 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Role Playing Games / Fallout / November 2004fALLOUT 3
I read where Fallout 3 is to become reality. All I can hope is it's more like I and II. I've played tactics......while it's good...........to me it's just hard to beat the first two. I replay them over and over...doing different things each time..finding different things each time and checking out the ending. Always changes. Love the game. Yeah, I read a bunch on the Fallout 3 game. Many people bickering about keeping the same elements from 1 and 2...but from what I've read it will be plenty different. Like maybe having a friend join you(via internet) on your missions, it looks like you can manage much more than you could in the previous releases(characters, inventory, etc.)... I just hope it's a long game. Looking forward to it. ------------------------------------------------------------ www.digitalmilitia.com <-- You'll like our tshirts!! > I read where Fallout 3 is to become reality. All I can hope is it's more > like I and II. I've played tactics......while it's good...........to me > it's just hard to beat the first two. I replay them over and over...doing > different things each time..finding different things each time and checking > out the ending. Always changes. Love the game. since it's being made by Bethesda and using the same engine as Oblivion, I don't expect it to be much like the original two Fallouts, though since the Bethesda staff are big Fallout fans themselves, I'd expect it to have the same feel as Fallout. I know a lot of people are skeptical about how well Bethesda can do FO3, some are even condemning them and the project already while it's just in pre-production, but personally I'm looking forward to it and as for reading plenty about Fallout 3, what you read may not necersarily be the version that's in development. the original plans for Fallout 3 (Van Buren) were scrapped long ago, and I think, I may be wrong here, that there have been other planned version of FO3 since > Yeah, I read a bunch on the Fallout 3 game. Many people bickering about > keeping the same elements from 1 and 2...but from what I've read it will be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >>out the ending. Always changes. Love the game. So how do you retain the feel of Fallout ? Odin > since it's being made by Bethesda and using the same engine as Oblivion, > I don't expect it to be much like the original two Fallouts, though [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the project already while it's just in pre-production, but personally > I'm looking forward to it try to build on the atmosphere basically. it's hard to describe exactly what it comes down to, it's sort of like the 'soul' of the game. try comparing Dungeon Keeper 2 to DK1, essentially the same game but with a revamped interface and it managed to keep the same feel of the original DK. but on the other hand, a lot of sequels that boast updated interfaces can lose some of that feel, take Monkey Islands 3 & 4 for example, while they were still good games, they'd lost some of what made the first two games classics. Bethesda could easily screw up Fallout 3, but other than the original Fallout team, I can't think of anyone I'd have more faith in to make it work > So how do you retain the feel of Fallout ? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>the project already while it's just in pre-production, but personally >>I'm looking forward to it Exactly, it's hard to describe. Isometric view is one of those soul factors and turn based combat is also one. They tried real time in Fallout Tactics and that didn't work, alot of the old Fallouters went to TB in that game and that was unbalanced. There is more to the soul then just the atmosphere/story. And actually there is one development house I can think of that could make it better then Bethesda, but they lost the race for the license...yup you got it.. Troika.. > try to build on the atmosphere basically. it's hard to describe exactly > what it comes down to, it's sort of like the 'soul' of the game. try [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > but other than the original Fallout team, I can't think of anyone I'd > have more faith in to make it work > Exactly, it's hard to describe. Isometric view is one of those soul factors > and turn based combat is also one. > They tried real time in Fallout Tactics and that didn't work, alot of the > old Fallouters went to TB in that game and that was unbalanced. There is > more to the soul then just the atmosphere/story. heh, yeah, says you and a bunch of egocentric forum vultures... Now, FOT didn't have a perfect RT system, but it definately didn't kill the "soul" of fallout. If anything in FOT killed the "soul" of fallout it would be that it was just a hack'n'slash. And those who says RT sucked are just pissed that the rest of the game was a hack'n'slash and thus biased and should be disregarded entirely... thank you. ;) TB was the only real turnoff for me in fallout, and the very reason it took me about 2 weeks and a dozen tries to get out of the Rat caves in fallout 1... The game utilizes an absolute minimum of tactical possibilities, making the game a purely statistical and a lousy diceroll "you sunk my battleship" standoff type of combat. Although, granted, still made oddly fun by the style of graphics and so on, it still comes down to being more interesting to watch the little text screen on your lower left than the actual fight... Yes, sad. I love the game, but the combat quickly turns stale, especially if you don't constantly retrieve new stuff to play with and have the drive of the quest(s). >> Exactly, it's hard to describe. Isometric view is one of those soul > factors [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > you don't constantly retrieve new stuff to play with and have the drive of > the quest(s). But, the beauty of FO is there is so much more to it than just combat. From: "wamingo" <foxtrot2@worldonline.dk> Newsgroups: alt.games.fallout Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:32 PM Subject: Re: fALLOUT 3 > Now, FOT didn't have a perfect RT system, but it definately didn't kill > the > "soul" of fallout. Erm did you ever stop to look at the story in FOT ? Hummers? Vault 0 ?? I guess you never looked at the whole picture did you, because if you did you would see the errors in that game. Sure it was a good enough game, but it wasn't at all what they hyped it up to be. > And those who says RT sucked are just pissed that the rest of the game was > a > hack'n'slash and thus biased and should be disregarded entirely... thank > you. ;) So everyone that thought the whole CTB (NOT RT, get your facts straight) combat mode sucked is biased? What an idiotic statement. > TB was the only real turnoff for me in fallout, and the very reason it > took > me about 2 weeks and a dozen tries to get out of the Rat caves in fallout > 1... Well this explains it all for me. > The game utilizes an absolute minimum of tactical possibilities, making > the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you don't constantly retrieve new stuff to play with and have the drive of > the quest(s). I've never said that the combat system shouldn't be revised, it should. But RT isn't Fallout. >I've never said that the combat system shouldn't be revised, it should. But >RT isn't Fallout. It's Fallout Jim, but not as we know it. > > Now, FOT didn't have a perfect RT system, but it definately didn't kill > > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I guess you never looked at the whole picture did you, because if you did > you would see the errors in that game. What does the content have to do with the RT system? What I claimed was that RT didn't kill the soul of fallout. Besides, no one except the core nitpicking fallouters would mind those details... Who gives a rats arse if there's a vault 0, a power armor with timeline issues or a deathclaw with hair on it... > Sure it was a good enough game, but it wasn't at all what they hyped it up > to be. That's true, but then that's usually true about any game... > > And those who says RT sucked are just pissed that the rest of the game was > > a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > combat mode sucked is biased? > What an idiotic statement. So the correct term is CTB, fine. Except the only limit being: you can't fire more than so so often and run more than so far in a given time, nothing that really makes it different from a say "realistic" shooter. Since "turns" are taken simultaneously with every other unit on the map and the action points can be used at any time of your pleasing, as was it eg 'energy', it's no longer really "turns", it's RT... Right... The idiotic statement... The statement is refering to the -Actual- reasons to why no one regards FOT as fallout and that those issues clearly made many biased towards the game. The reason of course, although for the longest time giving you a somewhat different impression - both before release and even some ways into the game, that it wasn't an RPG afterall. That clearly left a whole bunch of former fans very biased towards the game complaining about everything. And that leaves us with the issue of TB/RT. They didn't dislike FOT because of RT, they disliked it because of the lacking RPG. FOT was well geared for RPG, just didn't have any... That left most people disappointed, perhaps rightly so, but also biased. Thus the game is a (tactical) hack'n'slash, and those who dislikes it because of RT on its own is either a neanderthall gamer or full of sh.t... I'm quite certain you'll find "_alot_ of the old fallouters" to be quite few when it comes to it, although possibly with more blind followers than the Children of the Cathedral, and also fit perfectly within those two groups, no offense... Far more people prefer RT to TB, ask anyone remotely neutral... Sure the content and features and style of play etc wasn't perfect either and that contributed obviously, but, IF ANYTHING, none other than the fact it wasn't an RPG ruined the soul of fallout, the rest is just nitpicking. And when it comes to it (hence why I said "if anything") it's entirely subjective anyhow. FOT could've been a great game, had it been an rpg. And it had decent tools to make it even better. It wasn't. End of story. > > TB was the only real turnoff for me in fallout, and the very reason it > > took > > me about 2 weeks and a dozen tries to get out of the Rat caves in fallout > > 1... > > Well this explains it all for me. Explains what? That TB isn't my thing, but that Fallout is? > > The game utilizes an absolute minimum of tactical possibilities, making > > the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I've never said that the combat system shouldn't be revised, it should. But > RT isn't Fallout. What is fallout? It's not TB either... Fallout is a witty gritty Post 1950's Apocalyptic game, and if there's any one thing at all, that of the engine itself further defining what Fallout is, it would be that it is an RPG and nothing more... And yet, maybe not even any of that, but it'll probably be hard to reckognize without at least these elements... > What does the content have to do with the RT system? > What I claimed was that RT didn't kill the soul of fallout. The whole package has something to do with killing the soul of Fallout, first off you have content errors that's so hugely wrong that had Tim Cain been dead he would have rolled over and over. Secondly you have a off base Real