Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: diceman111 on May 14, 2007, 03:23:06 pm
-
Ok figured I should start a new thread since the other thread was about the Van Buren Tech Demo
For those of you who dont get Bethesda Newsletter you migth not know that there is an offical Fallout 3 page now http://fallout.bethsoft.com/index.html
Granted its only two pictures (not from the game I think) and a countdown for the teaser.
Also there was a pressrelease http://www.bethsoft.com/news/pressrelease_050807.htm about Liam Neeson to star in Fallout 3
/Dice
-
It's been all over then net. Not exactly filling me with confidence, but I doubt much would short of gameplay shots.
-
Well the teaser is out...
And OMG, THAT IS FALLOUT
-
I am impressed by the art direction. As long as the plot and dialog are good, I'll be happy.
-
Seconded.
But atleast this trailer was a step forward into believing they are in the right track (getting the mood right)
-
I am impressed by the art direction. As long as the plot and dialog are good, I'll be happy.
Something else that worries me is the combat. A few first person RPGs (since their last two games followed this formula, I wouldn't be surprised if this one did too) have turned out pretty well, but I'm afraid it'll devolve into a click and twitch fest. At the expense of sounding like a whiny fanboy, that isn't Fallout.
Oh, I liked the trailer. I want more!
-
It's been all over then net. Not exactly filling me with confidence, but I doubt much would short of gameplay shots.
the trailer's in-engine, too.
-
It's been all over then net. Not exactly filling me with confidence, but I doubt much would short of gameplay shots.
the trailer's in-engine, too.
And with Ron Perlman. :yes:
-
the trailer's in-engine, too.
How do you know that?
And the trailer friggin' rocks! It doesn't have much content but it is a bloody Fallout allright. The classic "War, war never changes" sent the chills down my spine. I can't wait for it.
Something else that worries me is the combat. A few first person RPGs (since their last two games followed this formula, I wouldn't be surprised if this one did too) have turned out pretty well, but I'm afraid it'll devolve into a click and twitch fest. At the expense of sounding like a whiny fanboy, that isn't Fallout.
I couldn't care less if F3 is 1st, 3rd or isometric, turn or real-time based as long as the mood and atmosphere is 100% Fallout. In fact, I would probably enjoy 1st person real-time Fallout more.
-
I am impressed by the art direction. As long as the plot and dialog are good, I'll be happy.
Something else that worries me is the combat. A few first person RPGs (since their last two games followed this formula, I wouldn't be surprised if this one did too) have turned out pretty well, but I'm afraid it'll devolve into a click and twitch fest. At the expense of sounding like a whiny fanboy, that isn't Fallout.
Oh, I liked the trailer. I want more!
We have no way of knowing until we have footage of the game or the game itself.
-
The teaser is much better. I've heard it's not in-game, but rather pre-rendered using in-game assets.
Still no gameplay shots, but it does show they get fallout, or at the very least know it some.
-
I really liked the teaser, this will actually turn out be a great game IMO.
-
I reallt liked the trailer but I didnt liked what it said at the end of it "Fall 2008" well atleast let us hope they use the time wisely
/Dice
-
Fallout 3 will be an awfully great game. Loved the first two episodes, altough it never reached Planescape Torment
-
the trailer's in-engine, too.
How do you know that?
And the trailer friggin' rocks! It doesn't have much content but it is a bloody Fallout allright. The classic "War, war never changes" sent the chills down my spine. I can't wait for it.
Something else that worries me is the combat. A few first person RPGs (since their last two games followed this formula, I wouldn't be surprised if this one did too) have turned out pretty well, but I'm afraid it'll devolve into a click and twitch fest. At the expense of sounding like a whiny fanboy, that isn't Fallout.
I couldn't care less if F3 is 1st, 3rd or isometric, turn or real-time based as long as the mood and atmosphere is 100% Fallout. In fact, I would probably enjoy 1st person real-time Fallout more.
http://au.pc.gamespy.com/pc/fallout-3/794187p1.html
and note, on the BoS soldier, there's some clipping on his arm there, near the elbow joint, the wires in the radio aren't smooth, and you can pick the textures out fairly well. ;)
-
Nah, I don't think it's actually in-engine. There's a lot of post processing going on there. I'd say it's more likely they pre-rendered the scene but used the in-game assets.
Looks neat, but I've never really been able to get into Fallout.
-
Nah, I don't think it's actually in-engine. There's a lot of post processing going on there. I'd say it's more likely they pre-rendered the scene but used the in-game assets.
Looks neat, but I've never really been able to get into Fallout.
a lot of modern games do a lot of post-processing in-engine, don't forget. shaders are fairly advanced..
