Wolfgeist wrote:
Well, thank you for your response, albeit it rather harsh.
I am a huge Fallout fan. I have played them countless times, and my group of friends even played a tabletop version of it. It's just that times have changed since 1998, and I think Bethesda could do great. What I want is more than likely not what we will get, but Bethesda knows how to make an RPG.
I'll refrain from adding more of what YOU would consider flamebait however, but I find this as being a good move for the Fallout games.
It's wonderful that you consider yourself a Fallout fan.
It's also amusing that you have displayed no clue about the game's design. Maybe you need to spend a little bit more out of the hype machine and look a bit more at where such changes have fucked over game series MASSIVELY in the past. In fact, it's the main reason why most of the long-running sequels tended to flop.
Nice try, but you're now either an idiot or a liar (perhaps both), proven by your own words.
Kathode wrote:
It will not be Morrowind with guns. It won't be because we are not idiots. We are game developers, and we're good at what we do.
That is what everyone is worried about. People who think we will never progress beyond Morrowind are going to be in for one hell of a wake-up call.
I've heard better claims and boasts. Are we to expect a Baldur's Gate quality speech style rip in lieu of the usual speech options? After all, Morrowind's speech system wasn't anything special (and it's not hard to come up with something better than that) and now we're expected to believe that Bethesda can pull a hereto unproven aspect of game design (in regards to Bethesda) out of their ass. That's a fair stretch. The design differences between Fallout and what Bethesda has done before are both numerous and wide, not just in terms of role-playing, either. Mechanics and the setting are also quite important.
I glanced into the thread in question and saw this lovely snippet, among many.
Sucineri wrote:
Basically the SPECIAL system to me is about how it was for Baldur's Gate..and to an extent..Morrowind.
Basically you don't just run rampant and shoot like any normal FPS game..your strength or endurance or intelligence helped you to make decisions kinda how it does in D&D and Morrowind.
But the perks/feats you get every few levels is pretty much the same as Baldur's Gate..you gain a few levels then you learn something new..gain more, learn more..and so on.
I think that's why they flip burgers instead of game design. With arguments like that, Fallout's future is fucked into some lobotomized design. Uh...so why should the fans want to play it differently than before? It's funny how these kids think that a game can be thrown into other genres and mechanics and still try to resemble the setting. Most of them just understand that "Fallout = post-apocalyptic". After that, their ignorance doesn't allow them to pick up upon the finer aspects of the setting nor allow them to see why Fallout was designed the way it was. RT, FP, console, and much more would pretty much destroy the original design intent behind the game and would likely result in the franchise dying or an undead abomination of a title.
laggerific wrote:
That's hilarious..."That's not what we do well"...THEN WHY the frick did you buy the license??!!!
Bingo, folks, we have a winner.
I find the possibilities for this outcome to be:
Bethesda designs a game that more suits their proven design ability. It catches on and Fallout is forever known as some post-apocalyptic game where you kill things. (Possible, depending upon the integrity of Bethesda.)
Bethesda designs a game that tries to be like Fallout, but with Bethesda being unfamiliar with the design particulars of Fallout in a large-scale project, it turns out to be more like Baldur's Gate. In addition, their unfamiliarity with the setting may lead to a repeat of FOT or F
OS. (Most likely outcome.)
Bethesda only half-ass follows the design as set previous, and as a result the game is regarded as less than Fallout or less because of some mechanic(s) that Bethesda wants to be in there because they are "trendy", except for those few crackhead game reviewers that just doesn't have the concentration to play a turn-based game. (Very likely.)
Bethesda pulls it off and does as their boastful spokesman claims to be able to do. (See above crackheaded game reviewers remark.)
Development drops off when Interplay finally dies, Bethesda pockets the money. (Likely.)
Developers blame negative fans, a la Chucky. (Might be possible, though many of them do have a sense of humor.)
Sarkus wrote:
Its way too early make any judgements about what Bethesda will do. Fallout is a setting - it's not any technical requirments. It's not about isometric views or turn-based combat. If you believe Troika can create a first-person RPG with Vampire, then you are de-facto admitting that RPG's can work in any perspective.
It's also way too early to see where your ignorance of game design originates from. Was it due to not being aware enough of the games, or playing with your eyes blind so that you have no idea as to why the game was created in the style it was? It wasn't for looks, Chuckles.
