Fallout 3: I'm getting old
- Thread starter stevesan
- Start date
i think you're missing the point.ReepNeep said:Callin' BS on the isometric. Its just another way of working the camera. Out of fashion, yes. Inferior, hell no. One nice thing about it is that you have allot less camera trouble. Also, ALL video games are 'pixel' based.
there are certain market expectations that have to be accounted for when creating a next gen title. proposing that it adhere to past Fallout games would just make the game appear, on the surface, as a value title.
and you're right, it is just the camera perspective, so why is anybody upset over that change? getting upset over gameplay changes is a concern i can understand, but the camera? next people will complain that they have to use a console controller.
if people are that hardcore for Fallout 1 and 2, why do they need a 3rd? their community should just pump out fan-fiction mods for the originals and then they can live on a happy little far away isolated island where advents in technology don't exist.
Sorry OPF: 2 is my bastardization of Operation Flashpoint 2 Dragon Rising which will be coming out for the PC, 360 and PS3. Many fans are worried that the transition to consoles or the fact that Codemasters is working on the game will destroy the game we love.
I liked the old way, just because Fallout 3 looks like every other FPS(albiet the coolest one and hopefully the best), but I didn't mind the new way as much, but seeing the new footage with VATS I no longer think that. Yes, I'm sure when Todd Howard was playing the tweaked it so he wouldn't miss and he always killed, but it seems VATS is less a way to do psuedo-turn based and more of a way "omg kill before he shoots you and get tons of awesome eXtreme guts!!!!!!"
Ugh, 50% of Oblivion leveling is still too much. That's what made up most of Oblivions suckage.J'aen said:
OK, I want to have the look that the older guys here see. I was too young to play the first Fallout games (Around my N64~to PS2, pre-Diablo 2 era, for me) and I have them at home because I saw them in the double jewel case at a Best Buy for $7 and thought why not...
MY ONLY issue with these games it that they have no manual (I actually RTFM, I know, I'm a nerd/newb/ or whatever else...) and I have no clue how to play these older PC RPGs. I also tried BG2 box set (got if for $8~ at a used Bookstore, dont ask, lol) and have no clue how to play it as well (I know more D&D rules now, so that may help that one).
Is there a friendly guide on the net that would love to help someone who is totally excited for Fallout 3 but also wants to appreciate Fallout 1&2...? The vets of these games have to admit that from the outside looking in, present looking back into the past, there is a steep learning curve for people who never played those types of PC games (I have mainly played Console RPGs...).
So, help?
MY ONLY issue with these games it that they have no manual (I actually RTFM, I know, I'm a nerd/newb/ or whatever else...) and I have no clue how to play these older PC RPGs. I also tried BG2 box set (got if for $8~ at a used Bookstore, dont ask, lol) and have no clue how to play it as well (I know more D&D rules now, so that may help that one).
Is there a friendly guide on the net that would love to help someone who is totally excited for Fallout 3 but also wants to appreciate Fallout 1&2...? The vets of these games have to admit that from the outside looking in, present looking back into the past, there is a steep learning curve for people who never played those types of PC games (I have mainly played Console RPGs...).
So, help?
Oh (sorry for double post), but one thing I feel with games getting "easier" is the same way math gets easier... we have more power in our adding machine to do the harder stuff for us. Sure, give me my Calculus book, some paper, and some (lots) of coffee and I'll figure out integrals by hand all over again, but I now have a TI-89 calculator that does most of that work for me...
Games are kind of the same way... before, they didnt have the power to do the sort of things we can today. Is that an excuse for not keeping the focus on the aspects outside of gameplay depth? No, but this is also still the mid phase, I feel, of 3D gaming. We finally have 3D gaming to the point where even bad current gen 3D games aren't terrible to look at. Now is when we will see games like Bioshock progress into this realm, but maybe devs want to ween people more slowly into the harder(core) type gaming. If 2K put out System Shock 3 with full depth, yah the vets would have been SUPER pleased, but someone like me who never played the first could and most likely would be quite intimidated. I used to be really hardcore, but I think I'm more casual now... as much as that hurts to say. I want to have fun with my games and if I REALLY like them, I want to dig into them for depth, but please, one good thing comes from these design changes and that's easy access for us types that really want to enjoy these settings, ideas, and concepts who dont want to wade through 10 year old titles.