-
If the trailer, with that amount of detail, was done in-game then it means that it's almost certainly going to be first or close-in-third person perspective. Which in turn probably means it'll be a real time affair.
-
I am impressed by the art direction. As long as the plot and dialog are good, I'll be happy.
Something else that worries me is the combat. A few first person RPGs (since their last two games followed this formula, I wouldn't be surprised if this one did too) have turned out pretty well, but I'm afraid it'll devolve into a click and twitch fest. At the expense of sounding like a whiny fanboy, that isn't Fallout.
Oh, I liked the trailer. I want more!
Well the whole concept behind fallout is what worries me the most (the dialogue, that action\consequence thingy, moral dillemas etc).
Tbh I think the game would only win if it was in RT, although not an FPS for sure
-
If they did a real Fallout game (which I'm still harbouring a small hope for) then it won't sell well. It's pretty clear from the market that FO isn't the type of game that sells big. I'm hoping I'm wrong.
-
IMO, that depends what a "real" Fallout game means for you. That is, what particular elements made what is Fallout.
For instance, I don't consider that TB+ISO is what makes a real Fallout game (in oposition of those more hardcore fans). I also think that sticking to that would indeed make it not sell.
Personally a "real" Fallout game is a retro 50's post nuclear setting, with gritty humour, compelling dialogue, moral dillema, freedom of choice (and I mean choice ie. cause\effect), consequences, a bit of free roaming, having the possibility of making any kind of character (and ending the game without firing a single shot). I think that would sell (KOtOR sold, Mass Effect is most probably going to sell, etc)
-
KotOR sold, but it's merely only a fraction of a fraction of the open-endedness and expansiveness of what FO was. I myself am not interested in ISO+TB either (although TB in the KotOR style would be nice) but something as big as FO could simply be too much for people who want a quick fix.
SupCom takes a week to learn to play properly and you have to do it online. That's already sufficient for a great deal of players to dismiss it as "very slow" and "having identical sides".
-
well theres 2 kinds of gamers:
- the ones that just want a "quick fix", as you put it: tbh these arent the gamer an rpg should aim for
- the ones that want a complex game
-
KotOR sold, but it's merely only a fraction of a fraction of the open-endedness and expansiveness of what FO was. I myself am not interested in ISO+TB either (although TB in the KotOR style would be nice) but something as big as FO could simply be too much for people who want a quick fix.
SupCom takes a week to learn to play properly and you have to do it online. That's already sufficient for a great deal of players to dismiss it as "very slow" and "having identical sides".
I don't think that hypothetical quick fix players not buying the FO game is any kind of critique at FO game itself.
-
IMO, that depends what a "real" Fallout game means for you. That is, what particular elements made what is Fallout.
For instance, I don't consider that TB+ISO is what makes a real Fallout game (in oposition of those more hardcore fans). I also think that sticking to that would indeed make it not sell.
Personally a "real" Fallout game is a retro 50's post nuclear setting, with gritty humour, compelling dialogue, moral dillema, freedom of choice (and I mean choice ie. cause\effect), consequences, a bit of free roaming, having the possibility of making any kind of character (and ending the game without firing a single shot). I think that would sell (KOtOR sold, Mass Effect is most probably going to sell, etc)
All those things are important, but I think it's only part of the equation. Iso is more a camera position then a gameplay mechanic, but I think calling a game a real fallout game without keeping much of the underlying game mechanics is missing a large part of the equation.
-
I don't think that hypothetical quick fix players not buying the FO game is any kind of critique at FO game itself.
And if you read what I was writing, I'm not saying that either.
I said that I fear the game will end up with enough compromises for such players that the FO part might end up (severely) lacking. Hopefully I'm wrong and I'll judge the game after it comes out, but at the same time I'm not holding my breath.
-
SupCom takes a week to learn to play properly and you have to do it online. That's already sufficient for a great deal of players to dismiss it as "very slow" and "having identical sides".
Yes well Fallout 1&2 took about 10min or so to learn so I really dont think thats a problem
-
:embarrassed:
I easily spent more than 10 minutes just on the character creator >_>
-
IMO, that depends what a "real" Fallout game means for you. That is, what particular elements made what is Fallout.
For instance, I don't consider that TB+ISO is what makes a real Fallout game (in oposition of those more hardcore fans). I also think that sticking to that would indeed make it not sell.
