Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Interview Fallout 3 interview at Shacknews

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Briosafreak said:
I'll ask this again:



Given my assertion that

First person and Real Time combat are locked, there's no way to change that



Desslock from PCGamer, that went to the Beth headquarters had this to say:

Quote:
All I'll say is that you are wrong.

What does this mean?
It can mean a lot of things, but like I pointed out in my earlier post, the facts say that Desslock doesn't know for sure, otherwise he wouldn't have written "please don't use Oblivion action combat". Should we read it as the game is isometric and turn-based? I don't think so. The ONLY party that's interested in these features are the Fallout fans, and Bethesda is ignoring them.
 

FrancoTAU

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,507
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Until I read SP sucking the cock of Sacred 2, I'm thinking somebody just hacked the account.

I doubt Desslock's mysterious comment means much. At best we'll get to move the camera angle around from FP to slightly overhead. This overhead shot will be just as useful as the FP perspective in RTS games.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
He did initially say that he hadn't actually seen a build of the game, or any tech, in that article. In fact, he said it specifically so that rabid fans of Fallout (you lot) don't go and jump to any conclusions (which you seem to have done anyway)

Tell me something, did that Star Trek game they made play the same way as Oblivion? Forget that it got bad ratings, but did it actually have the exact same gameplay mechanics?

Because you lot seem to think it impossible for Beth to actually design different game styles. Which, honestly, is stupid. They make an elder scrolls game that is similar to the last elder scrolls game and you're all like "OH MY GAWD THIS IS PROOF THEY WILL MAKE FALLOUT A 1ST PERSON ACTION RPG!!!"
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Naked Ninja said:
He did initially say that he hadn't actually seen a build of the game, or any tech, in that article.
But he was invited there for some reasons, no?

Tell me something, did that Star Trek game they made play the same way as Oblivion? Forget that it got bad ratings, but did it actually have the exact same gameplay mechanics?
Bethesda didn't develop that game, only published. If you want to argue and make points, read some info on the subject first.

Because you lot seem to think it impossible for Beth to actually design different game styles. Which, honestly, is stupid.
Not impossible. Doesn't make sense. Would you expect ID (Doom, Quake) to design an isometric RPG? No. Why? Certainly not because they don't know how to play with the camera, but because it's NOT WHAT THEY DO WELL.

They make an elder scrolls game that is similar to the last elder scrolls game and you're all like "OH MY GAWD THIS IS PROOF THEY WILL MAKE FALLOUT A 1ST PERSON ACTION RPG!!!"
Really? We are? Link?

Here is my answer to your bullshit:

" IGNPC: Can we expect something similar to the work done on Morrowind, in terms of that style of game experience?

Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in style. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well."
 

Durwyn

Prophet
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
1,132
Location
Erewhon
Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in style. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well."
Oh Pete... sometimes you sound that you know what you're doing... sometimes...
 

hiciacit

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
406
Location
I've been there
GhanBuriGhan said:
Vault Dweller said:
Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say,

Let's not completely discount that part of the quote. Yet.

When was that quote from anayway? It might have been to early say back then, but that doesn't necessarily means that's still true today. :wink:
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
hiciacit said:
GhanBuriGhan said:
Vault Dweller said:
Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say,

Let's not completely discount that part of the quote. Yet.

When was that quote from anayway? It might have been to early say back then, but that doesn't necessarily means that's still true today. :wink:
The quote reflects common sense, not some specific design decisions. They have the technology and the experience making a certain type of games. Wouldn't it make sense to use both with a different setting to maximize the returns?
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
34,591
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
From teh intarview:

We believe in starting over and taking the best out of what we did, going back and looking at our old games. We had guys who went back to play Daggerfall and [The Elder Scrolls:] Arena to see what we did right there.

To see what they did right there?
"OMGZ LOOK AT TEH KOMBAT, Y00 CAN SWING YOUR WEAPON BY MOVING YOR MOUSE!!!!!!!"
"OMG AMAZING AKTION COMBAT SYSTEM!!!"
"AND LOOK, YUO CAN TALK TO PEOPLE!!!!"
"WHOA!"
"AND EVEN KILL THEM WHOA HOW AMAZING!!!"

This should be how it looked like when they replayed their older [and better] games. When they're going to replay Fallout and Fallout 2 to see what was good in it, they're most probably seeing Bloody Mess, lots of sexual themes and harsh language. And guns. And a post-apocalyptic world. They will totally neglect what REALLY was good about the game.
 

hiciacit

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
406
Location
I've been there
Of course, but I was just indicating that clinging to any false hope concerning their design decisions based on an "it's to early to say" quote, would be senseless if that quote was made two years ago.

