Worst Possible things for FO3?

[Flashkiller]

There are a few things I do not want to see in FO3...

1. Turn-based combat system
2. Lack of dialogue choices
3. 2D Graphics
4. Hack 'n Slash type game (Diablo)
5. A very limited amount of items/weapons
6. A travelling system like the earlier Fallout games
7. Need of team-mates
8. No vehicles
9. Fireball hurling space-orcs with acid breath and gatling guns



1. Turn-based combat systems just purely sucks. It is boring unrealistic and it is not necessary with todays fast computers. And basically Tb takes all the fun out of any game it is put into.

2. It IS a RPG! no further explanation needed.

3. There is no reason not to go 3D really... 3D can do anything 2D can but better, faster (as long as you don't have a IBM 486) and it simply brings more depth to the graphics of a game.

4. Fallout isn't a Hack 'n Slash type of game and they grow insanely boring quite fast. Turn-Based combat is NOT needed to prevent this.

5. Much items and stuff bring more realism to a game, in a post nuclear world most weapons are probably self-made or self-modified which makes them unique and any copy of it is very unlikely.

6. I prefer travelling IN the game world and not on a bitmap picture.

7. I like playing games solo, and the need of team-mates really decrease the joy a game brings me.

8. We have energy based weapons, armors and machinery... why not vehicles?

9. Well that actually could be quite interesting

 

[Kahgan]

6. I prefer travelling IN the game world and not on a bitmap picture.

so you would like to sit clicking on the computer for, like an hour(real time) just to get from say...Vault 13 to Shady sands?...


*makes some popcorn and waites*

 

[Flashkiller]

If the alternative is a static bitmap picture then.... yes!

If the game is well made the travelling don't have to take forever... take an mmorpg for example, those worlds are huge but it still doesn't take forever to reach one key point and another. For example to reach stratholme from Booty bay in World of Warcraft takes a little time but still under the hour... even if you take some small detours.
And that system is not perfect it can be made better.

 

[Ashmo]

Well, something ala Arcanum would be nice. A mix of a world map and actual travel.

 

[Roshambo]

1. Turn-based combat systems just purely sucks. It is boring unrealistic and it is not necessary with todays fast computers. And basically Tb takes all the fun out of any game it is put into.

Might I suggest Ritalin? TB might not be the best for your attention span, but it sure beats the sludge of the Infinity Engine combat. It also lends to far more options in combat. TB combat isn't that bad if you know how to use it, which works for RPGs (hint: important point there), and games like Jagged Alliance 2.

If you don't believe me and have to see for yourself, try Lionheart.

2. It IS a RPG! no further explanation needed.

Yet you want it turned into a passive action game, where your only involvement is deciding when to hit the space bar. Or without RT+P, you would be clicking the mouse incessantly...oh, hell, aimed shots. Well, I doubt you knew of their usefulness anyways, so of course they should go.

4. Fallout isn't a Hack 'n Slash type of game and they grow insanely boring quite fast. Turn-Based combat is NOT needed to prevent this.

Really. Care to cite examples, or are you pulling this assertion right out of your ass?

6. I prefer travelling IN the game world and not on a bitmap picture.
...
If the alternative is a static bitmap picture then.... yes!

If the game is well made the travelling don't have to take forever... take an mmorpg for example, those worlds are huge but it still doesn't take forever to reach one key point and another. For example to reach stratholme from Booty bay in World of Warcraft takes a little time but still under the hour... even if you take some small detours.
And that system is not perfect it can be made better.

If you can't understand the difference between MMORPG and single-player dynamics, then you have a serious problem. Fallout's locations are nothing like the location structuring of WoW. Nor is it like UO, Asheron's Call, or any other MMORPG. If you need to know why, then you probably should be paying attention to the games instead of posting flamebait.

I can't believe this was said by someone who complained that TB is boring. Well, enjoy the real-time, real boring hike from Vault 13 to Necropolis in the wasteland.

Take a look:

That looks so exciting! I just can't wait to wander around the hundreds of square miles of desert like that!

It's called "condensed time" on the Fallout map screen for a reason, and might explain why the in-game clock moves so fast while you're moving on that screen.

8. We have energy based weapons, armors and machinery... why not vehicles?

You would know if you had played the games.

 

[Flashkiller]

Might I suggest Ritalin? TB might not be the best for your attention span, but it sure beats the sludge of the Infinity Engine combat. It also lends to far more options in combat. TB combat isn't that bad if you know how to use it, which works for RPGs (hint: important point there), and games like Jagged Alliance 2.

If you don't believe me and have to see for yourself, try Lionheart.

For your information I have played ALL the Fallout games (and Lionheart). And I do not like Turn-Based gameplay the reason I have never replayed Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 is because of the turn-based combat system otherwise those games are really good. Fallout Tactics was good in this area but it was lacking too much to compare to the first two overall.

Yet you want it turned into a passive action game, where your only involvement is deciding when to hit the space bar. Or without RT+P, you would be clicking the mouse incessantly...oh, hell, aimed shots. Well, I doubt you knew of their usefulness anyways, so of course they should go.

Well I rarely use the pause button in any rpg I play, and I have played through NWN, BG1&2, Ice Wind Dale 1&2 and KOTOR 1&2. And neither do I incessantly click the mouse... all it takes is knowing what to do and when to do it, and probably knowing just what your character can do.
Should probably also add that when I play FO I play as a sniper so I use aimed shot ALL the time...

Really. Care to cite examples, or are you pulling this assertion right out of your ass?