Personally a "real" Fallout game is a retro 50's post nuclear setting, with gritty humour, compelling dialogue, moral dillema, freedom of choice (and I mean choice ie. cause\effect), consequences, a bit of free roaming, having the possibility of making any kind of character (and ending the game without firing a single shot). I think that would sell (KOtOR sold, Mass Effect is most probably going to sell, etc)
All those things are important, but I think it's only part of the equation. Iso is more a camera position then a gameplay mechanic, but I think calling a game a real fallout game without keeping much of the underlying game mechanics is missing a large part of the equation.
the whole Iso debate is for the drooling fanboys to chew over, the ones that don't see the underlying strata of the game for what it is. if it keeps the same feel, the "Grit" of the retro-50's styled futuretech in a post-apoc setting, complete with all that's entailed, of course that won't stop folks from making comparisons, naturally. what's gonna be important is what'll hopefully set it apart from other games.
-
Eh, I think the actual game mechanics are just as important as theme and setting. The armor mechanics, SPECIAL, critical hit tables, action point based tactical options, varying attack modes, ammo and weapon combined damage effects - these are all as much a part of fallout as retro 50's post apoc with dark humor. Just taking the theme and setting and replacing the mechanics makes a side game or spinoff, not a sequel.
-
Well, I dont see TB or Iso as necessary... not even SPECIAL tbh (although Id like to see SPECIAL in there). They dont set Fallout apart, they were part of many games already.
I think that if the devs take their time to think, they can come up with a nice RT system, that takes into account the full potential of SPECIAL (or any other stats "engine").
Ofc they can choose the lazy side as well: making a RT twitch system OR a TB system, and then Fallout 3 will be just "another game". I dont want that.
No offense to those fans, but I really dont see the problem they have into trying to innovate :\
-
I personally think the critical hit and aimed shot mechanics set Fallout apart every bit as much as the theme. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
The problem fans have with trying to innovate is that nobody actually believes they're going to do it - the fans as a whole don't expect a revolution, they expect beth to simply replace fallout's game mechanics with some other games, most likely Elder Scrolls.
I personally am worried about innovation - but that's mainly because I've seen Bethesda implement game mechanics that were average at best, horrifically broken at worst, and never really amazing. If they had a better track record, I'd be more confident, but looking at Obliv's level scaling, at Morrowind's enchanting and alchemy, and the rather painfully busy work leveling mechanics used in both, I find that very hard to do.
-
Well, I dont see TB or Iso as necessary... not even SPECIAL tbh (although Id like to see SPECIAL in there). They dont set Fallout apart, they were part of many games already.
I think that if the devs take their time to think, they can come up with a nice RT system, that takes into account the full potential of SPECIAL (or any other stats "engine").
Ofc they can choose the lazy side as well: making a RT twitch system OR a TB system, and then Fallout 3 will be just "another game". I dont want that.
No offense to those fans, but I really dont see the problem they have into trying to innovate :\
Given how SPECIAL was made for the fallout series, it'd be nice to see it make a decent return, 'specially since "Lionheart" was part of blackisle's death knell, and also used SPECIAL....poorly.
-
I personally think the critical hit and aimed shot mechanics set Fallout apart every bit as much as the theme. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Those are important yes, I agree. However, you don't need TB in order to allow for those.
Come to think of it, perhaps were using the wrong words:
Mechanics - SPECIAL, and all its stuff, or any other system
Interface - TB, ISO, or any other system/viewpoint
Ill reword from this: I'd prefer if the mechanics would be kept the same, but I see no problem in a change of interface (if done right!) :)
The problem fans have with trying to innovate is that nobody actually believes they're going to do it - the fans as a whole don't expect a revolution, they expect beth to simply replace fallout's game mechanics with some other games, most likely Elder Scrolls.
I personally am worried about innovation - but that's mainly because I've seen Bethesda implement game mechanics that were average at best, horrifically broken at worst, and never really amazing. If they had a better track record, I'd be more confident, but looking at Obliv's level scaling, at Morrowind's enchanting and alchemy, and the rather painfully busy work leveling mechanics used in both, I find that very hard to do.
Gotta say I understand, and fully agree with that view, because its so true: their innovation results werent the best so far.
I do have the same fears, but I prefer thinking they can hit the jackpot this time, instead of thinking that they will do a stagnant work (be it TB or RT).
-
I was trying to keep my big mouth shut, while reading this thread, but Raven, how is turn-based versus real-time not part of the game mechanics? Lumping that in with the interface seems equivilant to saying the big difference between FreeSpace and Baldur's Gate were some minor changes to the GUI. Sure, the interfaces are different. There's no lead indicator ahead of enemies in Baldur's Gate, and I haven't got a quick-slot on my FreeSpace HUD for casting Cure Serious Wounds, but that's quibbling over details, while missing the grander picture. In a less extreme example, consider the differences between Civilization and Command & Conquer. They're both strategy game series, but the gameplay is fundamentally different between the two, primarily because Civilization is turn-based, and C&C is real-time.
