout to remain true to the name.

modern weaponry and other anachronisms

BIS said themselves they made a mistake and went to overboard on the new guns, 14 Degrees East made the same mistake and admitted the fault. Bethesda would have to be stupid to repeat that same mistake.

lots of cars

Fo:T also caught hell for that, we can only hope Beth is capable of learning from the mistakes of others.

Wow, piling it on me. No way to treat a noob.

But a perfectly fine way to treat an idiot.

stop obsessing about Van Buren and what could have been.

No.

I've heard rumors from some reliable people that, well, as much as the cool stuff you heard from people at Interplay, the game just wasn't there. Any developer that used it would have had to basically build the entire game using a little work and a lot of ideas.

Rumors from a reliable friend, huh? We've seen screenshots, read interviews, and picked through every bit of what J.E. said. I think I'll take all that and my impressions of what I've seen and read over your tired old "my reliable friend told me" line.