Games for Windows reaction to FO3 trailer

[Futile Rhetoric]

did you know you can enjoy oblivion without being retarded?

Live and learn.

 

[Section8]

Fallacy Of Extension

You had me at "phallus extension".

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't think it works that way. The only one who can take away the credibility of a poster is the poster himself.

Fallacy Of Extension

Not really, but thanks for your contribution to this discussion anyway.

Come on. We both know that it's not about different opinions but about really stupid opinions:

So yup, this is Fallout. I'm also now completely convinced it's gonna be some first-person Oblivion-style thing. ...

that's not that stupid, if it's in-engine, it's hard to imagine they will do an isometric game with such detailed graphics (even if it's possible)

Do you not see the irony and stupidity in this statement? Someone stating that this is truly a Fallout game and then quickly adding that it will be a "first person Oblivion-style thing"?

In fact, if Bethesda decides to take a radically different direction with Fallout 3, I'd rather that than a dull remake.

a lot of people agree with that, even core fallout fans.

This argument is based on a rather dumb assumption that a true Fallout sequel would have been nothing more but a "dull remake". Do I really have to explain this one?

Not with the amazing possibilities that Bethesda could bring to this series after knocking it out of the park with Oblivion.

did you know you can enjoy oblivion without being retarded?

Have I ever claimed, unlike many posters here, that only a retard would enjoy Oblivion? However, claiming that Oblivion "knocked the Fallout series out of the park" is a very stupid statement, regardless of how much one enjoyed Oblivion.

 

[mister lamat]

pretty sure the statement is in reference to the success of oblivion rather than a derogatory statement about hitting fallout with a baseball bat.

no one is out to get you. you are in a safe place.

 

[Top Hat]

I really don't understand the anti-turn-based thing at all.

They still rate turn-based strategy games highly (9.0 for Galactic Civilizations II, Dark Avatar and Civilization IV), so it's not as though turn-based is some kind of escaped leper. They've also have given the original OMGTEHHORRORTB Fallout 9.0 (although whether this is to add to the Bethesda hype I'm not sure).

Their sister magazines don't have a problem with them. I believe Final Fantasy is a turn-based "role-playing game" (I've never played them), and there's three in the top ten games on the 1UP website. It's not as though turn-based role-playing games are even impossible on a console; and having it turn-based means you can have several people playing at one PC/console at a time so friends can come over and play together and maybe think* "Gee, that's a good game. I should get it." Free advertising.

*I'm well aware that the majority do not think. However, there isn't a suitable synonym. Maybe "instinctively feel"?

 

[Bradylama]

You clearly haven't been paying attention. Now is not the time for another turn-based isometric RPG.

 

[JarlFrank]

*I'm well aware that the majority do not think. However, there isn't a suitable synonym. Maybe "instinctively feel"?

Breathe in the hype?

 

[Jinxed]

You clearly haven't been paying attention. Now is not the time for another turn-based isometric RPG.

It's time to see the fear in super mutants eyes.

 

[Vault Dweller]

pretty sure the statement is in reference to the success of oblivion rather than a derogatory statement about hitting fallout with a baseball bat.

Doesn't make any sense.

"Not with the amazing possibilities that Bethesda could bring to this series after knocking it out of the park with Oblivion."

The reference is clearly to the game design goodness (manifested in all those 10/10 reviews) rather than the number of copies sold.

no one is out to get you. you are in a safe place.

Thanks. It's such a relief to know that.

 

[Hazelnut]

However, claiming that Oblivion "knocked the Fallout series out of the park" is a very stupid statement, regardless of how much one enjoyed Oblivion.

I didn't take that to mean knocking the Fallout series out of the park. Now I'm not an yank but we do get a lot of US TV here in blighty these days with cable etc, and I'm pretty sure it was simply referring to the outstandingly brilliant and superbly sublime game experience that was delivered by Bethsoft in Oblivion... to their sensibilities at least.

Other than that, I cannot even begin to express what I think about what they wrote - but it pretty much parallels yours. Every sentence sounded like a nail in the coffin to me.

 

[Rohit_N]

Do you not see the irony and stupidity in this statement? Someone stating that this is truly a Fallout game and then quickly adding that it will be a "first person Oblivion-style thing"?

That's why he says "also".

 

[Relayer71]

I didn't take that to mean knocking the Fallout series out of the park. Now I'm not an yank but we do get a lot of US TV here in blighty these days with cable etc, and I'm pretty sure it was simply referring to the outstandingly brilliant and superbly sublime game experience that was delivered by Bethsoft in Oblivion... to their sensibilities at least.