In any case, that quote was an answer to "Can we expect something similar to the work done on Morrowind, in terms of that style of game experience?", so I would think the "it's to early to say" part refers more to how there own technologies/strategies would have evolved compared to Morrowind, e.g. including stuff like RAI. The state of Oblivion is not exactly promising in this regard.

Edit: in reply to Vault Dweller
 

Major_Blackhart

Codexia Lord Sodom
Patron
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Messages
18,433
Location
Jersey for now
I dunno if anyone noticed this but, from here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/83/15

"Like I was talking about before, with sequels, you have to define the experience the first one had and stay true to it," he said. "I think the first Fallout's tone is brilliant, but then they start to drift in the sequel and subsequent games. When it comes to humor, I'm very anti 'jokes' in games. Most designers try too hard to tell a joke, and it just doesn't work. I think good humor for Fallout is dry, almost satirical. Like getting your leg blown off, blood starts spraying all over the place and you get the little [PIPBoy] interface image giving you the thumbs up - I find that funny. Horrible situations juxtaposed against cartoon mascots. But that's just me."

Think we can expect that for our next game?
 

elander_

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,015
KreideBein said:
Aside from being quite stupid, this quote is also rather confusing. It very much implies that FO3 will be a real time game, but it has also been said that they plan on using SPECIAL. How the hell are they going to implement SPECIAL in a real time game?

Probably a mix of Bloodlines and DeusEx. But the problem would be targeting. Expect a ton of powerups and health packs all over the place hidden in hundreds of crates.

"Like getting your leg blown off, blood starts spraying all over the place and you get the little [PIPBoy] interface image giving you the thumbs up - I find that funny. Horrible situations juxtaposed against cartoon mascots. But that's just me."

The design leader of Fallout 3.
 

taxacaria

Scholar
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
343
Location
Waterdeep
elander_ said:
"Like getting your leg blown off, blood starts spraying all over the place and you get the little [PIPBoy] interface image giving you the thumbs up - I find that funny. Horrible situations juxtaposed against cartoon mascots. But that's just me."

right, Todd - that's just you.
I hope I can carve a wooden leg to continue the game after this great feature has appeared.
 

Crichton

Prophet
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
1,220
quoting Desslock-

1) Get the combat system right: A transposed version of Oblivion's action-oriented combat won't cut it. Combat in a Fallout game should be more tactical, allowing you to specifically designate where you want to hit a foe. It ain't Fallout unless you can kick a rat in the groin.

This is outrageously stupid. Hit locations are one of the things that work better in an action game because you can aim for that rat's groin yourself as opposed to selecting "Crotch" from a pulldown menu. There's nothing "tactical" about any game with one unit.

But this does bring up a point rarely discussed in relation to fallout games. If you could choose, would you rather

A) Have a turn-based isometric fallout game with control over a party of 5-6 to make skirmish tactics part of the game and trust that there will be enough party configurations that play differently

or

B) Have only the one character but have an action-based system to provide some interest in combat and trust that different characters will still be different

or

C) Have another single-character indirect control game a la Fallout/Arcanum/NWN and trust that watching different characters perform differently will be as entertaining

?

Edit: punctuation typo
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
Crichton said:
1) Get the combat system right: A transposed version of Oblivion's action-oriented combat won't cut it. Combat in a Fallout game should be more tactical, allowing you to specifically designate where you want to hit a foe. It ain't Fallout unless you can kick a rat in the groin.
This is outrageously stupid. Hit locations...
Agreed. It's a pretty laughable notion of "tactics".

There's nothing "tactical" about any game with one unit.
I still disagree with this. Consider doing an X-com mission with one soldier (if necessary, assume your line of sight extends further than the opposition). There's no amazing tactical depth in this scenario, but I find it difficult to see how there's "nothing tactical" about it. [unless you're saying that "tactics" involves more than one unit by definition - in which case your point is vacuous for anyone who shares that definition (and Desslock clearly doesn't)]
I certainly wouldn't be inclined to call that "action".

There are quite a few differences between single-soldier X-com combat and (random encounter) Fallout combat:
Units start a long way apart in X-com; in each other's faces in Fallout.
Most units are hidden in X-com; all units are visible in Fallout.
There's (often) a lot of cover in X-com; there's less in Fallout.
The cover can be destroyed in X-com; not in Fallout.
X-com areas usually have more than one level; Fallout's don't.
Shots can be made over much longer distances in X-com (without absurdly good skills).
Units generally die faster in X-com than Fallout (until you start to hit them all in the eyes) - fewer pitched battles at close range.
There are proximity mines, timed explosives, smoke grenades, electro-flares, incendiary weapons and motion scanners in X-com.