Time combat system, which the designers even said didn't work. Sure you can play with the CTB mode, and some might even like it. But in the end Fallout was ment to use a turn based combat system, it's how it should be. And have you ever looked at how badly balanced the CTB and TB modes in FOT are ? Besides, I never claimed that the RT system killed the soul of Fallout. The entire package did. > Besides, no one except the core nitpicking fallouters would mind those > details... Who gives a rats arse if there's a vault 0, a power armor with > timeline issues or a deathclaw with hair on it... Then why bother to use your precious time to argue with me over this then? Had you bothered to look at the story and understand Fallout, then you would have cared if the game stuck canon or not. If not you're just a casual gamer, which probably even enjoyed FBos on Xbox/PS2 > it's RT... No, it's still CTB. A variant of RT, yes but not RT. > Right... The idiotic statement... > SNIP... Riiiight, now I know you don't have a clue. The reasons why the fanbase didn't like FOT wasn't about it not being an RPG, we didn't like it because it didn't follow the story of Fallout and because the TB mode in FOT was unbalanced, so was the CTB. It was a half assed work which should have been patched more, even the designers have said so. So there, QUIT with all this..aaahh you didn't like it not being an RPG, aah you didn't like it because it wasn't TB only. I was one of the people that stood by FOT, untill I played it and saw what it was. It was an ok game, that's all. > What is fallout? It's not TB either... > Fallout is a witty gritty Post 1950's Apocalyptic game, and if there's any > one thing at all, that of the engine itself further defining what Fallout > is, it would be that it is an RPG and nothing more... > And yet, maybe not even any of that, but it'll probably be hard to > reckognize without at least these elements... Actually you're wrong about this and if you can't spot it, well then.... OT: Hey Odin, was that you playing DOD yesterday or another Odin? Too bad Wasteland Half-Life died before reaching it's potential. I think that a good FPS style game with some RPG elements and "witty gritty Post 1950's Apocalyptic" atmosphere would have been a better marketing choice for Interplay than FOT. Not that Fallout 3 should ever go in that direction. ~Homer aka Lancer Graphics and game mechanics aside, The market forces may be so strong that Bethesda will be "Old School" if they manage to crank out an "action RPG". RPG's in the tradition of the FO's are seen as too intellectually intensive to be "accessible" to the target market. When all the waves of rat rushes are over and the glamor cut scenes are done, whatever RPG-ing summoned may be more a ghostly haunting then an eternal 'soul' worthy of redemption. Bethesda may run the risk, and go counter to the smart designers, creating a good game, with it's own unique 'soul'; or they may sit in their safe niche and cater to their fantasy fan base, and the fashions of the moment, cookie cutting another mediocre title. We'll hear all about it, whenever. 4too >try to build on the atmosphere basically. it's hard to describe exactly >what it comes down to, it's sort of like the 'soul' of the game. try [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >but other than the original Fallout team, I can't think of anyone I'd >have more faith in to make it work The setting, locations and atmosphere in Fallout had cohesion. They didn't in Fallout 2. Every time you went to a new location the mood changed. It was like each place belonged in a different story. I think the developers saw people's response to how much you could do and the different ways you could do it in Fallout and thought that was what made the game great. So they attempted much more with Fallout 2 but didn't take the time to make it all fit together. Being able to act freely in a universe is only effective if the universe exists in your mind. A classic case of quantity over quality. It also didn't help that in so many areas in Fallout 2 you were an outsider because you were a tribal and you could never really get attached to the characters. This was particularly bad with the starting areas like Klamath and The Den. At the start of Fallout the first few leaders you meet (the Overseer, Aradesh and Killian) were admirable figures and winning their approval was rewarding. The characters in Fallout 2 are a.sholes. The things the PC did in the early locations made him heroic. Whoever designed that stuff really knew what they were doing. A lot of Fallout probably originated as some guy's heroic daydreaming. That's why the ending is so good. The Vault Dweller's heroism is unappreciated by the people who made him set out to become one but he is a hero to everyone he helped along the way. Fallout 2 tried to be like that but because the developers weren't imagining a world they could have good adventures in they couldn't make a world gamers could have good adventures in. > The setting, locations and atmosphere in Fallout had cohesion. They > didn't in Fallout 2. Every time you went to a new location the mood [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > freely in a universe is only effective if the universe exists in your > mind. A classic case of quantity over quality. First time playing fallout 2 was like. Woah. I played 1 after that. But 2nd and 3rd incursions wasnt so great. Even knowing a bit about what I should have done, ect. I just finished with a 1 intelligence character. Really lame. I ended with 5 NPC's. First time I only had myron. Fallout 1 played 2 times and never had the opportunity to get any NPC. Thats just how the game works but, I cant possibly stand that lame Necropolis in fallout 1 or go through