Anyway, I think that there's not enough information out there to tell how faithful Bethesda will be to Fallout's style of gameplay. They're certainly keeping with the art style of the old Fallout titles, which is promising. I put myself in the camp that says a true sequel should have gameplay that at least resembles its predecessors. If Fallout 3 is turned into a real-time, first-person affair, it will probably end up feeling more like a sequel to STALKER than Fallout.
-
I was trying to keep my big mouth shut, while reading this thread, but Raven, how is turn-based versus real-time not part of the game mechanics? Lumping that in with the interface seems equivilant to saying the big difference between FreeSpace and Baldur's Gate were some minor changes to the GUI. Sure, the interfaces are different. There's no lead indicator ahead of enemies in Baldur's Gate, and I haven't got a quick-slot on my FreeSpace HUD for casting Cure Serious Wounds, but that's quibbling over details, while missing the grander picture. In a less extreme example, consider the differences between Civilization and Command & Conquer. They're both strategy game series, but the gameplay is fundamentally different between the two, primarily because Civilization is turn-based, and C&C is real-time.
Not quite. In the case of Civ, TB is a necessity indeed, because each turn is equivalent to an amount of time that would be unbearable in RT (1 year iirc), not to mention you need to have lots of different actions each turn. In the case of Civ, the kind of interface it uses (TB) is a necessity to gameplay.
That doesnt happen in Fallout. You can still have the core mechanics (SPECIAL) in real time. Because SPECIAL is not dependant on a certain kind of interface, to do its thing. That is, TB is not a requirement for Fallouts mechanics to function properly.
Anyway, I think that there's not enough information out there to tell how faithful Bethesda will be to Fallout's style of gameplay. They're certainly keeping with the art style of the old Fallout titles, which is promising. I put myself in the camp that says a true sequel should have gameplay that at least resembles its predecessors. If Fallout 3 is turned into a real-time, first-person affair, it will probably end up feeling more like a sequel to STALKER than Fallout.
I share the same fear. Just keep in mind that RT is not equal to FPS. I dont want that at all either.
-
also, they had better keep the "bloody mess" Trait in there, that's my favorite! ;)
-
QFT!!
-
QFT!!
But you didn't quote anything!
-
Scans of a Game Informer article. Very informative.
http://img.waffleimages.com/531b2b5693e21d358706b67fe1c909d0daa4ef74/FO3-1.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/531b2b5693e21d358706b67fe1c909d0daa4ef74/FO3-1.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/3298826a60e0edf5b840a48b9d3ebc22e851cad5/FO3-2.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/3298826a60e0edf5b840a48b9d3ebc22e851cad5/FO3-2.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/dfe408180d8414fef45c74d83312978175e8ba15/FO3-3.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/dfe408180d8414fef45c74d83312978175e8ba15/FO3-3.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/5957fcd6d852816fdc33ad1181110a2389e915c1/FO3-4.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/5957fcd6d852816fdc33ad1181110a2389e915c1/FO3-4.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/602d47a684cbbd23ea78c873978aa3c82350541c/FO3-5.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/602d47a684cbbd23ea78c873978aa3c82350541c/FO3-5.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/dd4f06754322d82f5f513a42c4995c8a6eb3ef24/FO3-6.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/dd4f06754322d82f5f513a42c4995c8a6eb3ef24/FO3-6.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/2d43ce42aa73c673eff32a1cb2d52fc987c50c27/FO3-7.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/2d43ce42aa73c673eff32a1cb2d52fc987c50c27/FO3-7.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/c8da0168a038c1defa23c2205c5056355c216d76/FO3-8.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/c8da0168a038c1defa23c2205c5056355c216d76/FO3-8.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/a8d9ad630d6df7fbfefc4223c80a3c194fe8985f/FO3-9.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/a8d9ad630d6df7fbfefc4223c80a3c194fe8985f/FO3-9.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/74cd304fff1f6ec6b9d389ff39abed708885ee5f/FO3-10.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/74cd304fff1f6ec6b9d389ff39abed708885ee5f/FO3-10.jpg)
-
The line on the first page of the article about "no compromises" seems utterly bunk. The description of the targetting system made it pretty clear that they wanted to grab new players, who wouldn't be attracted to a turn-based game, while desperately trying not to alienate the classic Fallout fans by going completely real-time. Now I'm starting to feel like I put too much faith in Bethesda to stay true to the style of gameplay found in the earlier editions of Fallout.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think I'm going to distance myself from news about Fallout 3, until the game's been released, and there's some player feedback floating about the net....
-
QFT!!
But you didn't quote anything!