I Liked Morrowind and Oblivion, both had pros and cons. Oblivion not having Cliffracers should have made a few of you very pleased
Games are kind of the same way... before, they didnt have the power to do the sort of things we can today. Is that an excuse for not keeping the focus on the aspects outside of gameplay depth? No, but this is also still the mid phase, I feel, of 3D gaming. We finally have 3D gaming to the point where even bad current gen 3D games aren't terrible to look at. Now is when we will see games like Bioshock progress into this realm, but maybe devs want to ween people more slowly into the harder(core) type gaming. If 2K put out System Shock 3 with full depth, yah the vets would have been SUPER pleased, but someone like me who never played the first could and most likely would be quite intimidated. I used to be really hardcore, but I think I'm more casual now... as much as that hurts to say. I want to have fun with my games and if I REALLY like them, I want to dig into them for depth, but please, one good thing comes from these design changes and that's easy access for us types that really want to enjoy these settings, ideas, and concepts who dont want to wade through 10 year old titles.
I Liked Morrowind and Oblivion, both had pros and cons. Oblivion not having Cliffracers should have made a few of you very pleased
Go here:http://www.nma-fallout.comTheKbob said:
The row of game titles right below the big 'No Mutants Allowed' at the top of the page has a bunch of sub-menus with all kinds of useful info. It might be advisable to stay out of the forums if you are really excited for Fallout 3 however. Those guys can be real killjoys.
Honestly, I think its that learning curve you speak of that kept them from being really popular in the first place. They really were niche games.
*EDIT* I found the manuals:
F1:http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=file&file_id=33
F2:http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=file&file_id=65
Can't view at work, but goody! I'll give them one more go. I think there are new games though, that do more and more... Blizzard does well at keeping their games status quo, but also adding in new breath. Relic is sure up, knocking on their doors in RTS, though...
Spore could have been a neat concept 10 years ago, but there is no way it would be a project of such great depth as it is today with concepts as procedural generation... I don't think I need to get preachy around these parts for people to understand that new doesn't mean bad, it's just when the new overlooks what made the older good is when the trouble stirs.
Spore could have been a neat concept 10 years ago, but there is no way it would be a project of such great depth as it is today with concepts as procedural generation... I don't think I need to get preachy around these parts for people to understand that new doesn't mean bad, it's just when the new overlooks what made the older good is when the trouble stirs.
TheKBbob, one thing that you really need to know to play Fallout: do not be afraid of running. There are allot of random encounters that will be too big for you to handle and 'dungeons' that you can visit before you're ready for them. There is no shame in running like a coward if you come out of it alive.
Well, i played and beat fallout 1 and 2 many, many times. I thought the trailer was awesome and yes it was a very distinct discourse from the original feel of the game. However, I am willing to say goodbye to the feel of the first 2 seeing how it's been, ten years, since the last one. It's a different age, even if the original crew got together to make Fallout 3 it wouldn't have the same feel.
It seems this game will be more appealing to the fps crowd from the trailer, but than again we didn't see any character interactions (unless you count people dismembering each other) or story telling elements.
The trailer it's self already smacks of bold choices by keeping the original graphic. This will be a hot topic in mainstream media when you see heads and eyes rolling about, if this game goes on to sell a million+.
As for what's lost, humor isn't Bethsda's big selling point, what they do is turn stuff out on a massive scale, and in doing so have to please a broad audience to support their habits. No rat balls or groin shots? Isn't important to me and I love the first two games. No killing kids? Unless we want to go back to making them look like they where made in 256 color rendering the market place isn't ready. For anyone to say they know the real fallout, and what a real fallout game is, shows they just can't get over the fact that their baby is gone, and wasn't their's to begin with.
It seems this game will be more appealing to the fps crowd from the trailer, but than again we didn't see any character interactions (unless you count people dismembering each other) or story telling elements.
