What can Bethesda realistically do to make FO3 not suck?

[MorningStar]

Could I have some background information on this "Mai'q the liar"? I couldn't be arsed to play Oblivion past the first couple quests.

He's a character that randomly says stupid things to laugh at the hardcore RPG players.
Like about the loss of features in the new games :

"Some people wish to throw their weapons. That seems foolish to M'aiq. If you hold your weapon, you only need one."
"Levitation is for fools. Why would we want to levitate? Once you are up high, there is nowhere to go but down."
"Werewolves? Where? Wolves? Men that are wolves? Many wolves. Everywhere. Many men. That is enough for M'aiq."
"Why would one want to swing a staff? A mace hurts more. Or a sword. Can't shoot a fireball from a sword, though."

 

[Jinxed]

Reminiscent of the average TES forumer. Indeed.

 

[Mikser]

I can vividly picture with my soul's eyes that they'll have two weapon skills Fallout 3: "guns" and "not guns". Your skill level will determine how much damage your bullets do. And grenades are guns.

 

[Micmu]

Your skill level will determine how much damage your bullets do.

The most retarded thing EVER one could pull off in a FP Action/RPG with player skill based aiming (Bloodlines had that, I think).
It makes sense in melee, but gun fight?
I am certain that this is exactly what bethesda is going to pull off, too. [/mandatory_bitching]

 

[Avu]

Could I have some background information on this "Mai'q the liar"? I couldn't be arsed to play Oblivion past the first couple quests.

He's a character that randomly says stupid things to laugh at the hardcore RPG players.
Like about the loss of features in the new games :

"Some people wish to throw their weapons. That seems foolish to M'aiq. If you hold your weapon, you only need one."
"Levitation is for fools. Why would we want to levitate? Once you are up high, there is nowhere to go but down."
"Werewolves? Where? Wolves? Men that are wolves? Many wolves. Everywhere. Many men. That is enough for M'aiq."
"Why would one want to swing a staff? A mace hurts more. Or a sword. Can't shoot a fireball from a sword, though."

The tragic part is that this is the best Bethesda can accomplish in the humor department.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

You mean when you hear the name Todd Howatd it doesn't evoke an image of sardonic, edgy, subversive humor?

 

[MessiahMan]

Oh, I think of humor when I think of Todd oward, all right. Just not that kind.

 

[JarlFrank]

I can vividly picture with my soul's eyes that they'll have two weapon skills Fallout 3: "guns" and "not guns". Your skill level will determine how much damage your bullets do. And grenades are guns.

Tehre will be two weapon skills:
"Things that go *boom* and hurt" and "Things that go *splat* in the enemy's face"

 

[Krafter]

There is no way that Bethesda will make a Fallout 3 that will not suck, especially when you consider it as a Fallout game. That is being realistic.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but it all comes down to the turn based combat. If they at least tried to go the turn based route (like, say, the Fallout games they supposedly like and supposedly bought the license for) it would show me that they possibly are ignoring mainstream "wisdom" and are really making an attempt. If they can't even be bothered to go turn-based, well, that's all I really need to know. That shows that they are not even trying to make a Fallout game.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

If they just make a good nonlinear narrative, involved quests with multiple paths and solutions, and decent dialogue trees, I would be pleased, even if they throw everything else out of the window. If they learn that from taking on Fallout, it's almost worth it.

 

[Volrath]

If they just make a good nonlinear narrative, involved quests with multiple paths and solutions, and decent dialogue trees, I would be pleased, even if they throw everything else out of the window. If they learn that from taking on Fallout, it's almost worth it.

Yeah but they need decent writers for that which they, to my knowledge anyway, don't have.

 

[Claw]

If they'd just make a good nonlinear narrative, involved quests with multiple paths and solutions, and decent dialogue trees, I would be pleased, even if they'd to throw everything else out of the window. If they'd learn that from taking on Fallout, it'd almost be worth it.

Fixed.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

If they just make a good nonlinear narrative, involved quests with multiple paths and solutions, and decent dialogue trees, I would be pleased, even if they throw everything else out of the window. If they learn that from taking on Fallout, it's almost worth it.