Your Yank is bloody good.

 

[Crichton]

I really don't understand the anti-turn-based thing at all.

They still rate turn-based strategy games highly (9.0 for Galactic Civilizations II, Dark Avatar and Civilization IV), so it's not as though turn-based is some kind of escaped leper. They've also have given the original OMGTEHHORRORTB Fallout 9.0 (although whether this is to add to the Bethesda hype I'm not sure).

Their sister magazines don't have a problem with them. I believe Final Fantasy is a turn-based "role-playing game" (I've never played them), and there's three in the top ten games on the 1UP website. It's not as though turn-based role-playing games are even impossible on a console; and having it turn-based means you can have several people playing at one PC/console at a time so friends can come over and play together and maybe think* "Gee, that's a good game. I should get it." Free advertising.

*I'm well aware that the majority do not think. However, there isn't a suitable synonym. Maybe "instinctively feel"?

I think I may have to stop reading the codex until the FO3 shitstorm blows over. But it looks like that's at least two years away (1.5 years until probable release, 0.5 years of bitching afterward guaranteed), so I'll try to contribute something constructive for now.

In broad strokes, there are two ways of controlling a little character in a video game;

Direct Control: I press a key and my little character moves in one of the cardinal directions or swings his sword. E.g. Oblivion, Gothic, RtCW, Lego Star Wars, Jade Empire, Blade of Darkness, Morrowind, Deus Ex.

Indirect Control: I input a type of movement or action and a target location / enemy and my little character carries it out completely, moving to a given location or attacking a foe. E.g. Silent Storm, Fallout, Arcanum, Jagged Alliance, Final Fantasy Tactics, Diabo, Dungeon Siege, NWN, NWN2, Divine Divinity.

It's impossible to make a visceral, blood-pounding, action game without direct control. Games that use it but dilute it with things like "to-hit" rolls are generally very, very dull. (Morrowind and Daggerfall)

It's impossible to create a tactics game without indirect control because it's the only way to have full control over multiple units.

But it's possible to create an indirect control game while only controlling one unit (Fallout, Diablo, Arcanum, Divine Divinity, NWN). The problem is that it doesn't really provide any gameplay. Deciding on what action to take with a single character is trivial, the difficultly can come from execution, plausibly, in a direct control game; but if there's any difficulty inputing your orders in an indirect control game, then it's just sad (Diablo).

So why make single unit, indirect control games? I don't know. As far as I'm concerned the gameplay of fallout/arcanum/NWN/Diablo is the equivalent of being in command of 1 soldier and periodically yelling a new order at him. This doesn't keep me from enjoying Fallout and Arcanum for the content, but I'd vastly prefer them with some gameplay attached.

I would prefer a new fallout with skirmish tactics as the basis for gameplay rather than action, but a lot of people seem to have a real "Vault Dweller is the LONE WAARRIORR!!!!11!1" fixation which seems to let that out. If I'm being asked to choose between a game with Fallout's engine and one with GTA:SA's engine, then of course I'd prefer the GTA:SA engine, Though Silent Storm's engine would be better, anything's better than no improvement.

 

[Section8]

You're missing one vital point, Crichton. RPGs are not necessarily about "teh win". Direct control tends to detract from the Player->Player Character->Gameworld proxy, which is essential for making choices in character and also essential for keeping player skill isolated from character skill.

 

[Excrément]

[

In fact, if Bethesda decides to take a radically different direction with Fallout 3, I'd rather that than a dull remake.

a lot of people agree with that, even core fallout fans.

This argument is based on a rather dumb assumption that a true Fallout sequel would have been nothing more but a "dull remake". Do I really have to explain this one?

The question is if Bethesda make the game iso and turn-based, the remake risk to be "dull". Why?
Because people think they are not competent to do that sort of game. they never did iso and turn based.
But they have proved they are comptent to make first person view real time sandbox action rpg.
I am pretty sure they will do an horrible game if they try iso and turn-based.
If they arrive to have the fallout atmosphere right (and apparently according to the trailer, they, at least, try...), have good dialogue (which I doubt, but in daggerfall, the dialog were qite good so why not...) and do FP view and real time, I won't be that disapointed.
I'll be happy if they arrive to implement consequences to your action in the game (they never achieved to do so in any elderscrolls game so I don't have hopes for that point)

 

[Fez]

If they are not competent to do that sort of game it does rather beg the question as to why they bothered buying the licence at all.