Well Dungeon Siege for one, it is not a Hack 'n Slash because no matter how fast or much you click it really doesn't make any difference. And it is a RPG. DS solution might not be the best for Fallout 3 but it is one way to do it and frankly ANYTHING is better then Turn-Based.

If you can't understand the difference between MMORPG and single-player dynamics, then you have a serious problem. Fallout's locations are nothing like the location structuring of WoW. Nor is it like UO, Asheron's Call, or any other MMORPG. If you need to know why, then you probably should be paying attention to the games instead of posting flamebait.

I can't believe this was said by someone who complained that TB is boring. Well, enjoy the real-time, real boring hike from Vault 13 to Necropolis in the wasteland.

That looks so exciting! I just can't wait to wander around the hundreds of square miles of desert like that!

It's called "condensed time" on the Fallout map screen for a reason, and might explain why the in-game clock moves so fast while you're moving on that screen.

Actually I would enjoy going that distance on foot, mostly because of the things I would encounter on the way and I am an explorer in the way I play. I like to explore so the more there is to explore the happier I am. For example I explored everything in Morrowind twice, and I do mean everything nothing anywhere was fogged out.
And what really is the difference between a world in a mmorpg and a world in a Single-Player game? you can make a really long distance become not so long in a game if you only know how to do it. 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 would know if you had played the games.

I HAVE played all the games, and there is energy weapons and fusion based power armors in all of them... now it is definitely harder to induce fusion technology into a small piece of armor then it is to introduce into a vehicle... its just plain logic, not that hard to understand.

 

[Wooz]

Well Dungeon Siege for one, it is not a Hack 'n Slash because no matter how fast or much you click it really doesn't make any difference. And it is a RPG.

Buahahahahahah!

Priceless.

I HAVE played all the games, and there is energy weapons and fusion based power armors in all of them... now it is definitely harder to induce fusion technology into a small piece of armor then it is to introduce into a vehicle... its just plain logic, not that hard to understand.

Fallout's desolate feel and its setting doesn't really go along with a fusion-powered, missile-hurling, laser-zapping Big Foot truck crushing everything it encounters on its path, you know?

 

[Flashkiller]

Fallout's desolate feel and its setting doesn't really go along with a fusion-powered, missile-hurling, laser-zapping Big Foot truck crushing everything it encounters on its path, you know?

Who said anything about "fusion-powered, missile-hurling, laser-zapping Big Foot truck"??? I was talking about a normal vehicle taking me from point A to point B, no weapons needed...
But maybe that Big Foot Truck of yours would go nicely with the Fireball hurling, acid breathing space-orc wielding gatling guns...

There is no real problem adding vehicles... as long as you don't overdo it.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Well Dungeon Siege for one, it is not a Hack 'n Slash because no matter how fast or much you click it really doesn't make any difference. And it is a RPG. DS solution might not be the best for Fallout 3 but it is one way to do it and frankly ANYTHING is better then Turn-Based.

Come on if you are going to troll at least come up with something better than that, no way, no how is dungeon siege an RPG no matter what it says on the box. Some character stat customising does not an rpg make. Where's the role playing, the interaction with npcs, hell they don't even deserve to be called npcs they're just better armed pack animals. Even the manual tells you to strip them of all their stuff if you want to exchange them for another 2 legged mule. Shit if I was still playing D&D and some twat wanted to strip my character naked and leave him/her in the middle of hostile territory they'd attack them, both verbally and physically. Dungeon Seige, Dungeon Snore more like it , hell it's not even a proper game, it almost plays itself, with only the minimum of help from you.

 

[Roshambo]

For your information I have played ALL the Fallout games (and Lionheart). And I do not like Turn-Based gameplay the reason I have never replayed Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 is because of the turn-based combat system otherwise those games are really good.

Yet you base this all on personal bias and what your patience can allow, and then try to state your reasoning as fact. On the other hand, people do enjoy games that have some thought put behind their construction, hence Jagged Alliance 2 and Nival/Spiderweb/Troika's games.

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

No, it wasn't. It only appealed to those who couldn't tell that such a system, at its core, was BROKEN.

Well I rarely use the pause button in any rpg I play, and I have played through NWN, BG1&2, Ice Wind Dale 1&2 and KOTOR 1&2. And neither do I incessantly click the mouse... all it takes is knowing what to do and when to do it, and probably knowing just what your character can do.

Yes, go through the same animated sequences until you have the need to hit the hotkey for healing or a spell. Typical BioWhore.

Should probably also add that when I play FO I play as a sniper so I use aimed shot ALL the time...

So that could explain why you don't understand jack shit about the setting. I'll get to your ignorance about RPG design in a second.

Outside of eye shots, aimed shots do have a use, even in melee. This really wouldn't convey well with an RT combat system at all.

Well Dungeon Siege for one, it is not a Hack 'n Slash because no matter how fast or much you click it really doesn't make any difference.

Hack and Slash refers to the gameplay style, not how much you can click on the mouse. Even if your input is regulated to 6-second cycles, if a game is combat-oriented and mindless drudgery, it's hack and slash as it has nothing to do with tactical aspects of combat.

Frankly, I prefer Diablo's style of accepting user input than watch the monotony of the Inbred Engine games' combat.

And it is a RPG.

No, Dungeon Screensaver is not an RPG, moron.

DS solution might not be the best for Fallout 3 but it is one way to do it and frankly ANYTHING is better then Turn-Based.

Go back to the BioWare forums, kid. They enjoy this kind of idiocy.

