Section8 said:
Oh, and while I think about it, when Pete Hines used to work for the Avault, as a big Interplay fan, they gave him all the Interplay releases to review? Talk about integrity. And it seems that slippery slope of whoredom eventually lands you in darkest recesses of gaming PR.
Emil also used to work for Avault. One would think Avault only serves to suck dev & publisher ass and export shitty employers to gaming companies, but Emil doesn't really fit in completely with that definition. That said, Avault is DEAD!
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?
There isn't much sense in attributing SPECIAL solely to a turn-based and isometric game. In the end, it's just a system of attributes with skills to fit into a reasonable perception of reality. If you're agile, you're supposed to move and coordinate your body better and so it affects various ratings etc. or so the rationale goes. The mechanics and the relations between attirbutes, skills and in-game actions could be made to work quite good in an ideal world; so in theory, there is nothing wrong about SPECIAL in real-time. However, we all know Beth isn't capable of realising this, getting it right. Therefore, you can bash Beth based on this righteous assumption, but not the idea on itself.
Since the game will be M, the only reason to not have children would be laziness on the part of the developers.
You better believe that, but it wouldn't be the sole reason anyway. Here is my prediction on why children won't make it into FO3: Since all Beth games are doll-dress-up games but that they are not competent enough to make the system support varying body builds (also one of the reasons given for lack of different body builds like fat people in MW or OB -can't remember which.), having non-monster characters with fixed outfit wouldn't be feasible. But more importantly, even if they could they still wouldn't do it; it wouldn't be politically correct. As if being able to kill children isn't enough, you would also be able to strip them naked -god forbid you're charged for pedophilia. Think about what blackharts of the world might do with dead and naked children if people could do
this in Oblivion!1
No, here is Todd's vision:
"...one of the most original and violent titles ever and will be set in a familiar US city."
Despite Todd contributing another bit to his mountain of idiocy, I don't think his own definition of violence is near anywhere traditional gore and blood-splatter. Dismemberment (numerous games), hacking internal organs out (Soldier of Fortune series -is there any other game with that?), multiple ways of dying (ie. electrocution, burning, melting in games like FO1&2, Blood 1, DN3D, Requiem); there won't be anything like these in my opinion. They are too lazy and incompetent to accomplish so many tasks (according to MSFD, Oblivion didn't have dismemberment only because the engine didn't support handling seperate body parts, which is bullshit as we know). Also Remember how the promised "visceral and adrenaline packed" combat turned out in Oblivion: pre-1.5 counter strike (when bunny-jumping and moving chaotically like a retard were playing styles that worked) with swords, the tilting effect when you got hit and the blood splatter around the surfaces and on your sword.
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)
Desslock is full of bullshit. Despite having said that he hadn't seen the game, he lets this "mysterious" air flow around him as if he might know something for real, saying things like "All I'll say is that you are wrong" about people predicting first-person. He just can't say anything straight.
Also, I remember an interview, very probably with Pete Hines, where the interviewee praised FO games but said that some of the features are old and just doesn't work today, indirectly hinting turn-based combat and isometric perspective. I've been looking for that interview with no success. Anyone else remember it?
edit: It was probably my memory playing tricks on me based on this interview:
Most of Bethesda’s games are released on PC and X-box. We’ve already seen that a complex RPG is possible on a console (cfr. Morrowind). Do you think an old-school RPG with lots of text and turn-based action like Fallout is going to appeal to, for instance, the average PS2 gamer?
Pete Hines:Well, Morrowind had over a million words of text in the game, and given the great success of that game on a console, I don't think text is something that will make or break a game. And obviously turn-based combat has worked well on consoles, since KOTOR blew people away last year and FF has a very large and loyal following. I think what we're finding out is that the stereotype of what a console gamer is, or what they want, isn't necessarily what it used to be. You can't define a game just by what features it has, you really have to define the experience. Some stuff works well on any platform because it's so brilliantly done, and some stuff won't work on any platform because it's the right features with the wrong implementation.
http://www.nma-fallout.com/content.php?page=fo3-faq
I probably took that part about implementation wrong in the past. That said, I thought KOTOR had RTwP, no?