the lame a.s tunnels in fallout 2. Not enough randomness. Random encounters dont count. Alien blaster was cool if you aim for the eyes. If you got it. > It also didn't help that in so many areas in Fallout 2 you were an > outsider because you were a tribal and you could never really get > attached to the characters. This was particularly bad with the starting > areas like Klamath and The Den. At the start of Fallout the first few > leaders you meet (the Overseer, Aradesh and Killian) were admirable > figures and winning their approval was rewarding. The characters in Fallout 2 the first time could fool you that its non linear. But its not so cut and dried. You need den for better weapons and hardware and you cant afford those incursions against mauraduers and slavers in the area. Oh sure, you can piss around a few hexes around podunkville your home village and kill scorpions and molerats for 100xp with a spear and fists. Big freaking woop. I remember fallout 2 #2, trying to finish that modock mission going back to den to talk to that a.shole in the bar. What a fuckign waste. I kept getting killed going against submachine guns with no or leather armor. And a stupid gun. That one guy that whores the little pickpocket kids. Kill him and take his hardware. That was always my numero uno mission to cap that fool and take his sh.t. The only great thing about fallout 2 is how all you dream about is blowing peoples heads off and hoarding weapons. Looting bodys. Double crossing people. Its real great to exercise that reptilian brain once in awile but it just loses its appeal after awile. > Fallout 2 are a.sholes. The things the PC did in the early locations > made him heroic. Whoever designed that stuff really knew what they were > doing. A lot of Fallout probably originated as some guy's heroic > daydreaming. That's why the ending is so good. The Vault Dweller's Yeaaaah I wasnt to up for fallout 1. Map was too small. Like if you played xcom3 before 1 and 2. Not the same. Like kids these days thinking sum-41 is punk and this new rock? Whatever. But if I played 1 first, maybe I wouldnt have been motivated to play 2. 1 was more of "let me see what the first one was like". The irony was that no matter how bad you tryed to be you'd get XP for any "good deed" even if you did it selfishly. > heroism is unappreciated by the people who made him set out to become > one but he is a hero to everyone he helped along the way. Fallout 2 Yeah. Lame. I've found its good not to overplay any game. You get bored real fast. I'm hard to please anyways. ordosclan@mail.hongkong.com > So how do you retain the feel of Fallout ? > > Odin Patch. Addons. New dialogue trees. "storyline" (right). The latter is more difficult. The problem with sequel games is the attempt to make it like the previous. Who cares, i just want to kill people, loot bodys, pick pockets, plant bombs, blow peoples heads off, get XP, upgrade hardware, get better armor, and level up for more perks. Do I care if it starts 10 years in the future or past from the previous game? Look at xcom and how bad sequels f.cked up a great idea. Xcom 2 was an albatross. I still have an unfinished game on 3 computers (one a 486). Mabye when I have a few months recovery from hip surgury, i'll go back to playing it. ordosclan@mail.hongkong.com >> So how do you retain the feel of Fallout ? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >loot bodys, pick pockets, plant bombs, blow peoples heads off, get XP, >upgrade hardware, get better armor, and level up for more perks. Do I Go play some Diablo clone or MMORPG then. Fallout is a story driven series. >care if it starts 10 years in the future or past from the previous >game? Look at xcom and how bad sequels f.cked up a great idea. Xcom >2 was an albatross. I still have an unfinished game on 3 computers >(one a 486). Mabye when I have a few months recovery from hip surgury, >i'll go back to playing it. In reply to: ordosclan@mail.hongkong.com (ordosclan) wrote: > Go play some Diablo clone or MMORPG then. Fallout is a story driven > series. Yes. Ordosclan seems to be representative of the target market for most game producers these days. The target demographic SHOULD be well satisfied, and yet they appear to wander to story driven classics like FO. Questions to define the dilemma that dances before my point of view: With all the trendy and 'modern' titles that the smart money publishes, why is this action gamer playing a 6 year old game TO COMPLETION and then trying out different replay pathes and even the fan mods? Are the mass marketed games so boring, or are the FO's that good? 4too >In reply to: ordosclan@mail.hongkong.com (ordosclan) wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Are the mass marketed games so boring, or are the FO's that good? Because his attention span is very short and there are not enough new games to satisfy him. > Because his attention span is very short and there are not enough new > games to satisfy him. And, he says he completed the FO's. From his critique of FO and the mod's he's tried, (in another thread), I think he identifies with the series enough that he wanted to replay in the god mode, in a run and gun rave. Some might consider this back sliding to old gaming habits that seek satisfaction in the thrill of the moment. Wanting to do this in FO's post apocalyptic setting might indicate something positive. Maybe we could suppose that after playing the FO's that he's bitten the old' forbidden apple of knowledge, and now knows the difference between, ""good and evil"". Well, perhaps knows the difference between an RPG and an "action" RPG. These days some dev's and the marketing types seem to be unconscious of the difference. 4too |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.