According to you, just about everything that made the game's style distinct would be pissed away in favor of "kewl" bullshit and turned into everything else out there.

Actually I would enjoy going that distance on foot, mostly because of the things I would encounter on the way and I am an explorer in the way I play. I like to explore so the more there is to explore the happier I am. For example I explored everything in Morrowind twice, and I do mean everything nothing anywhere was fogged out.

Morrowind and WoW aren't 99% vast, empty wastelands.

Forgot about that, didn't you?

And what really is the difference between a world in a mmorpg and a world in a Single-Player game?

At first, I thought the question was rhetorical, but then I came to the realization that you're just stupid.

The differences are many. If you think someone is going to want to run everywhere for Fed-Ex quests or have to go through miles of empty wasteland to get to another location, then there would be almost exclusively negative reviews. Fallout is a world where locations are not close to each other, and unlike MMORPGs, it is mostly empty.

you can make a really long distance become not so long in a game if you only know how to do it.

And if you want to piss away any sense of distance between the locations in favor of some crackchild, unless you come up with something that represents traveling through miles of barren landscape...damn, now only if the designers had thought of that. They did, it's called a "world map". It is commonly used in single-player games to travel from one distant location to another without having to travel through what would be a redundant and boring trip. Now you want to create the problem game designers have solved many years ago, and make it even worse?

The above quote is also nominated for the most imbecilic garbage written on this forum, EVER. This is starting to remind me of the morons who kept going on about FOOL and how the map screen would work in a MMORPG, until we had a talk about relative and actual time, and I doubt anyone would want to play a MMORPG that is mostly desolate and empty space, but you never can tell.

I find it odd that you don't like TB combat, but then want something that would want even more drudgery added to the game.

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.

Yeah, I'm sure the developers would enjoy faithfully re-creating miles and miles of empty wasteland. Filling it with kiddy trash for you would kind of miss the point of a wasteland. Oh, hey, have you understood that the game is set into a wasteland yet, or shall we wait until you're done chewing on the dictionary to figure it out?

I HAVE played all the games, and there is energy weapons and fusion based power armors in all of them... now it is definitely harder to induce fusion technology into a small piece of armor then it is to introduce into a vehicle... its just plain logic, not that hard to understand.

Now is where I call you a liar, because if you had played the games*, you would understand the difference between the two. The power armor was in shielded bunkers. Vehicles were outside. Guess what comes from nuclear weapons that does bad-bad things to electronics?

The purpose of the Corvega was to provide an alternative to the EMP-crispable electric cars often used before the Great War to cope in part with the oil shortage (and the only way the Highwayman could run was with the help of a good mechanic and a couple of replacement parts).

*- (If you had indeed played the game, you would have realized that Fallout's locations are distant in a vast, empty wasteland.)

Now get the fuck off my forums or get a clue, you're contaminating them with your idiocy. Either that, or this is a trolling spree that will soon be put to an end.

 

[brother bozar]

What's wrong with 2D?
Here's a quote from Chris Parker, producer of 'Lionheart' :-
"You get greater detail with 2D and a greater ability to deliver with effects."
...games developers have been saying it for years that 3D cant compare with a beatiful detailed pre-rendered enviroment.
For years 3D has been polygonal and 'unshapely' and only in the last couple of years has evolved to mutch greater detail, which is extremely complicated and time consuming and also uses massive ammounts of processing power and memory ie. a high end rig.
I've played all the fallouts, all the baldurs gates, planescape,arcanum,commandos,div divinity and beyond div, and at least several others in the genre, but importantly this genre is largely defined by it's lush pre-rendered 2D backdrops. And it works really well and it's one of the main reasons i actually played all those games, because of the atmosphere and detail it gave.
(edit)
@ Flashkiller : It seems like you want fallout 3 to be more like 'morrowind 2 with guns', i kind of agree with your comments about turn based combat being too slow, i thought the system in FO Tactics was good with optional settings for turn based and real time(ish) and i generally played that game in real time mode and slowed to turn based if i was facing powerful enemies or using alot of aimed shots,- I'd hate to see turn based removed.... it just wouldn't be fallout.
We also really need party members for some company and someone to talk to and to provide links in the story. I like playing solo too ,but to remove party members for fallout 3 is silly.
The world map in fallout is one of the best i've experienced with the mode of travel and random encounters. Why change it? Play 'morrowind 2 with guns'.

 

[Rampancy]

Two Dimensional Graphics - I think this is self-explanatory. Too many casual gamers would simply dismiss the game if the game was pure 2D. Some would argue that those people are not what Fallout needs... but I just disagree.

The "Wow They Were Right" Effect - This happens in a lot of games, where a character guesses something, and that guess is taken as gospel for the entire rest of the game series. I would not be offended if Bethesda decided that Vree, god bless her heart, was wrong. And over that hill, there's a city of Super Mutants. Genetically impure Super Mutants after inbreeding, but Super Mutants nonetheless.

Canon as history - Tying into the second one of my comments, I want to say "wait a minute, thats not what happened during the events of Fallout 2..." If its been as long as I'm going to assume it has between F2 and F3, I expect sources in Fallout 3 to intentionally "get it wrong" - or even show that Fallout 1/2 was the one that "got it wrong".

Choice between Turn Based or Real-Time - Roshambo seems to be critical of the thing, but KOTOR's ability to let the player choose which form of combat he/she wants to play is the best fit for this kinda thing. That way, everyone wins.

Impersonalized movement - I'm not adventuring the wastelands if I'm a red dot slowly walking over identially-sized squares. Thankfully the company making Fallout 3 is the same company that made a game that made me think "Man, am I in Fallout, or am I in the Ashlands?"