 

[ricolikesrice]

If they are not competent to do that sort of game it does rather beg the question as to why they bothered buying the licence at all.

why do shitty popstars bother with making "covers" for old songs where the initial artist would rotate in his grave if he ever heard em - i.e. they have little to do with the original ?

at least most of those shitty popstars (if female) have some nice boobs to make up partially, so it doesnt feel that wrong compared to thinking about "rape" and the fuckface todd howard at the same time.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Imagine that moment in Oblivion where you leave the first dungeon, only you see apocalypse instead of green acres.

He left out the bit about how shit it all looked when you left that first dungeon and how stuff kept popping in and out of view. And also how every bit of forest looked like every other bit of forest.

Even the choice of that Ink Spots song ("set the world on fire"--get it??) was right on

This, as Section8 has alluded to, is what concerns me. The original Fallout was going to use that song but didn't due to a rights issue, so they used "Maybe" (which you'll note, has a tune which sounds awful similar to "Set the World on Fire" and all the other Ink Spot songs). In short, Bethesda didn't necessarily understand the tone of Fallout and make choices appropriately, they simply chose the song that everyone had been talking about for years (it was one of the questions in the Fallout Bible answered by Chris Avellone).

As I said elsewhere though, for a trailer, it does the job. It's nice and it certainly could've been much, much worse. I wouldn't get my hopes up though as we still don't know how many "Daedric Ruins", sorry I meant, "Brotherhood of Steel bases" will adorn the landscape. Given the severe lack of quality for the quests in Oblivion, that's also a major concern. And given the fact that Fallout uses guns, the whole first-person angle could play out very badly indeed. As someone said on the YouTube version "lulz Half-Life 2 rip-off" and Half-Life 2 wasn't even all that good.

 

[Mr. Teatime]

I find it sad that games journalism has been reduced to a hype-filled, me-no-engage-brain, ooh-look-a-bandwagon-me-like-me-like!, research-is-for-steers-and-queers mess. Surely it wasn't always like this. I don't see how it can be taken seriously (and games journalism isn't, let's face it) when the quality of reporting is just this low. It's not even about having an opinion which is contrary to mine or someone elses', it's getting the basic facts wrong and unashamedly proclaiming you know your stuff, and large sites completely happy to publish this shit. If this was the general journalism equivalent, like the BBC or a big broadsheet newspaper, this sort of thing would get laughed off the editor's desk, or at least called to account.

At the moment, the so-called professional sites look like they're run by a bunch of finnicky teenage girls in heat, but without the cute ponytails.

Meh.

 

[Excrément]

If they are not competent to do that sort of game it does rather beg the question as to why they bothered buying the licence at all.

did you know that in a capitalist system, private companies have the right to create venture, create revenue and make profit?

if you are not happy,try to launch a revolution.

 

[Fez]

I never said they had no right to do it. Don't be stupid.

 

[Mr. Teatime]

Actually, you know that philosophical theory, where you put a bunch of monkeys in a room, give them enough time and eventually they'll type the complete works of Shakespeare? I reckon we've just seen the work-in-progress.

 

[Excrément]

I never said they had no right to do it. Don't be stupid.

they didn't buy a product, a game, they buyed a franchise i.e a brand with limited possibilities. So the question is not their competence but their money and their ability to use this franchise in the terms of the contract. the contract say : a single player RPG.... We may have to look in the term sheets how their lawyer defined "RPG" but I doubt it was precised an RPG must be iso and turn based.

 

[Fez]

That has nothing to do with what I said or the subject of the OP.

 

[Krafter]

I really don't understand the anti-turn-based thing at all...I believe Final Fantasy is a turn-based "role-playing game" (I've never played them), and there's three in the top ten games on the 1UP website...

See, even there the ADD kids are taking over, though.

I do play the Final Fantasy games, and the last one's combat is amazingly bad, basically imitating a MMO. I couldn't bring myself to play it, I wanted the old turn-based stuff. Even with that game, the mainstream ADD idiots were praising it for getting rid of the "outdated" turn-based stuff. They want every game to be exactly the same.

Now, ask yourself this, if the mainstream idiots can not even handle the simplified Final Fantasy turn based stuff anymore, what do you think they regard Fallout's combat as? To the kiddies, it's far too complex, like third grade math class and thinking and stuff.

I still don't understand the mainstream guys. They supposedly like Fallout, but somehow don't like turn based combat, isometric views, and actual role-playing? I seriously doubt these guys even played Fallout, I think it's some kind of street cred thing.