Yeah but they need decent writers for that which they, to my knowledge anyway, don't have.

Ironically their non-RPG's, Battlespire and Redguard, featured fairly well developed dialogue. Also they have quite a few new people. So it's not likely, but possible. I think if the design asks for it, they could rise to the task.

If they'd just make a good nonlinear narrative, involved quests with multiple paths and solutions, and decent dialogue trees, I would be pleased, even if they'd to throw everything else out of the window. If they'd learn that from taking on Fallout, it'd almost be worth it.

Fixed.

Is this the revenge of the grammar-policed, or is there wit here I do not get?

 

[JarlFrank]

If they'd just make a good nonlinear narrative, involved quests with multiple paths and solutions, and decent dialogue trees, I would be pleased, even if they'd to throw everything else out of the window. If they'd learn that from taking on Fallout, it'd almost be worth it.

Fixed.

Is this the revenge of the grammar-policed, or is there wit here I do not get?

He just put your sentence into the subjunctive because it's very unlikely to happen.

 

[elander_]

Yeah but they need decent writers for that which they, to my knowledge anyway, don't have.

If they don't have it it's not because they don't have the money and the means to do it. I think this is a pure economicist decision. Why paying for good writing when crappy writing will sell just the same?

This is another thing that pisses me off. Fallout had good writing and good characters, much better than anything we had at the time and they dare to defy the market preconceived ideas nad made an turn-base rpg. Fallout 3 appears to be the exact opposite of this.

It pains me to see how people are so naive to believe that Bethesda cares anything about Fallout 3 except for how much money they can take from it, but they will learn the hard way.

 

[Excrément]

TEH CHILDREN :
CGW: While we can understand the need to be sensitive to social issues involving the portrayal and treatment of children in free-form environments, it seems very strange not to see children in Oblivion at all….

TH: That’s something we’re dealing with right now in Fallout 3. So we’ll see how that issue turns out.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

So what's the cutoff point, 18yo? People just magically appear and birth control is mandatory?

 

[kingcomrade]

You mean when you hear the name Todd Howatd it doesn't evoke an image of sardonic, edgy, subversive humor?

Maybe sardine-ic humor.

 

[OSK]

There's no way in hell Bethesda will put children in FO3 unless they're invulnerable.

 

[Misanthrope]

Outsource all gameplay development to Troika and focusing on making pretty graphics and hype.

 

[JarlFrank]

There's no way in hell Bethesda will put children in FO3 unless they're invulnerable.

So they will all get the infamous crown icon of invulerable quest NPCs.

Problem solved [for Bethsoft at least].

 

[Mefi]

Yeah but they need decent writers for that which they, to my knowledge anyway, don't have.

If they don't have it it's not because they don't have the money and the means to do it. I think this is a pure economicist decision. Why paying for good writing when crappy writing will sell just the same?

This is another thing that pisses me off. Fallout had good writing and good characters, much better than anything we had at the time and they dare to defy the market preconceived ideas nad made an turn-base rpg. Fallout 3 appears to be the exact opposite of this.

It pains me to see how people are so naive to believe that Bethesda cares anything about Fallout 3 except for how much money they can take from it, but they will learn the hard way.

One learns to scale expectations. Downwards, true, but nevertheless one tries hard not to be disappointed by setting the bar exceptionally low.

My expectation is of a Oblivion type run-around game with guns. Oh and vehicles. Which you will be able to download customised packs for at $1 a go to make them truly unique. Extra ammo will be $5 a clip/shell/powerunit. Power armour will be $15 but will make you invulnerable but only wearable if you have already maxed out every skill or pay another $5. But you won't be able to fly because the game will crash.

To make me have any hope of anything different from this, I'd like to see Bethesda actually try to make an RPG again. A serious attempt to discover that magical feeling of an RPG again.

 

[Relayer71]

The tragic part is that this is the best Bethesda can accomplish in the humor department.

I don't know, I thought the interface was pretty funny.

And the fact that Oblivion portals pop up all over the place but only ONE town gets attacked.

Or the leveling system, lol! What a laugh that was!

And the funniest one of all: the "morphing" NPC voices!