 

[Roshambo]

Two Dimensional Graphics - I think this is self-explanatory. Too many casual gamers would simply dismiss the game if the game was pure 2D. Some would argue that those people are not what Fallout needs... but I just disagree.

Funny, I doubt that most cattle would enjoy the game on the basis that it's a CRPG. So why then should the game be catered to them?

The "Wow They Were Right" Effect - This happens in a lot of games, where a character guesses something, and that guess is taken as gospel for the entire rest of the game series. I would not be offended if Bethesda decided that Vree, god bless her heart, was wrong. And over that hill, there's a city of Super Mutants. Genetically impure Super Mutants after inbreeding, but Super Mutants nonetheless.

Try playing Fallout 2 and get back to us. Thank you.

Canon as history - Tying into the second one of my comments, I want to say "wait a minute, thats not what happened during the events of Fallout 2..." If its been as long as I'm going to assume it has between F2 and F3, I expect sources in Fallout 3 to intentionally "get it wrong" - or even show that Fallout 1/2 was the one that "got it wrong".

Disproving setting elements or having one of them change is one thing, willfully not adhering to the setting devices is another.

Choice between Turn Based or Real-Time - Roshambo seems to be critical of the thing, but KOTOR's ability to let the player choose which form of combat he/she wants to play is the best fit for this kinda thing. That way, everyone wins.

Holy shit, not this uneducated bullshit again... First off, no, Baldur's Gate itself did not have TB combat (and we've had to deal with this idiocy since its release), and neither does anything BioWare touches. The mechanic specifics of turn-based combat is where one actor makes a decision at a time, not some pausable RT where people just whack the space bar and then watch combat unfold with glassy eyes.

Impersonalized movement - I'm not adventuring the wastelands if I'm a red dot slowly walking over identially-sized squares. Thankfully the company making Fallout 3 is the same company that made a game that made me think "Man, am I in Fallout, or am I in the Ashlands?"

The ones making Fallout 3 are also champions at making a load of empty, useless space, to the point where it is nothing more than a waste of time that increases boredom with a game. The revision of this into Morrowind wasn't that spectacular. We do not need to make Bethesda think that is what we want for a Fallout game.

Other than that, thank you for not really adding anything to that topic point. It helps to have read the discussion, and right now you put forth less effort to understand the problems with this than Flashkiller. At least they put effort behind their reasoning, even if they were an idiot.

 

[Rampancy]

So why then should the game be catered to them?

I don't see making the game 3D to be catering to anyone. By now, 3D is a reasonable expectation {?demand} for most {?all} games of this era. I do not deny there are exceptions to this, of course, but I don't believe Fallout to be one of them. If you disagree, thats cool.

Try playing Fallout 2 and get back to us. Thank you.

I'm not sure how to respond to that, as you've not actually given me a specific thing to comment on. I'm going to use one in-game example, then: I don't care if the Fallout Bible said that Marcus's pregnancy-related joke was just that - a joke. I'd like if Bethesda looked carefully at those sorts of situations and asks - should it be a joke?

I'm sure you'd argue that the game wouldn't really be Fallout if they changed certain things (and I can certainly understand your point of view)... but I've always found that storylines can be enhanced by simply asking "was that character as correct as we assumed he/she was?"

Disproving setting elements or having one of them change is one thing, willfully not adhering to the setting devices is another.

Wouldn't disproving settling elements be not adhering to them? Take the Super Mutant Fertility thing. If Fallout 3 disproved that Super Mutants are sterile, would that not be adhering to the earlier game's "SMs are sterile"?

First off, no, Baldur's Gate itself did not have TB combat (and we've had to deal with this idiocy since its release)..The mechanic specifics of turn-based combat is where one actor makes a decision at a time, not some pausable RT where people just whack the space bar and then watch combat unfold with glassy eyes.

Never played Baldur's Gate; I was referring to KOTOR1/2. . But perhaps you are correct that this is not "pure" TB combat.

Regardless, however, I hope you would not deny that this "Pauseable RT", as you call it, was enjoyed by a considerable amount of gamers. I'm not saying that Bethesda should copy it identically - they should simply look at it as an option, and offer those options (among others) to the player.

That way, you could play Fallout 3 with a pure TB setup. Me, I would feel most comfortable with a Pauseable RT setup. Someone else could play the game as a pure RT game.

Would the player controlled option hamper you from playing the way you would enjoy? I would not think to speak for you, but I would doubt it would.

The ones making Fallout 3 are also champions at making a load of empty, useless space, to the point where it is nothing more than a waste of time that increases boredom with a game.

Assuming you're claiming this about Morrowind, I'll just say that there's more to do in those "Empty Spaces" than you're giving the game credit for. Oh sure, nobody is going to directly most of those things, but thats part of the open-ended nature of the game Bethesda is sure to add to Fallout 3.

But getting back to the point, "empty useless space" is exactly what Fallout needs. Its set in a nuclear wasteland.

 

[Roshambo]

I don't see making the game 3D to be catering to anyone. By now, 3D is a reasonable expectation {?demand} for most {?all} games of this era.

Yet run into numerous problems with design, especially in terms of needing newer graphics cards in order to run them with anywhere near the detail requred. It often results in a more sparse, empty world in terms of world design. Combined with Bethesda's inability to derive the semblence of a living world from an RNG, no. Oblivion can be nice and shiny yet otherwise hollow. It doesn't work for Fallout.