The trailer it's self already smacks of bold choices by keeping the original graphic. This will be a hot topic in mainstream media when you see heads and eyes rolling about, if this game goes on to sell a million+.
As for what's lost, humor isn't Bethsda's big selling point, what they do is turn stuff out on a massive scale, and in doing so have to please a broad audience to support their habits. No rat balls or groin shots? Isn't important to me and I love the first two games. No killing kids? Unless we want to go back to making them look like they where made in 256 color rendering the market place isn't ready. For anyone to say they know the real fallout, and what a real fallout game is, shows they just can't get over the fact that their baby is gone, and wasn't their's to begin with.
Well, this would explain why I SUCKED at them to some extent.ReepNeep said:
I did not like the Oblivion scaling system as you never felt 100% powerful, but I think what they are doing in Fallout 3 will be the "trash" in the games will be a set level. You will have to go to more and more dangerous ares to level up and get loot. The main encounters, bosses & storymodes, will be scaled so that they will always present a challenge (or the challenge they are supposed to, IE being steam rolled or giving the player Ninja Gaiden 2 style fits of rage...).
At least, that's what I hope.
now that's a serious concern.. if Oblivion is any indicator of their comedic writing skills then this quote would be an indicator of what to expect, "Look at me! I'm a Kajhit! Watch me lick my own butt!"Magnetic2 said:
yup...
lick my own butt... go Bethesda
I think part of the Fallout defensiveness was that the Fallout fanbase was burned heavily by Interplay's last foray into the franchise, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. F:BoS was somewhat like that mentally retarded cousin you try never to think about, but unlike the latter, which you can utilize in moments to sound like you give a care about those less fortunate, F:BoS just remains a crappy game. What most of the defenders worry about is that Fallout 3 is going to end up like Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, the FPS.
I don't mind the move to 1st/3rd person myself. It was overall inevitable, and it'll be nice to see artists really make detailed rooms and show with great detail what this post apocalyptic world will look like. Hopefully they make it feel more like Morrowind, where everything is hand placed and has a purpose, rather than Oblivion. Walking up to get a good, close look at the scuff marks on the Vault door, seeing how paint has been removed from old vehicles and houses, et cetera, will be really nice.
What I personally hope isn't lost is the real feeling of choice and freedom found in the first two games. Being able to solve quests in multiple forms, being able to move from town to town, then go back to old towns to continue their quest trees (though, kinda frightening that 3 months later, that same widow is sitting in the same room waiting for that same lost boy in the same well...) Bethesda hasn't really shown that it's going to make an attempt to get that same feel in the game. Sure, at the beginning they promised that sort of thing, but looking at all the new videos, I'm sure that was forgotten with giant mantises.
While getting rid of the pop culture references isn't completely detrimental to the plotline, pop culture really does play a large, underlying role in the game. It's about a future that was probably destroyed by its own consumerism (see also: System Shock). The whole game, in itself is pretty much a reference to "Mad Max" as a whole and some refer to the game as "Mad Max RPG."
Changing the combat/feel of Fallout isn't going to really hamper what the fanbase is looking for. Fallout Tactics was a brilliant game that turned the RPG into a SPRG with both real time and turnbased options (much like X-COM: Apocalypse), and yet the game felt very "Fallout"y. It's about choice and consequence, it's about sometimes being a baby-eater to be Mother Theresa (to use the allegory by Yahtzee, which a friend of mine, prior to the Bioshock review used to call the "Ghandi or Dick" morality choice), it's about feeling like after every little quest and mission, feeling like you've actually made a change in each town, that you can effect the world through your actions. If Bethesda can do that using a FPRPG, more power to them, but mini-nuke launchers aren't the core of Fallout, sure, they're going to be very fun, but the real testament will be, will your other option be subterfuge or diplomacy? Or will it be a Gauss Rifle? The latter, of course, falls into the problem The Elder Scrolls keeps having.
Granted, before any notes any sort of "hypocrisy" that I really, really like Suikoden II (A very linear RPG) and yet, touting on and on about freedom. There is a place for linear RPGs. If the story and characters work, then a linear RPG is going to work, in that case it's about playing a story, not so much about playing a Role in a game. Fallout was about being in a Role in the world.
