Game News The Fallout Game Informer article

[Ratty]

2. TB+Iso are NOT essential for Fallout...

Yeah, it's not like Fallout was designed to, y'know, emulate P&P roleplaying, or anything. Idiot.

 

[Section8]

The spirit of Fallout - we've missed it.

Why are people reading this quote incorrectly? The next sentence after this

We've wanted to see it in games again,

means that Todd longed to see that spirit again, not ignore it.

My bad. And here I was thinking I'd just humourously taken something out of context.

it's pointless in 2 ways:
1. Bethsaoft already decided the other way
2. TB+Iso are NOT essential for Fallout...

I assume some of the people working at Bethesda are still human and in that respect, it's fun to guilt trip them by illustrating that they're fucking whores making a game contrary to the wills of its biggest fans. Or in the very least, it lends a bit of reality to the ridiculous backslapping that seems to go on.

 

[sqeecoo]

There's good stuff in thata rticle too.

I think most people said there were things they liked in the article, but that there are no clear examples or descriptions of that stuff, and Beth has not lived up to its hype with Obv, so there is little reason to trust them now.

EDIT:

And that's basically all what they rant about there (and here.. and at Beth's forums). I really hope they will shut up with THAT stuff in a while... it's pointless in 2 ways:

1. Bethsaoft already decided the other way
2. TB+Iso are NOT essential for Fallout...

Well, it's nice to see someone agrees with you, even if you can't change anything. And to use the age-old argument, bitching about someone bitching about computer games is somewhat pointless, too.

 

[Ratty]

I think most people said there were things they liked in the article, but that there are no clear examples or descriptions of that stuff, and Beth has not lived up to its hype with Obv, so there is little reason to trust them now.

Yes! No one can deny that many things mentioned in the article are positive. In fact, if Pluto 13 or, say, Blizzard announced a game with a similar feature list, I would be creaming my pants like a sneeze fetishist in pepper factory. However, Bethesda has a habit of overplaying game features or even outright lying about them, so everything they say about FO3 is dubious at best. To get a more accurate picture of what FO3 is really like, one should instead pay attention to everything they *don't* say.

 

[flabbyjack]

Did you hear that? Radiant AI! Yaaayyyyy weeeeeee *FART*

 

[Zomg]

Or in the very least, it lends a bit of reality to the ridiculous backslapping that seems to go on.

Yeah, no shit. I'll take a hundred guys from east of Germany complaining bitterly in their most dramatic ESL about Bethesda than one fucking cunt that doesn't think twice about spending his spare time tenderly nuzzling the balls of for-profit companies that make SUMMER MOVIE BLOCKBUSTER THEY'RE RELEASING COLLECTIBLE GLASSES AT BURGER KING WITH ALL OF OUR FAVORITE CHARACTERS.

 

[bylam]

Did anybody read that article? That game doesn't look like Fallout, it doesn't even resemble Fallout.

All of the monsters looked like models from Oblivion...that "super mutant" looked like an Oblivion monster - and look at the shiny hammer in it's hand.

Good god, the game lets you "grow up in a vault". Sweet fucking Jesus. Is there a more idiotic way of doing a tutorial?

Vault 101?
Bethesda have confirmed that there will be a dog in the game?
Radio stations in the wasteland?
An interface that looks lifted from Oblivion (note the Xbox 360 friendly controls)?

All of you "it's better than I expected", honestly WTF? It looks exactly like my lowest expectations. Oblivion with guns.

See the journo comments at the end of the article - "Bethesda get it. They really do." Yeah, it must be because they fixed the third person view and are making all the gory scenes slow motion...

 

[Micmu]

Bye Fallout

P.S..Note how they called it "Action RPG"

 

[thesheeep]

Yeah, it's not like Fallout was designed to, y'know, emulate P&P roleplaying, or anything. Idiot.

That "Idiot." really hurt

So what the heck do you need Iso perspective for in P&P-emulation?
In some games, I would understand that, but surely not in every P&P...

TB is indeed needed to emulate P&P correctly, but then again... Fallout is not only about emulating P&P...
I think you got the game a bit wrong there.

Also.. I never said that TB + Iso would be bad for F3. It would be very good and a guarantee of fun, etc... but it's not the only way possible. People should be a little less narrow-minded...

I assume some of the people working at Bethesda are still human and in that respect, it's fun to guilt trip them by illustrating that they're fucking whores making a game contrary to the wills of its biggest fans. Or in the very least, it lends a bit of reality to the ridiculous backslapping that seems to go on.

Can't argue with that. Beth surely doesn't do what the fans want them to. Yeah, that's somethign that they CAN be blamed for.

Well, it's nice to see someone agrees with you, even if you can't change anything. And to use the age-old argument, bitching about someone bitching about computer games is somewhat pointless, too.

Yeah, I know.. and bitching about THAT is pointless, too. I guess we're all being a bit pointless in a way... It's just that I am really pissed off by people complaining about the same damn thing over and over again although it has already been stated before so many times.

In addition, most people simply say it sucks because it isn't exactly like F1 and F2. That's not a valid argument at all...
I really prefer people like Ratty (quoted before), who actually state something else in addition.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Some thoughts on the Fallout 3 article

 

[Rohit_N]

Liked it, but it seems a little unnecessary.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Judging by the number of "but look at the bright side!" posts, I felt that some things need to be properly explained.

 

[Ratty]

So what the heck do you need Iso perspective for in P&P-emulation?

I don't. Top-down would work just fine. Har har.

TB is indeed needed to emulate P&P, but then again... Fallout is not only about emulating P&P...
I think you got the game a bit wrong there.

No, it isn't "only" about emulating P&P, but that's the main idea behind it. If you don't believe me, look up interviews with original creators on NMA and see what they had to say on the subject.

Then again, maybe they "got the game a bit wrong".

Also.. I never said that TB + Iso would be bad for F3.

I never said you did.

It would be very good and a guarantee of fun, etc... but it's not the only way possible. People should be a little less narrow-minded...

Does that mean you wouldn't object to a third-person point 'n click Half Life 3? Or a turn-based cyberpunk Zelda? Or a first-person Starcraft 2?

This isn't an issue of open-mindedness. This is an issue of continuity. Or more precisely, continuity of design. A sequel should by definition have the same design as previous games (though improvements are certainly welcome and even expected), otherwise it can't be considered a sequel. Savvy?

 

[Amasius]

Some thoughts on the Fallout 3 article

Admit it: you only want to say "I told you so" after FO3s release. Again.

 

[Rohit_N]

Judging by the number of "but look at the bright side!" posts, I felt that some things need to be properly explained.

Never mind, then. Anyway, I've already posted it on GameFAQS, so we'll see if it really works.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

WTF?! What have you done?

Do you know this will cause a huge gamefags moron invasion on the codex like in that broodwar mission where you have to place that zerg-attracting transistor device into the enemy base?

 

[thesheeep]

No, it isn't "only" about emulating P&P, but that's the main idea behind it. If you don't believe me, look up interviews with original creators on NMA and see what they had to say on the subject.

I know, man, I know... F3 won't be a perfect true sequel... that was clear from the beginning. I guess I just got used to it... Maybe I should complain more... I just don't like being pointless and TRY to see the good things... which are still more than the bad ones IMHO

Does that mean you wouldn't object to a third-person point 'n click Half Life 3? Or a turn-based cyberpunk Zelda? Or a first-person Starcraft 2?

Yes. Except for the cyberpunk Zelda. The setting shouldn't be changed in a sequel. The game mechanics CAN be changed.
Also, I think you're exaggerating a bit, aren't ya? There is a little difference between a TB->RT, Iso->FP/3rd and a FPS->Point&Click....

This isn't an issue of open-mindedness. This is an issue of continuity. Or more precisely, continuity of design. A sequel should by definition have the same design as previous games (though improvements are certainly welcome and even expected), otherwise it can't be considered a sequel. Savvy?

And there I simply have another opinion. IMHO Sequels don't have to have the same design, for me it's only the setting and the atmosphere, which has to remain unchanged...

@ VD's article:

Ever thought about that this game will still be in development for at least 1,5 years from now on?

Maybe not everything is yet implemented?

Anyway... I agree with many of the things mentioned (I won't discuss every bit...). However, it's all speculation... even after that Game Informer article many questions still remain unanswered...


Ah.. btw... Charisma ALWAYS was a dump stat, in EVERY game. Except when your Character really needed it (e.g. sorcerors in BG/NWN, "diplomats" (science,speech, etc. as skills) in Fallout, and so on...).

 

[Woetohice]

__

 

[sqeecoo]

That "Idiot." really hurt

I am sure he didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

TB is indeed needed to emulate P&P correctly, but then again... Fallout is not only about emulating P&P...
I think you got the game a bit wrong there.

I agree.

Also.. I never said that TB + Iso would be bad for F3. It would be very good and a guarantee of fun, etc... but it's not the only way possible. People should be a little less narrow-minded...

I completely agree that Iso is not necessary for FO. However, it's more in the spirit of FO, and I would prefer it, for reasons I will not go into now.

But in my opinion, TB *is* needed if you want a *RPG* in a game with lots of combat that involves guns. While RT combat can work (like in Gothic) in a RPG that has swords and the like (skills still determine which weapons you can use, and the speed, style, and efficiency of your attacks), if you are shooting a gun, there is not much a skill can influence, that can't be fairly easily circumvented by a player with good FPS skills. This means that diplomats will be almost as good in combat as dedicated shooters. The speed of gunfights in RT (and not so much in swordfights) also changes the pace and style of the game (shooting and strafing vs. planning).
This is a fundamental change to the gameplay.
At best, you could have something like Stalker. This is not a RPG, however, but a FPS with RPG elements. For instance, a RT remake of Jagged alliance or X-com, or a TB remake of Diablo or Half-life might still be very good, but they would be different games in style and pacing.

It is still possible that the game has good dialogues or a branching storyline with meaningful choices and consequences. This, along with the style (artwork, atmosphere) is what's most best in FO. However, without TB&Iso the *type* of game is different, because the gameplay is siginficantly different (much more action, less thinking). You could remake HL2 into a RPG, but it would be a different game. There are FPSs aplenty currently, but no good RPGs, so it's understandable that some people are disappointed that we are not getting a real RPG, even if some elements that were the main strenghts of FO are retained.

However, this seems unlikely: the choices and consequences are vaguely mentioned, but they were also advertised in Obv, but not delivered. The style and setting are quite different.

So, to sum up my arguments, TB is very important (especially in a game with guns) in making character choices significant. Also, switching from TB&Iso to RT/FP fundamentally changes the pacing and style of the game. Some good points of FO could still be present, but this seems unlikely.

I would say this is ample cause for disappointment, if you like FO and RPGs.

 

[Needles]

TB is indeed needed to emulate P&P correctly, but then again... Fallout is not only about emulating P&P...
I think you got the game a bit wrong there.

Paper and pencil role-playing games were the single biggest influence. We had a goal of trying to recreate the tabletop gaming experience as best as possible. For the most part, I think we succeeded.

 

[sqeecoo]

That "Idiot." really hurt

I am sure he didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

TB is indeed needed to emulate P&P correctly, but then again... Fallout is not only about emulating P&P...
I think you got the game a bit wrong there.

I agree.

Also.. I never said that TB + Iso would be bad for F3. It would be very good and a guarantee of fun, etc... but it's not the only way possible. People should be a little less narrow-minded...

I completely agree that Iso is not necessary for FO. However, it's more in the spirit of FO, and I would prefer it, for reasons I will not go into now EDIT: one of the reasons is that Iso allows for a more detailed and bigger world, content wise, because it handles abstraction better.

But in my opinion, TB *is* needed if you want a *RPG* in a game with lots of combat that involves guns. While RT combat can work (like in Gothic) in a RPG that has swords and the like (skills still determine which weapons you can use, and the speed, style, and efficiency of your attacks), if you are shooting a gun, there is not much a skill can influence, that can't be fairly easily circumvented by a player with good FPS skills. This means that diplomats will be almost as good in combat as dedicated shooters. The speed of gunfights in RT (and not so much in swordfights) also changes the pace and style of the game (shooting and strafing vs. planning).
This is a fundamental change to the gameplay EDIT: and atmosphere!
At best, you could have something like Stalker. This is not a RPG, however, but a FPS with RPG elements. For instance, a RT remake of Jagged alliance or X-com, or a TB remake of Diablo or Half-life might still be very good, but they would be different games in style and pacing.

It is still possible that the game has good dialogues or a branching storyline with meaningful choices and consequences. This, along with the style (artwork, atmosphere) is what's most best in FO. However, without TB&Iso the *type* of game is different, because the gameplay is siginficantly different (much more action, less thinking). You could remake HL2 into a RPG, but it would be a different game. There are FPSs aplenty currently, but no good RPGs, so it's understandable that some people are disappointed that we are not getting a real RPG, even if some elements that were the main strenghts of FO are retained.

However, this seems unlikely: the choices and consequences are vaguely mentioned, but they were also advertised in Obv, but not delivered. The style and setting are quite different.

So, to sum up my arguments, TB is very important (especially in a game with guns) in making character choices significant. Also, switching from TB&Iso to RT/FP fundamentally changes the pacing and style of the game EDIT: and also the general atmosphere. Some good points of FO could still be present, but this seems unlikely.

I would say this is ample cause for disappointment, if you like FO and RPGs.

EDIT: oops, clicked the quote button instead of the edit button on my previous post. Sorry.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Needles, I think your basing your argument on some vague statement maybe, I haven't really read any of your other posts though.

 

[Ratty]

And there I simply have another opinion. IMHO Sequels don't have to have the same design, for me it's only the setting and the atmosphere, which has to remain unchanged...

No offense, but your opinion sucks. We are talking about games here, not books or movies. Setting and atmosphere are just one facet of a game. Design is another, and arguably far more important one. These days it's easy to overlook the importance of design, seeing as it often takes a backseat to setting and storytelling. In NWN2, for example, gameplay is little more than filler you have to get through in order to see the plot unfold in yet another dramatic exchange between main characters. However, that's a very flawed perception of what constitutes a game. Why it's flawed becomes instantly obvious when you consider games like Tetris or Lemmings that don't even have a setting, or barely have one. If Lemmings 2 had drastically changed the original's gameplay, what would be left that would make it Lemmings?

 

[Needles]

Needles, I think your basing your argument on some vague statement maybe, I haven't really read any of your other posts though.

I haven't posted much on the codex really... mostly enjoying the show (i.e. been only registered for a few months here, but lurking since 2004 or something).
My quote was from an interview with Chris Taylor at NMA: http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=7248

I rememberother FO creators saying similar things but can't provide actual quotes here.

 

[Zomg]

The "emulating P&P" line of argumentation sucks. That's not an implicit argument against TB or iso or whatever, it's just that P&P RPGs and CRPGs are completely different and one emulating the other is going to blow dicks. Bioware tries to "emulate P&P" by forcing a P&P style party of pseudo-PCs on you that want to spray their life stories at the first opportunity. The strengths of computers should be leveraged and the weaknesses minimized - that's good design.

Now, in FO3's case not doing TB or ISO has absolutely nothing to do with any design decision, and arguing for or against it on the basis of design is a big fucking joke.