I do not deny there are exceptions to this, of course, but I don't believe Fallout to be one of them. If you disagree, thats cool.

So instead of hopping up and down like a monkey screaming "3d!", maybe you can give reasons that we haven't heard of already. Market prominence, if we were to use the same mindset, is hardly a reason and instead breeds a mentality that belongs in a publisher's marketing department.

I'm not sure how to respond to that, as you've not actually given me a specific thing to comment on. I'm going to use one in-game example, then: I don't care if the Fallout Bible said that Marcus's pregnancy-related joke was just that - a joke. I'd like if Bethesda looked carefully at those sorts of situations and asks - should it be a joke?

No, they should ask if it's worth to them in keeping the whole stigma of super-mutants as they are. After all, they were created a certain way, and as a result, have certain downsides.

I'm sure you'd argue that the game wouldn't really be Fallout if they changed certain things (and I can certainly understand your point of view)... but I've always found that storylines can be enhanced by simply asking "was that character as correct as we assumed he/she was?"

Minus the obvious fact of no young super-mutants around Broken Hills, along with the other important aspects of super-mutants in making them seem like a threat to the world in whole or in part, it would be hard to prove that mutants are not sterile. Otherwise, you might as well just call them "orc" and have them as a playable race for the most twinkish way through Fo3, as that is how most TES games are able to be played.

Wouldn't disproving settling elements be not adhering to them? Take the Super Mutant Fertility thing. If Fallout 3 disproved that Super Mutants are sterile, would that not be adhering to the earlier game's "SMs are sterile"?

For no apparent purpose, then yes, it wouldn't be adhering to the universe. If they were to suddenly pull some of the more grotesque stunts from FOS, then it would be unacceptable and changing it for the hell of it. If there was some setting explanation that fit in with the setting other than it comes from their ass, then yes, it would be acceptable, though it doesn't quite fit in with your example. It would take a good amount of effort to make it into something not contrived, and would have to be designed logically for those following the series to accept it.

For instance, the robots and "BOS faction" crap of FOT, the SheepClaws, etc. - none of this fit with purpose.

Never played Baldur's Gate; I was referring to KOTOR1/2. . But perhaps you are correct that this is not "pure" TB combat.

Regardless, however, I hope you would not deny that this "Pauseable RT", as you call it, was enjoyed by a considerable amount of gamers. I'm not saying that Bethesda should copy it identically - they should simply look at it as an option, and offer those options (among others) to the player.

That way, you could play Fallout 3 with a pure TB setup. Me, I would feel most comfortable with a Pauseable RT setup. Someone else could play the game as a pure RT game.

Would the player controlled option hamper you from playing the way you would enjoy? I would not think to speak for you, but I would doubt it would.

And that is where your understanding FAILS. The maps, the skills, the items, EVERYTHING would have to be tooled to use both RT and TB systems. Bullshit. I would rather have one system and done well, than to see it compromised by tweaks that have to be included for the sake of an option, rather than kludge in an option for those who obviously need Ritalin.

Besides, I think you missed the intent of Fallout to be a true CRPG - not some action-based dungeon crawl like most of the BioWare shit. Fallout was also an attempt to take RPGs back to their roots, which BioWhore conveniently ripped off and has been scrubbing their ass all over in favor of their automated and mindless combat systems. Again, no thanks, and that isn't what Fallout was designed to be.

There is a reason why developers cite Fallout as an influence and a favorite game. It wasn't for the "kewl minigun particle effects". It was/is meant to be an RPG, not some warped amalgam of the Action/Adventure genre that is designed to pander to twitchfest kiddies.

Assuming you're claiming this about Morrowind,

Context says that I was talking about before Morrowind, a system that wasn't really improved upon with Morrowind. Please pay attention.

I'll just say that there's more to do in those "Empty Spaces" than you're giving the game credit for. Oh sure, nobody is going to directly most of those things, but thats part of the open-ended nature of the game Bethesda is sure to add to Fallout 3.

But getting back to the point, "empty useless space" is exactly what Fallout needs. Its set in a nuclear wasteland.

Tell you what, Spanky. Load up Daggerfall. Now, don't use world travel at all. Go ahead and walk. There, enjoy. Except for one thing, Daggerfall's world was a lot more populate and nowhere near as desolate as Fallout's. Nor were the locations that close to each other as in Morrowind or Daggerfall. I have already stated why they used condensed travel time, which shouldn't be THAT difficult to understand once you are aware of Fallout's locations and the travel time between them.

Your next reply had better be a little bit more informed of the discussion before I Vat it for clueless trolling, as your only participation has been to ignorantly cover for a really clueless troll. You have been doing a spectacularly miserable job of it so far, as you didn't even bother looking at how their garbage was debunked, and I really hate repeating myself...

 

[Ashmo]

Hate to say it AGAIN, but Realtime with Pause is NOT Turnbased combat nor is it a variation of it.

The essence of TURN based combat is that the parties involved take TURNS. In realtime combat all parties act simultaneously.

Go and try playing CHESS simultaneously with the other guy and then please smack yourself in the face if you still haven't gotten a clue about what the difference between both systems is.

Saying that loads of people like a system and that because of that it'd be a good idea to implement such a system in a game which has always used an entirely different and INCOMPATIBLE system is bullshit.

That's probably the same train of thought that caused the existence of Jar Jar Bings aka Retarded Sidekick Character in Star Wars Episode One ("Lots of kids like retarded sidekicks, so we need to throw one in in order to appeal to more kids").