Pretty much all these factors (and possibly others) make single-soldier X-com combat more tactical (or strategic, or whatever word makes you happy) than Fallout combat.

Particularly since Fallout 3 is allegedly set in a city, I don't see much reason why combat couldn't be significantly more tactical than it was in Fallout - even without multiple party members. I'm not sure this would be a good thing though. It'd still be a poor substitute for multiple unit combat, and would take much longer than Fallout combat. (no-one would enjoy X-com much if every mission used only one guy)

I think you'd either want to make combat really good, or get it over quickly. Single unit tactical(ish) combat isn't going to be either of those things.

A) Have a turn-based isometric fallout game with control over a party of 5-6 to make skirmish tactics part of the game and trust that there will be enough party configurations that play differently
If combat were handled really well, I'd like this. It'd need to be better than Fallout with 5 guys though - i.e. starting toe-to-toe in the open with a visible group of enemies.
As you point out, there's the danger that all effective parties would be pretty similar.

However, I'm not sure I can see how there'd be time to do tactical squad combat really well, but at the same time not require it for the game to be entertaining. I'd rather combat stayed mediocre, than see support for diplomatic/stealth options disappear because the combat is such a central feature. (of course we might get both)

B) Have only the one character but have an action-based system to provide some interest in combat and trust that different characters will still be different
I'd quite like this, but then I don't mind action. I'd be very happy with a non-linear, reactive world Deus-Ex type game (with more skills, factions etc.).

C) Have another single-character indirect control game a la Fallout/Arcanum/NWN and trust that watching different characters perform differently will be as entertaining
I guess this is the only way we'd see any sort of party (given that 1st-person control is a (near?)certainty). I'm not too keen on this style. If I'm going to have a party, I'd like direct control.
 

taxacaria

Scholar
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
343
Location
Waterdeep
Crichton said:
There's nothing "tactical" about any game with one unit.

If you think about the companions in Fallout, you have more than one unit in battle.
Maybe they've changed the independent companions to controlled ones similar to FOTactics style.

Tactics in combat also can be the way to deal with more than one opponents, choice of attacking direction and distance, choice of weapon or other actions during the round.
 

Elhoim

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
2,880
Location
San Isidro, Argentina
Hit locations are one of the things that work better in an action game because you can aim for that rat's groin yourself as opposed to selecting "Crotch" from a pulldown menu.

But that depends on your twitch skills rather than on your character skills. It´s supposed to be an RPG, not a fucking FPS. If my character is a expert marksman, he should be able to hit the enemy wherever he wants, despite of my sucky skills with the mouse. Also remember that the enemies will be moving around, not standing still until you aim where you want the shot to go.
 

elander_

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,015
Fallout Tactics achieved a lot in terms in tactical combat and added both rp and rt as alternative modes to the game, but i don't expect this to happen in F3. But this is only tactical combat that will be diminished with a shift to action. Fortunately there is a ton of other skills that won't be affected by this.

If they get the character and faction interaction part right it could still be a good game. Fallout played in semi-independent "hubs" that were the population centers and city-states of the wasteland with interesting neighbor relationships and politics between them. This was a simple and brilliant scheme but i would like to see them improve on this. Why do we have to wait until we finish the main quest to see what happens as a consequence to our actions in each population center? Why can't we see more of the consequences to our actions happening along as we play?

I still have some minimal hope that in a future episode they replace someone as unexperienced for making rpgs as Emil or as delusional as TH by someone who respects the classics and understands why Fallout was trying to be the game it was in it's historical context and were the game was trying to take rpgs. Maybe we can still see Tim Cain working on a Fallout game one day.
 

Ladonna

Arcane
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
11,399
Nope, it will be a new franchise, and possibly a quite different one.

Wasteland was a one off. Fallout had two decent games. Its dead now. Time for a new game to rise up and take its place, but don't expect it to be an AAA title during the current era.

As for people who are buying the shit coming from Bethesda, don't be stupid again please. Go back to previous Oblivion posts and check out the hype then compare it to what people know of the game after release.

Done?

Good, now get over it already :cry:
 

elander_

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,015
Girl the only original Bethesda game i ever bought was Daggerfall. It certainly would be stupid to buy any of their games considering how they are decimating classic rpgs like sharks instead of making their own post-apoc rpg and prove they are worth something. Only loosers buy licenses to sell rpgs.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom