Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,044
Tags: Bethesda Softworks; Fallout 3
<a href=http://www.nma-fallout.com>NMA</a> has posted <b>Rosh</b>'s opinion on that <b>Fallout 3</b> mess that <a href=http://www.bethsoft.com>Bethesda</a>'s gotten into.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>It's funny that some morons try to take this "you're just trashing Bethesda" route. That is really just a sad plea for attention by someone who desperately wants some relevance to the discussion and use some trolling method to achieve such (or really haven't read a damn thing and posted their own hallucinogenic-induced version of events), as they are mentally unable to comprehend that we're commenting on the fact that Fallout and Morrowind are leagues apart in design. I'm not talking good or bad here. The design, on so many levels, is extremely different. While I could imagine a TES game that was developed like Fallout, it wouldn't be TES. The same could be said about Fallout being made into an action game...well, we've seen FOT and F
OS.
<br>
<br>
Does Bethesda need to try for strike three, where the franchise is likely completely killed off because Fallout now resembles Morrowind, is no longer the CRPG that they expected from the title name, and the Morrowind fans would rather have Morrowind? What Pete said has a lot of more substance than the vague "It won't be Morrowind with guns" claim another Bethesda person made. I've heard enough "It will be Fallout, don't worry"
<br>
<br>
Give us the truth instead of the vague crap, Bethesda. Why did you buy the license, when it wasn't something you seem to prefer in development? Are you intending on keeping to Fallout's style, or should we just stop bothering to cover up this next example of "developers too naive for their own good who try to change a formula from what the fans like". Ultima 8 wasn't too far ago, folks, and neither was Ultima IX. Neither were the examples in the X-COM series as well.
<br>
<br>
If it was to make a quick buck, you might get a few sales from the more curious Fallout and TES fans, but if you haven't paid attention to the Fallout license lately, you're in a world of hurt if that's so. Fallout fans still remember FOT and FOS. If you're going to try and interest them with the same tactic, or try to bring in "new blood", we've already seen what happens and it isn't too impressive, thank you. You would have probably saved yourself a lot of money by making a post-apocalyptic world of your own than raise the suspicions of everyone who has played the CRPGs with their eyes open and a good sense of game design.
<br>
<br>
Hmmm, notice why so many news sites picked up quickly upon this? It's because people do want Fo3, but they don't want a mere Morrowind mod, or anything of the similar. They are expecting the next Fallout CRPG, and it's not just lame easter eggs (Monty Python jokes were lame in the second one, for class in easter eggs, check out the first game instead), a post-apocalyptic wasteland, and being able to kill people that makes up Fallout. Fallout's design is distinctive and people enjoy it for what it is, they aren't like the Final Fantasy kiddies that will gobble up every release with the name in the title. Many of the news sites, including HomeLAN, remember the bullshit that was shoveled with FOS by the devs.
<br>
<br>
I could easily name a plethora of design additions that would improve the Fallout world, including making the world interactivity more like Arcanum's, but none that would so drastically affect the Fallout franchise like changing the core aspects of the game. TB combat - the character system depends upon this, as does the playstyle and the point of calling it a CRPG; the isometric or maybe an iso-locking/adjustable viewpoint, to preserve the graphical pulpish feel to the game; the SPECIAL system, which is integral to the Fallout universe as anything; the fact that Fallout is a CRPG, not an action dungeon crawler like Morrowind. When I say "CRPG", I don't mean a publisher or game store's idiotic "definition" of increasing stats. I mean like a P&P RPG, as was intended.
<br>
(Hell, even those responsible for True Crime have a load of bullshit on the back of their box. Spot the funny, when the "RPG-style" is by playing a mini-game and getting a prize...just like most of every other action game out there.)
<br>
<br>
It's not just a setting to throw around, Fallout CRPG implies many things, and if you think I'm bad, at least I am polite enough to point out how someone has or might have their head up their ass.
<br>
<br>
The ball's now in your court, Bethesda.</blockquote>
<br>
Nothing to add. Discuss!