You cannot make one game to please all. That's bullshit. You can turn Fallout into Final Fantasy and maybe all the FF fanboys will buy the stores empty, but hardly any Fallout fan will actually touch that. It's a bullshit reasoning common to market people.

Try replacing the salt in a recipe with sugar just because sugar appeals to more people than salt and in most cases the final product will not appeal to anyone but a couple of freaks (FOBOS did something akin to that analogy but they replaced pretty much everything, rather than just a single ingredient).

3D graphics and 2D graphics are more complex choices than you make them sound. 2D isn't obsolete, it's just badly marketed these days.
It's less about the actual graphics than the things the engine provides to the player. Just because it's a 3D engine doesn't mean the player has to be able to zoom around, turn the camera and so on.

I can imagine the original point and click adventures on a 3D engine, but at the thought of an implementation of any of those TOYS my stomach turns faster than a tail-chasing chipmunk on speed.
Without those toys 3D and 2D are just different tools for exactly the same job. In some cases 2D _does_ look better than 3D although 3D is usually synonymous with particle effects, dynamic lighting and whatnot (most of which CAN be used with 2D just as well, actually).

Turning to 3D also oftenly causes the weird urge to throw in all the toys 3D can provide. That's why 3D engines tend to destroy the atmosphere older games with the same setting in 2D had.
This mistake is however oftenly expected by the crowd that cheers for 3D because that's what they mean when they use that term.

With a static viewport there is hardly any real visual difference between 2D and 3D, so in this case it's irrational to just "demand" the one or the other per se. The only thing you can demand is the (introduction of the) toys I mentioned before and if they haven't been part of the game before they can easily wreak havoc and destroy the entire look and feel.

Think about what you try to sell with the sole reason that "the market" (read: the broad crowd that doesn't know jack shit about technical details nor what they EXACTLY want) "demands" it before you try to make it look like a "must" for every game in future existence..

 

[Rampancy]

I'm not trolling, I'm just looking at this from a different perspective. I'm going to assume that you're focused on how F3 should stay the same, whereas I'm more focused on how F3 should avoid pitfalls that its ancestors faced. Horrible wording, I know.

Yet run into numerous problems with design, especially in terms of needing newer graphics cards in order to run them with anywhere near the detail requred.

So one of your arguments boils down to an inability {?refusal} to upgrade your computer? It is the user's choice to upgrade his or her computer; not the designers. They should not hamper their game by lowering their graphical standards - to choose 3D over 2D - simply because the earlier games in a series were 2D.

It often results in a more sparse, empty world in terms of world design.

I'd argue there's much more detail in Morrowind / Tribunal / Bloodmoon than Fallout 1/2. Easiest example of this is in the world map. Unless the player hits a random encounter, miles of Fallout's map consists of nothing more than a 2D square of art. Morrowind, on the other hand, has considerable terrain detail in each area.

It doesn't work for Fallout

Maybe we should hold off on judgements until we've seen something? Its easy to say "this won't work for Fallout" or "this will will for Fallout" when we've seen nothing - nothing - one way or another.

Market prominence, if we were to use the same mindset, is hardly a reason and instead breeds a mentality that belongs in a publisher's marketing department.

I guess we agree to disagree here. No matter the game, looking at what is currently accepted by the market (the entire market, not just Fallout fans) is a good thing to examine when making your own product for that market. Fallout 3 cannot survive on the title alone.

No, they should ask if it's worth to them in keeping the whole stigma of super-mutants as they are. After all, they were created a certain way, and as a result, have certain downsides.

I completely agree. Bethesda will have to ask themselves if new storyline possibilities (say, a super mutant town in Fallout 3) are worth violating earler canon. I'd guess that you feel it wouldn't, I say it may be worth it. Agree to disagree, I guess.

Minus the obvious fact of no young super-mutants around Broken Hills

Tycho's character image doesn't have a gas mask on. The Master refers to female Super Mutants, but they all look male. Vault 13's graphics say it holds tons of levels, but we only visit three of them.

These, like the "no young super mutants in BH" example, are nothing more than limits to the earlier game's technology. These earlier limits can - I'm not saying will or should - be used to start interesting story plots out.

I think I'm guilty of being too specific here: I'm not arguging that Super Mutants should be fertile, or that whatever is left of Vault 13 should be full of speaking Deathclaws, or whatever change Bethesda could do. I'm just saying that the possibility of these things should not be dismissed so quickly.

it would be hard to prove that mutants are not sterile.

To prove that Super Mutants are fertile, all Bethesda would have to do is simply create a child Super Mutant model, and sprinkle it around the map. By putting child super mutants in Fallout 3, they've proved that mutants are fertile.

there was some setting explanation that fit in with the setting other than it comes from their ass, then yes, it would be acceptable, though it doesn't quite fit in with your example. It would take a good amount of effort to make it into something not contrived, and would have to be designed logically for those following the series to accept it.

I 100% agree with you. I really do. I think we've gotten so focused on the details that the overall theme of what I'm trying to say got ignored.

And that is where your understanding FAILS. The maps, the skills, the items, EVERYTHING would have to be tooled to use both RT and TB systems.

If done early enough in the project - for crissake, most of Bethesda's answers about F3 have been "its too soon to answer that" - why not let 'em do it?

If they did it at the last minute - one of the X-Com sequels comes to mind - then yeah, it would suck. If done properly, however... it could work.