Didnt need to, the post I was replying to was just above mine :D
Scans of a Game Informer article. Very informative.
http://img.waffleimages.com/531b2b5693e21d358706b67fe1c909d0daa4ef74/FO3-1.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/531b2b5693e21d358706b67fe1c909d0daa4ef74/FO3-1.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/3298826a60e0edf5b840a48b9d3ebc22e851cad5/FO3-2.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/3298826a60e0edf5b840a48b9d3ebc22e851cad5/FO3-2.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/dfe408180d8414fef45c74d83312978175e8ba15/FO3-3.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/dfe408180d8414fef45c74d83312978175e8ba15/FO3-3.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/5957fcd6d852816fdc33ad1181110a2389e915c1/FO3-4.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/5957fcd6d852816fdc33ad1181110a2389e915c1/FO3-4.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/602d47a684cbbd23ea78c873978aa3c82350541c/FO3-5.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/602d47a684cbbd23ea78c873978aa3c82350541c/FO3-5.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/dd4f06754322d82f5f513a42c4995c8a6eb3ef24/FO3-6.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/dd4f06754322d82f5f513a42c4995c8a6eb3ef24/FO3-6.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/2d43ce42aa73c673eff32a1cb2d52fc987c50c27/FO3-7.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/2d43ce42aa73c673eff32a1cb2d52fc987c50c27/FO3-7.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/c8da0168a038c1defa23c2205c5056355c216d76/FO3-8.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/c8da0168a038c1defa23c2205c5056355c216d76/FO3-8.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/a8d9ad630d6df7fbfefc4223c80a3c194fe8985f/FO3-9.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/a8d9ad630d6df7fbfefc4223c80a3c194fe8985f/FO3-9.jpg)
http://img.waffleimages.com/74cd304fff1f6ec6b9d389ff39abed708885ee5f/FO3-10.jpg (http://img.waffleimages.com/74cd304fff1f6ec6b9d389ff39abed708885ee5f/FO3-10.jpg)
Yeah I had seen those already.
Still need to know more, but overall I'm liking it.
Still need to know if your chars stats will make a difference in RT. If, for example in the quest they describe there, I can change my mind about whose "side" Im on at the last minute, or if I can collect the cash from 1 of them and then complete the other side of the quest, etc... that is, what made the meat of a FO quest.
About the gameplay... well Im not surprised tbh. Was obvious that they didnt want to alienate the streamline costumer, so if they pull it off right, the combat system could be very well done and with some hint of originality.
Like I said, from what Im seeing its looking good overall IMO
-
What I'm wondering about though are the battles going on behind the scenes at Bethesda between the lead designer (Emil Peligaro(sp) who was involved with Thief and did the Dark Brotherhood questline in Oblivion) and producers (the design leads of Oblivion).
"We don't do turn based 3rd person games."
"Well... ermm... how about a 'pause and aim' mode that is SPECIAL based?"
"Sounds sort of turn based to me... Well you need to keep level scaling and everything accessible at level 1."
"Ermmm... reviewers hated that, so we ditched it."
"Well... then you need a nuclear hand grenade..."
"Wouldn't people after a nuclear war be afraid of using such weapons?"
"But we already have Liam Neeson signed to give the voiceover for the grenade!"
-
:lol:
-
hehe...looks promising...definately gonna keep my eye on this one :D
-
My advice Trashman is to find a copy of Fallout 1 and 2... ermm... somewhere... *cough* online... *cough*
Play those.
-
Did 2 months ago :D
-
Eh.....while it's not a fallout in the tradition of the isometric overheads of the past, it almost looks like it might be fun, especially since FPSRPGs are more or less my favorite genre anymore. If only it wasn't Bethesda, I'd be interested.
But it's Bethesda, and I'm still pretty convinced they butcher anything they touch. Mods for Obliv/Morrowind were popular mainly cause Bethesda couldn't make a decent game system any more then Hulk Hogan could wrestle his way out of a paper bag, and the fans felt obligated to fix it.
-
But it's Bethesda, and I'm still pretty convinced they butcher anything they touch. Mods for Obliv/Morrowind were popular mainly cause Bethesda couldn't make a decent game system any more then Hulk Hogan could wrestle his way out of a paper bag, and the fans felt obligated to fix it.
Yes, which is why Oblivion got so many poor reviews and didn't sell very well at all.
:rolleyes:
-
Now now Mestufae, I know you're not an Idiot. Do I REALLY need to start prefacing things that could ONLY be opinions with "In my opinion" around here?
Oblivions review were simply artifacts of time strapped reviewers not getting a chance to really review a game, and more then a few of the being way overly forgiving of the game's fundamental flaws, as well as the "WOW" visual factor that Bethesda has undeniably nailed down. It's sales were an artifact of it's padded reviews and the simple faith in the modding community's ability to fix Bethesda's ****-ups the PC community has.
Really, can you look at Oblivion's leveled loot, leveled quest rewards, leveled enemies, then fight one bandit completely armed in glass armor and tell me this was a wonderful idea? Can you look at Morrowind's stupidly abusable alchemy and tell me that was a well thought out plan? Can you look at Star Trek: Legacy for the PC and tell me it wasn't an afterthought console port with little quality control?
I'm sorry if popularity disagrees, but I look at Bethesda and see a company that doesn't know **** about how to make a fun game, and can rely on their modding community enough that they never have to actually LEARN.
If I had even one Bethesda game I could say was quality out of the box, even post x zillion patches, that would be one thing. But Morrowind was broken. Oblivion was broken. And not in little details either. The breaks were in fundamental game mechanics. No one could look at Oblivion's leveled everything system and say "This is an absolutely wonderful idea for an RPG". And no one could look at Morrowind's alchemy, which lets you get your stat score to several BILLION (out of 100 max for a human) for several game centuries with a few hours work in the FIRST city in the game and not say "Houston, we have a problem."
I played Morrowind, and came to the very simply conclusion that Bethesda's quality control policy was "look at the graphics, ignore everything else" and have yet to see anything to convince me otherwise. The fact that FO3's lead is a TTLG alumni makes it at least possible it won't be completely broken out of the box, but I'm not holding my breath.
And if I have to mod it to high holy hell and back to get a decent game out of it - like I and everyone else absolutely has to do with Oblivion and Morrowind - then why not just direct my efforts to Stalker, or Deus Ex, or UT2k7?
-
Who else's opinion is it going to be?
Of course it's your opinion, and I was shooting holes in your opinion as is the norm for an online forum of discussion. I'm sure you backed it up rather well with that rather lengthly explanation that I can't be stuffed reading, but the fact is that I don't really care how good Oblivion was, or whether or not Fallout 3 will be handled well by the folks over at Bethesda. I just saw an opportunity to make a snide remark, and I took it. It's how I get my jollies.
-
While I'm not going to disagree with you, phatoalpha, I might suggest a different example from Morrowind's host of flaws. The Alchemy issue is a flaw in the system that a power-gamer can exploit, but such loopholes are going to exist in any system. Sit a power-gamer down with any edition of any RPG system, and given time, he'll find something.
Morrowind's journal system is something that not only saps the fun from the game, but does so for everyone. I've made four or five attempts to finish Morrowind, now, but haven't reached the central plot's conclusion. Why? The first four times, I decided to do some sidequests, and because the journal system fails so miserably at intuitively tracking quests, I lost the plot entirely. The last time, I was doing just dandy at keeping track of the main quest, by avoiding nearly all side-quests (which really seems to sap the game's potential, but I would like to finish the damn thing), but when I took a break from the game for a couple months, I couldn't drop myself back into the plot straight away, again, because of the awful journal system.
I could gripe about the combat system being too simplistic as well, but everybody knows that. You can't do a one-to-one port to PC, from a console, and have an intricate, yet intuitive combat system. This is something else that concerns me about seeing Fallout 3 being designed both for consoles and with a real-time combat system. Under a turn-based system, even if the console controls are a little clunky, the player would have time to cope with any difficulties inherent to using a game pad, versus a mouse and keyboard. If the game was a PC-exclusive, the combat system could still retain some of its former detail, even in a real-time environment (given reasonable pacing), since so many controls are right at the player's fingertips.
Oh well.... I'll probably have a year's worth of buzz to read by the time I actually get Fallout 3, anyway, since it or Spore will likely require substantial hardware upgrades on my end. May as well wait for Spore (now tenatively slated for '09) and pick both up at the same time, while simultaneously clearing my calandar for the next eighteen months.
-
Who else's opinion is it going to be?
Of course it's your opinion, and I was shooting holes in your opinion as is the norm for an online forum of discussion. I'm sure you backed it up rather well with that rather lengthly explanation that I can't be stuffed reading, but the fact is that I don't really care how good Oblivion was, or whether or not Fallout 3 will be handled well by the folks over at Bethesda. I just saw an opportunity to make a snide remark, and I took it. It's how I get my jollies.
Now that is a level of pure simple honesty I can appreciate wholeheartedly :).
Flames: The example of alchemy was meant primarily as a fundamental loophool in a game mechanic that the game designer reasonably should have seen coming. It's not so much about the player, as the guy coding the system. Using character.int versus character.basestats.int (both of which must reasonably exist) is a pretty simple difference with huge effects on fundamental gameplay. The problem I'm seeing is the guy at the C++ prompt isn't actually considering how different the effects the two have are, and that's just plain bad. While I've now doubt Power Gamers can find holes in any system (and for the record, FO2 ranks #2 in stupid power gaming strats behind Morrowind in my book), the difference between in two is that in FO2, they had the choice of making an objective arbitrarily unreachable until a certain point in the game (the Power Armor Rush Trick). The Morrowind guys had to choose between variables in a subroutine. Maybe it's just cause I code for a living, but I look at the one and say "Data error" and the other as "coding error". One is forgivable, if condemning. The other is not.