<a href=http://www.nma-fallout.com>NMA</a> has posted <b>Rosh</b>'s opinion on that <b>Fallout 3</b> mess that <a href=http://www.bethsoft.com>Bethesda</a>'s gotten into.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>It's funny that some morons try to take this "you're just trashing Bethesda" route. That is really just a sad plea for attention by someone who desperately wants some relevance to the discussion and use some trolling method to achieve such (or really haven't read a damn thing and posted their own hallucinogenic-induced version of events), as they are mentally unable to comprehend that we're commenting on the fact that Fallout and Morrowind are leagues apart in design. I'm not talking good or bad here. The design, on so many levels, is extremely different. While I could imagine a TES game that was developed like Fallout, it wouldn't be TES. The same could be said about Fallout being made into an action game...well, we've seen FOT and F
OS.<br>
<br>
Does Bethesda need to try for strike three, where the franchise is likely completely killed off because Fallout now resembles Morrowind, is no longer the CRPG that they expected from the title name, and the Morrowind fans would rather have Morrowind? What Pete said has a lot of more substance than the vague "It won't be Morrowind with guns" claim another Bethesda person made. I've heard enough "It will be Fallout, don't worry"
<br>
<br>
Give us the truth instead of the vague crap, Bethesda. Why did you buy the license, when it wasn't something you seem to prefer in development? Are you intending on keeping to Fallout's style, or should we just stop bothering to cover up this next example of "developers too naive for their own good who try to change a formula from what the fans like". Ultima 8 wasn't too far ago, folks, and neither was Ultima IX. Neither were the examples in the X-COM series as well.
<br>
<br>
If it was to make a quick buck, you might get a few sales from the more curious Fallout and TES fans, but if you haven't paid attention to the Fallout license lately, you're in a world of hurt if that's so. Fallout fans still remember FOT and F
OS. If you're going to try and interest them with the same tactic, or try to bring in "new blood", we've already seen what happens and it isn't too impressive, thank you. You would have probably saved yourself a lot of money by making a post-apocalyptic world of your own than raise the suspicions of everyone who has played the CRPGs with their eyes open and a good sense of game design.<br>
<br>
Hmmm, notice why so many news sites picked up quickly upon this? It's because people do want Fo3, but they don't want a mere Morrowind mod, or anything of the similar. They are expecting the next Fallout CRPG, and it's not just lame easter eggs (Monty Python jokes were lame in the second one, for class in easter eggs, check out the first game instead), a post-apocalyptic wasteland, and being able to kill people that makes up Fallout. Fallout's design is distinctive and people enjoy it for what it is, they aren't like the Final Fantasy kiddies that will gobble up every release with the name in the title. Many of the news sites, including HomeLAN, remember the bullshit that was shoveled with F
OS by the devs.<br>
<br>
I could easily name a plethora of design additions that would improve the Fallout world, including making the world interactivity more like Arcanum's, but none that would so drastically affect the Fallout franchise like changing the core aspects of the game. TB combat - the character system depends upon this, as does the playstyle and the point of calling it a CRPG; the isometric or maybe an iso-locking/adjustable viewpoint, to preserve the graphical pulpish feel to the game; the SPECIAL system, which is integral to the Fallout universe as anything; the fact that Fallout is a CRPG, not an action dungeon crawler like Morrowind. When I say "CRPG", I don't mean a publisher or game store's idiotic "definition" of increasing stats. I mean like a P&P RPG, as was intended.
<br>
(Hell, even those responsible for True Crime have a load of bullshit on the back of their box. Spot the funny, when the "RPG-style" is by playing a mini-game and getting a prize...just like most of every other action game out there.)
<br>
<br>
It's not just a setting to throw around, Fallout CRPG implies many things, and if you think I'm bad, at least I am polite enough to point out how someone has or might have their head up their ass.
<br>
<br>
The ball's now in your court, Bethesda.</blockquote>
<br>
Nothing to add. Discuss!
if anything vol is self depricating... 