I think you missed the intent of Fallout to be a true CRPG

I did not miss the intent - I just don't feel that intent has anything to do with making Fallout 3.
Nothing will make me happier than see Fallout 3 be loved by the Fallout Fans, Kids Who Need Ritalin, Twitchfest Kiddies, Sims fans, PS:Torment devotees, Bungie Freaks, UT2kWhores, Shodan Humpers, Red Alert Noobs, KOTOR Fantatics, Doomers, Diablo Kings, Vice City Lovers, Mechwarriors, and every other major group of gaming fans out there.

Just as the Vault Dweller stepped out into a new world in Fallout, the Fallout gaming series is stepping into a world that is far different than when it left. Personally, I'd like it to have what this new enviroment has, historically, perferred.

You can turn Fallout into Final Fantasy and maybe all the FF fanboys will buy the stores empty, but hardly any Fallout fan will actually touch that

This brings up something important, I feel - in this hypothetical situation, what if Fallout 3 is bought by all the FF fanboys, and ignored by the Fallout Fans? This may be another topic in the making...

Think about what you try to sell with the sole reason that "the market" (read: the broad crowd that doesn't know jack shit about technical details nor what they EXACTLY want)

Welcome to gaming, and the gaming communuity.

 

[Roshambo]

I'm not trolling, I'm just looking at this from a different perspective.

Bullshit. Flashkiller put up their points. While stupid and incorrect, they were certainly more than what you have in your pathetic parroting.

I'm going to assume that you're focused on how F3 should stay the same, whereas I'm more focused on how F3 should avoid pitfalls that its ancestors faced. Horrible wording, I know.

That is the understatement of the week.

Yet run into numerous problems with design, especially in terms of needing newer graphics cards in order to run them with anywhere near the detail requred.

So one of your arguments boils down to an inability {?refusal} to upgrade your computer? It is the user's choice to upgrade his or her computer; not the designers. They should not hamper their game by lowering their graphical standards - to choose 3D over 2D - simply because the earlier games in a series were 2D.

Straw man argument #1. You obviously didn't understand the problem with increasing detail and the LACK of detailed 3d objects in 3d games. It leads to simplified room designs so lower-end users are able to run the game...but those objects are shiny! Funny how that works, but that is how it is done.

It often results in a more sparse, empty world in terms of world design.

I'd argue there's much more detail in Morrowind / Tribunal / Bloodmoon than Fallout 1/2. Easiest example of this is in the world map. Unless the player hits a random encounter, miles of Fallout's map consists of nothing more than a 2D square of art. Morrowind, on the other hand, has considerable terrain detail in each area.

I'm sorry, there I was again assuming that you knew what the hell you were talking about. I am sorry you had to resort to such a laughably bullshit excuse on the basis that Morrowind's world has locations.

If you had been paying attention to the discussion of 2d/3d, it would be obvious that it is in context of "world design" entailing rendering a multitude of objects, and not about locations. Even Daggerfall had a shitload more objects than Morrowind, mainly because Bethesda is focusing upon shiny over anything else.

Straw man argument, burnt down.

I have also noticed that you didn't bother to address the vital aspects of Fallout's world, another reminder of what I explained to Flashkiller. Instead, you decided to post some irrelevant idiocy regarding how Morrowind has locations in just about every map square. The locations in Fallout are MILES apart, where CONDENSED TIME has to be used on the map screen, to properly convey how far they are from one another.

There, I have now repeated myself for your behalf. Considering I had to do so after warning you, enjoy.

It doesn't work for Fallout

Maybe we should hold off on judgements until we've seen something? Its easy to say "this won't work for Fallout" or "this will will for Fallout" when we've seen nothing - nothing - one way or another.

Kid, I've seen where this has been tried before. It didn't work for FOT, it didn't work for FOS, and Bethesda has yet to prove they can make a CRPG of some other style than ProgressQuest stat/skill system meets a hollow, shiny action game. That style does not suit Fallout's world at all. If you can't understand that, then just forget about this topic.

It might also help to be aware of this topic, troll boy. That is but one case of their ignorance. Here is some Bethsoft fanboy idiocy, too. I truly wish it were some other way; so for the benefit of the doubt I'm guessing that the reason why most of their people have since been quiet could be due to actually playing the games, while having a slice of their own bullshit pie.

I guess we agree to disagree here. No matter the game, looking at what is currently accepted by the market (the entire market, not just Fallout fans) is a good thing to examine when making your own product for that market. Fallout 3 cannot survive on the title alone.

And now I get to point out, yet again after having told you to read the topic, about Ultima and other series that have since died due to the formula changing drastically away from what made the game appealing. Am I mistaken in using such an old example?

I completely agree. Bethesda will have to ask themselves if new storyline possibilities (say, a super mutant town in Fallout 3) are worth violating earler canon. I'd guess that you feel it wouldn't, I say it may be worth it. Agree to disagree, I guess.

That isn't a "storyline possibility", that is just munchkinish design theories.

Tycho's character image doesn't have a gas mask on. The Master refers to female Super Mutants, but they all look male. Vault 13's graphics say it holds tons of levels, but we only visit three of them.

All straw man arguments. There were children in the game. If there were super-mutant children, they would have been mentioned, at least in an off-camera capacity.

I think I'm guilty of being too specific here: I'm not arguging that Super Mutants should be fertile, or that whatever is left of Vault 13 should be full of speaking Deathclaws, or whatever change Bethesda could do. I'm just saying that the possibility of these things should not be dismissed so quickly.

They shouldn't be made ignorantly, nor should they be made in ways that completely change the setting without any due reason. There is a lot of lore in the game that just can't be waved away.