Anyway, the real problem I have here is this. I want to like FO3. Like I said, FPSRPGs are my thing. Stalker, DX, System Shock, even Dark Messiah of M&M.......but I don't trust Bethesda one bit (even with the guy I know kicks ass at the helm.) And looking at Oblivion's reviews in the magazine's, I realize I can trust the magazines to give Bethesda a handjob whether or not the game sucks. Online player reviews are about as accurate as a ouija board, so I'm screwed there too. The super harsh NMA crowd will hate it even if it rocks because it's not exactly the same as fallouts 1 and 2. The rest will be more random then a newegg hardware user review.
So what do I do? If I buy it and it sucks.....Bethsoft already has my money, and now I'm just another ouija board giving negative online reviews. If I don't, I keep my cash, but what if the TTLG guy at the helm manages to make it not suck? Then I've saved 40 or 50 bucks which I can spend....well, actually which the wife will spend on god only knows what.
Damned if they do, Damned if they don't.
-
Oblivion was rushed, so naturally it had a few balance issues and is not as good as it could have been...but a bad game? C'mon.
Oblivion is a good game.. even moreso with a few good mods.
Regardless, the interview said that approaced Fallout3 from a whole different angle and designed everything from ground up (took nothing out of Elder Scrolls for granted). As said, there will be no scaled encounters, the AI is improved as well as NPC's...sounds promising.
-
And lets not forget you have a pip boy instead of some old dusty journal, makes all the difference
/Dice
-
Oh yeah, because a PipBoy that doesn't track your quests or organize entries in any kind of logical scheme is so much more rockin' awesome than a journal that doesn't track your quests or organize entries in any kind of logical scheme.
-
Oh yeah, because a PipBoy that doesn't track your quests or organize entries in any kind of logical scheme is so much more rockin' awesome than a journal that doesn't track your quests or organize entries in any kind of logical scheme.
wha?
The Pipboy tracked quests just fine and holovids (the closest equivalent to journal entries in Fallout, I suppose) just fine.
-
It was a needless jab at Bethesda's past work, not a needless jab at the previous Fallout titles.
Though, as I recall, the old PipBoy had a fairly nonsensical way of tracking quests according to the location where you received the quest. A lot of quests took place in only one area anyway, so it wasn't that big a deal, and it was certainly better than the nothing that Morrowind offered.
-
But it's Bethesda, and I'm still pretty convinced they butcher anything they touch. Mods for Obliv/Morrowind were popular mainly cause Bethesda couldn't make a decent game system any more then Hulk Hogan could wrestle his way out of a paper bag, and the fans felt obligated to fix it.
Well Oblivion and Morrowind are at least decent games overall despite their flaws... but what you just said does hold true to Bethesda's latest opus:
Star Trek Legacy.
The thing is though that I don't trust the comments on the AI considering similar promises made with Oblivion and "Radiant AI" being less flexible than scripting behavior in NWN2.
Similarly it sounds like the dialog system is going to be closer to Oblivion than Fallout. Which does seem to go against 'learning from Oblivion and not taking things for granted' considering that the dialog system in Oblivion was weak compared to other RPGs.
Now I do have some hope that the Looking Glass peep in charge may pull off a miracle. The art direction seems to be close to what I'd do for a first person Fallout game. The problem is, as I have joked, what seem to be mandates from on-high from people who happen to think that players like things such as the 'persuasion minigame' and shallow plotlines.
-
Agreed on all of that, however just one minor correction:
Star Trek Legacy was only published, not developed, by Bethesda. So I dont think we should draw conclusions based on that... erm... game :P
-
Ah, true. But it might as well have been ;)
-
Oblivion, I'll give you, it had some moments that made it at least decent compared to 95% of the crap out there. And since most of the moments were in the questlines designed by that TTLG guy, it almost gives me hope. Morrowind....eh, I'm sticking with the total garbage verdict on that one.
Either way, I'm in a quandary. Can't trust online and magazine review to give it anything but a handjob. The ESers are gonna handjob it at first, then divide into two groups, the *****ers who complain about everything and the handjobbers who vastly exaggerate the game's good points to piss off the handjobbers. The FOers are gonna scream bloody murder even if it's the best game since slicing bread. Who can I trust?
-
Do as I do... trust yourself :P
What I usually do: get a playable demo, experiment, and if I like what I get there, I get the full game.