I don't mind the move to 1st/3rd person myself. It was overall inevitable, and it'll be nice to see artists really make detailed rooms and show with great detail what this post apocalyptic world will look like. Hopefully they make it feel more like Morrowind, where everything is hand placed and has a purpose, rather than Oblivion. Walking up to get a good, close look at the scuff marks on the Vault door, seeing how paint has been removed from old vehicles and houses, et cetera, will be really nice.
What I personally hope isn't lost is the real feeling of choice and freedom found in the first two games. Being able to solve quests in multiple forms, being able to move from town to town, then go back to old towns to continue their quest trees (though, kinda frightening that 3 months later, that same widow is sitting in the same room waiting for that same lost boy in the same well...) Bethesda hasn't really shown that it's going to make an attempt to get that same feel in the game. Sure, at the beginning they promised that sort of thing, but looking at all the new videos, I'm sure that was forgotten with giant mantises.
While getting rid of the pop culture references isn't completely detrimental to the plotline, pop culture really does play a large, underlying role in the game. It's about a future that was probably destroyed by its own consumerism (see also: System Shock). The whole game, in itself is pretty much a reference to "Mad Max" as a whole and some refer to the game as "Mad Max RPG."
Changing the combat/feel of Fallout isn't going to really hamper what the fanbase is looking for. Fallout Tactics was a brilliant game that turned the RPG into a SPRG with both real time and turnbased options (much like X-COM: Apocalypse), and yet the game felt very "Fallout"y. It's about choice and consequence, it's about sometimes being a baby-eater to be Mother Theresa (to use the allegory by Yahtzee, which a friend of mine, prior to the Bioshock review used to call the "Ghandi or Dick" morality choice), it's about feeling like after every little quest and mission, feeling like you've actually made a change in each town, that you can effect the world through your actions. If Bethesda can do that using a FPRPG, more power to them, but mini-nuke launchers aren't the core of Fallout, sure, they're going to be very fun, but the real testament will be, will your other option be subterfuge or diplomacy? Or will it be a Gauss Rifle? The latter, of course, falls into the problem The Elder Scrolls keeps having.
Granted, before any notes any sort of "hypocrisy" that I really, really like Suikoden II (A very linear RPG) and yet, touting on and on about freedom. There is a place for linear RPGs. If the story and characters work, then a linear RPG is going to work, in that case it's about playing a story, not so much about playing a Role in a game. Fallout was about being in a Role in the world.
Fallout was all about the popculture references and humour. I haven't seen either in any Elder Scroll game yet. Please prove me wrong.BallPtPenTheif said:
So am I the only person still in their late teens that has played and loved both of the original Fallout games? As to Fallout 3 and Bethesda take on the Fallout world, I have mixed feelings. The Vaultec 50's styled commercial in the trailer definitely gave me hope that they were channeling some of the ideas that Interplay intended for the Fallout world, but the complete lack of non-combat gameplay was somewhat worrying. What really made Fallout for me was the out of combat NPC interaction and the awesome dialogue tree. You could really see the difference between a moronic INT 1 character and super-intelligent INT 10 character by the dialogue tree options you had available. Not only that, but there were a huge number of unique NPCs, and even the ones that weren't major quest related still had unique dialogue. Which brings me to Oblivion's 10-11 voice actors that played hundreds of characters. Seriously Bethesda, expanding the voice-acting budget a little would make the special NPCs a lot more memorable.
I think the combat also deserves a mention, because that's really the only thing we have any solid info on at the moment. The VATS system seems to be a fair compromise, and honestly people would likely be complaining just as much if it was completely removed as they are from having it in. Though I am kind of worried that the gun stats will only affect VATS shots, making them essentially useless against regular foes that you can just gun down. But then again, if they do tie the regular shots to your stats we may have a repeat of the horrible Morrowind/Oblivion Marksman skill, where arrows would miss even when they directly hit their target. But that aside, the Fatman mini-nuke is also worrying, because if ammo is easy to obtain for it the combat balance will go right out the window. Unless it is really heavy/encumbering, assuming they don't pull a Bioshock and yank the inventory system or make it too simple. I mean, just because it's multiplatform doesn't mean they should assume that every person should play is a retard. I never understood why PC gamers were always assumed to be a market with a higher average intelligence or whatever, but I digress. Fallout 3 will never be the game that hardcore fans want, but isn't that always the case with sequels eventually? Are there not still ridiculous people who play Counterstrike 1.6 because they feel that Counterstrike Source completely destroyed the balance or some crap like that? I mean, yeah, it would have been nice to see an overhead isometric Fallout 3 in an engine like the Diablo 3 engine or something like that, or to have actually gotten Van Buren (which if anyone has read into, actually had an awesome storyline that was like 90% finished) but not everything always goes exactly the way you want it to, and games are no different. I had high hopes when I first heard about Dark Sector, and then it came out like 2 years later and prover to be a mediocre third person shooter with an RE4 vibe. I look forward to Bethesda's Fallout 3, just as I once looked forward Interplay's Fallout 3. It likely will disappoint a lot of nostalgic old fans of the original two games, but will likely make just as many new fans to the franchise who never got in on the first two. So, just like any game you can buy it if you'll like it, and leave if you don't right? I mean some fans treat a series like it's theirs just because they like it and bought the originals, and think that they should get to make demands just because of that. But that not it at all, and you always have to remember that gaming is an industry just like any other, where money is the key motivator for any developer and fans come in a second of varying distance from the #1 incentive.
That was the longest post I've ever written, and I'm sorry about it's ranting qualities. I just wanted to get out all my thoughts on Fallout 3, and people's negative and positive responses to it. We'll see how good or bad it is come October, right everybody?
I think the combat also deserves a mention, because that's really the only thing we have any solid info on at the moment. The VATS system seems to be a fair compromise, and honestly people would likely be complaining just as much if it was completely removed as they are from having it in. Though I am kind of worried that the gun stats will only affect VATS shots, making them essentially useless against regular foes that you can just gun down. But then again, if they do tie the regular shots to your stats we may have a repeat of the horrible Morrowind/Oblivion Marksman skill, where arrows would miss even when they directly hit their target. But that aside, the Fatman mini-nuke is also worrying, because if ammo is easy to obtain for it the combat balance will go right out the window. Unless it is really heavy/encumbering, assuming they don't pull a Bioshock and yank the inventory system or make it too simple. I mean, just because it's multiplatform doesn't mean they should assume that every person should play is a retard. I never understood why PC gamers were always assumed to be a market with a higher average intelligence or whatever, but I digress. Fallout 3 will never be the game that hardcore fans want, but isn't that always the case with sequels eventually? Are there not still ridiculous people who play Counterstrike 1.6 because they feel that Counterstrike Source completely destroyed the balance or some crap like that? I mean, yeah, it would have been nice to see an overhead isometric Fallout 3 in an engine like the Diablo 3 engine or something like that, or to have actually gotten Van Buren (which if anyone has read into, actually had an awesome storyline that was like 90% finished) but not everything always goes exactly the way you want it to, and games are no different. I had high hopes when I first heard about Dark Sector, and then it came out like 2 years later and prover to be a mediocre third person shooter with an RE4 vibe. I look forward to Bethesda's Fallout 3, just as I once looked forward Interplay's Fallout 3. It likely will disappoint a lot of nostalgic old fans of the original two games, but will likely make just as many new fans to the franchise who never got in on the first two. So, just like any game you can buy it if you'll like it, and leave if you don't right? I mean some fans treat a series like it's theirs just because they like it and bought the originals, and think that they should get to make demands just because of that. But that not it at all, and you always have to remember that gaming is an industry just like any other, where money is the key motivator for any developer and fans come in a second of varying distance from the #1 incentive.
That was the longest post I've ever written, and I'm sorry about it's ranting qualities. I just wanted to get out all my thoughts on Fallout 3, and people's negative and positive responses to it. We'll see how good or bad it is come October, right everybody?
That's not really pop culture referance when you talk of your own game.J'aen said:
Gah, all this talk has made me wish windows could run Fallout over '98.