For instance, the talking deathclaws in V13 were eradicated. Harold is in Fo2. Now put in what errors FOS had, and nobody buys it. It is one thing to build upon a setting, another to make bad slash fanfic of it.

To prove that Super Mutants are fertile, all Bethesda would have to do is simply create a child Super Mutant model, and sprinkle it around the map. By putting child super mutants in Fallout 3, they've proved that mutants are fertile.

With bullshit logic like that, who needs Chuck Cuevas?

I 100% agree with you. I really do. I think we've gotten so focused on the details that the overall theme of what I'm trying to say got ignored.

No, your execution of your "explanations" are abyssmal.

If done early enough in the project - for crissake, most of Bethesda's answers about F3 have been "its too soon to answer that" - why not let 'em do it?

If they did it at the last minute - one of the X-Com sequels comes to mind - then yeah, it would suck. If done properly, however... it could work.

The tag line of morons everywhere. There is no "if done properly" with any kind of switchable combat time system, because at their core, the mechanics do not work the same. I am sorry I put it too complicated the last time.

I think you missed the intent of Fallout to be a true CRPG

I did not miss the intent - I just don't feel that intent has anything to do with making Fallout 3.

Unfortunately, most Fallout fans would tend to disagree, particularly those who don't require the game be turned into a crackhead's paradise. Most actually do get sick of the lame action crapfests most RPGs are becoming, and can appreciate games that actually try to offer role-playing gameplay versus just use the term as a marketing tool.

Nothing will make me happier than see Fallout 3 be loved by the Fallout Fans,

Then why do you post the stupid shit?

Kids Who Need Ritalin,

I don't care about them, because they probably don't care to play RPGs anyways.

Twitchfest Kiddies,

Again, I do not care about them, because they likely wouldn't care to play an RPG. So why should the game be made for them in mind?

Sims fans,

Another line of coke...

PS:Torment devotees,

And, amusingly enough, the combat is said to be the worst part of the game by those who can appreciate the game's construction as having RPG aspects.

Bungie Freaks,

I really don't care to make Fallout "able to be appreciated" by these shallow whores.

UT2kWhores, Shodan Humpers,

Funny. I like those games how they were made. OMFG! We need to have them appeal to the RPGers! Time to put in TB combat!

Sounds retarded? Yes, so do you.

Red Alert Noobs, KOTOR Fantatics, Doomers, Diablo Kings, Vice City Lovers, Mechwarriors, and every other major group of gaming fans out there.

If you're looking for Lowest Common Denominator, try Restricted Area. Now shut the fuck up and stop talking about Fallout.

Just as the Vault Dweller stepped out into a new world in Fallout, the Fallout gaming series is stepping into a world that is far different than when it left. Personally, I'd like it to have what this new enviroment has, historically, perferred.

Then go back to BioWare's forums, then. They have everything you seem to be looking for, without the price of trying to convince the fans of another game that their beloved title should be schlocked into the same shitty design formula of others.

This brings up something important, I feel - in this hypothetical situation, what if Fallout 3 is bought by all the FF fanboys, and ignored by the Fallout Fans? This may be another topic in the making...

Hmmm, funny. I remember the same thing happening. For Ultima and UO. In fact, most UO players had no clue nor cared to play the earlier games. Therefore, the game turned into little more than a moneymaking scheme that nobody who cared about the universe liked, and therefore Ultima died with a paltry offering of Virtue Raider.

The same went on for other game series. It would also have to avoid the critical notations by other developers who hold the Fallout series dear, because as I have pointed out before, other developers look to Fallout for how it should be done. When Fallout ceases to be in P&P RPG style (no, I'm not talking about the munchkinfest DMs), then it loses a lot of what made it so cherished.

Think about what you try to sell with the sole reason that "the market" (read: the broad crowd that doesn't know jack shit about technical details nor what they EXACTLY want)

Welcome to gaming, and the gaming communuity.

Welcome to a fanbase that knows exactly what it wants. Alienating the core fanbase is essentially suicide. That is, unless we can count on your replacement, Bethesda Fanboy #183, to come here and "show us the error of our ways and how Bethesda can do everything right!" because you certainly haven't been able to make many clear points at all.

Fallout's name is already known in the gaming world, and even mainstream sites twitch when news of Fo3 goes around. Fallout doesn't need eye candy and mindless combat to make it sell. If that is what it takes in order for you to like it, then I do pity you for not being able to appreciate a game's design to the point where you HAVE to have something to compensate for your shortcomings.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I guess we agree to disagree here. No matter the game, looking at what is currently accepted by the market (the entire market, not just Fallout fans) is a good thing to examine when making your own product for that market. Fallout 3 cannot survive on the title alone.

Surely the market for Fallout 3 is the existing Fallout fans? You can't define a market for all games, since they are split into genres, sure some games cross genres but most games appeal to their own small market, very few people play games in more than a 3-4 genres. And what works in one genre won't always work in another or even be welcome.

There's a series of adverts on British TV where customers go into their bank and want to take advantage of the great new promotional offer. The bank manager turns them down as they are existing customers, and the promotion is for new customers only. At the end of the adverts the pissed off customer changes their accounts to a different bank that offers them what they want and promises to look after their existing customers first. It's a growing trend amongst the service providers, to concentrate on their existing customers.

Making games like that, concentrating on initial sales and flash adverts/features to bring in new gamers while alienating your existing fan base will just end up with a crap game no one wants to play, just look at FO:BOS.

 

[Rampancy]

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.

Surely the market for Fallout 3 is the existing Fallout fans?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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 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.