If there isnt a demo available, I uhm... do less illegal things to experiment, and if I like it, I buy it :P
-
http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/gamespace/updates.php?pid=918428&sid=6173397&page=2
Fallout has always been known for its ridiculously over-the-top violence. For instance, if you fire a shotgun at point-blank range in the original game, bodies explode in showers of gore. As Howard noted, that tongue-in-cheek splatter is part of what made Fallout so much fun. And that's something that Bethesda is working to capture in Fallout 3. Heads will explode, limbs will get sawed off by gunfire, and we even saw eyeballs fly out of their sockets then roll down an incline.
This almost brought a tear to my eye.
-
VATS. Ok, so I can pause to aim. Does that mean where I aim in RT doesn't matter, i.e. if I click on the head I'd still hit the torso, in RT? Also, when in VATS, can any actions be taken, or is it just cuing actions to happen?
Correct that VATS is a pause to aim idea, but from what I saw and heard at the event the Realtime play is like any other realtime game with shooting, if you aim and actually hit the head the same effects would apply as a called shot. Again, I'm not certain, and anything about that is conjecture based on the gameplay that was shown. From what I can tell, VATS is purely a system for queuing actions and that is all, we did not get to see if your inventory can be accessed/used while paused or if that would use action points also.
Shooting in RT slows down AP recharging. What about moving or other actions?
Not sure about this one, honestly in the demo Todd was pausing every time he really wanted to fight and only a few times did he have to run'n'gun in realtime and that seemed like just when a Mutant got the jump on him. He had modified the system a bit to help the demo along faster so I don't know how much of this was final mechanics and how much was for demonstration purposes.
Viewpoint. A bit unclear on drawing back the camera. Does it allow the camera to be drawn back far enough to be roughly the same bird's eye isometric as Fallout 1 had?
It looked (roughly) the same as the view from Fallout 1, and the graphics engine looked as if it stood up perfectly to the zooming in/out.
I attempted to stress it in my original commentary, but the entire graphical presentation of this game is stunning. Whether in first person view or over the shoulder you literally FEEL the destruction of the environment, the desolation, the abandoned ruins of small towns and junky shanty towns of the survivors. I seriously doubt many people, even die-hard purists who play the game, will end up using the isometric view very often because it simply looks too damn good in the other views (over the shoulder especially). The roleplaying aspects of the game will be improved incredibly by the immersive environments and feel of the interface. The first time a group of giant Rad Insects jump out at you and start chasing you, you'll begin to feel what I'm talking about (if not before that). If you don't think a franchise can stand a technical transition into first person and retain the qualities of the original, you clearly haven't played Metroid Prime.
Dialogue. Matt Miller caused a stir on this with his remark that "the tree is closer to Oblivion." So how does it look (visually, like Oblivion)? The PC has full lines or keywords? Any sign of long NPC replies? Any hint (probably too short a demo) of expansive branching dialogue?
This really tests my memory on the specifics of the demo shown, but I'll try my best to remember exactly. Looking back at Oblivion your choices in dialogue were things like "rumors, cathedral, Glarthir, etc." The visual look of dialogue is similar to Oblivion in how it zooms in on the NPC's face and where the text is displayed, but from the short bits we viewed it looks like PC respones will be phrases much like from Fallout 1, and typically it looked as if there were serious answers, angry answers, and funny answers all mixed in. The dialogue trees definitely looked like they had longer NPC replies also, and there was definitely a HINT of expansive / branching dialogue but really with the demo not enough was shown to say. From how Emil and Todd talked about it, I imagine the level of depth and detail shown throughout the demo expands to every part of the game.
I got a very good sense of "Fallout" from the dialogue shown, and strongly feel that this is one thing the people at Bethsoft are putting a lot of effort towards getting right.
Guns. Do they use schematics to construct?
One example we were given was the lunchbox explosive: you combine the lunchbox with some explosives (C4? something else?) and fill the rest of the lunchbox with bottle-caps and you'd have yourself a regular claymore shrapnel device. As far as schematics/instructions I don't know, but that makes the most sense.
Bobbleheads. How do they work?
This was not looked at in-depth for the demo, just mentioned in passing. It seems to be more of a side-game / additive element then a primary focus of the gameplay.
BoS. Was any explanation offered for their presence?
When Todd finally entered the city, he encountered a group of super mutants and was quickly saved by a unit of them (i believe that's who they were). I didn't catch if it mentioned exactly why they were there, but they help protect the player through what would otherwise be a tougher part of the city. Short answer: Not that I know of, no explanation yet.
Are bottle caps in as a currency?
As mentioned above, they were discussed as being used in the 'lunchbox explosive' so I figure they will be in the game as currency as well.
This Q&A is also very good to read, especially the dialogue part.