New Fallout 3 interview

[213374U]

I know you just don't want to admit your wrong, but please don't insult your own intelligence.

Was that an attempt at wit? Because it turned out to be just the opposite. You shouldn't push yourself too hard, or you may end up making another 'Fallout & chess' comparison.

 

 

but when you unpause it back to reflex city 

It doesn't matter, because you don't have to micromanage every second of the combat. Once you have issued your orders, you watch the combat unfold. If needed, you pause again, and change what needs to be changed.

 

 

This line:

You don't need a burst at close range to kill someone, unless::gasp::, not everything is realistic in video games.

 

was me showing you want it both ways, you want realism sometimes, and not others, not my arguement for why games don't need to be totally realistic.

 

I was challenging your opinion, not sharing my own. That is clear if you read.

Where have I stated that I want it both ways? In fact, for me the more realistic, the better. You would know that if you had actually thought about what I write. Oh well, I suppose I can't ask for that much from you.

 

 

Stop lying, just stop.

I'm not lying. It seems you have trouble interpreting mildly complex arguments and comprehending sentences more than five words long.

 

 

After reading the rest of your replies, I just don't have the heart to go on. Your lying about what I've argued, you use opinions as truths, and are ...just plain ignorant. It's like arguing with a retard brick wall.

What's that? Are you giving up? Just because you have been unable to defuse just one of my arguments?

Tell you what, it's about time. Quit embarrassing yourself already.

[Oerwinde]

There is still nothing in FO's combat system that makes TB a requirement. Or even desirable to any but those who have a strong preference for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, Real-Time in FOT was garbage, RT in Lionheart was garbage, and I don't even think FOBOS was even an adaption of SPECIAL, so until theres a decent adaption of SPECIAL into real-time, I'll stick with my FO=TB opinion.

 

I just personally think that systems designed for turn based, are much better in turn based. Much like ToEE's combat was vastly superior to NWN.

[Darque]

There is still nothing in FO's combat system that makes TB a requirement. Or even desirable to any but those who have a strong preference for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Except that it was built around turn based, and SPECIAL seems to work far better in a turn based environment.

[Drakron]

I have a question for all the peopel that think that a crpg system must be TB or you cant roleplay since your abilitys are based on your reflexes and not the character.

 

Does this mean you also think that all rulesystems should be brainlessly simplistic?

 

What does turn base have to do with being simplistic?

 

If anything it add dificulty when it allows large group fights to be more managable and force people to adapt tactics.

 

Otherwise stupid players might not understand them well enough and couldn't roleplay their characters in a effective way?

 

Well if they start to make games for the lowest common denominator ...

 

All games must have some dificulty, gameplay elements sould be intruduced at the start and do not offer much dificulty so people can grasp how the system basic works.

 

Roleplaying on a cRPG is easy, its impossible to act out of character since it forces dialogue by multiple choice replies, being a effective character on the other hand does require knowledge of the rules.

 

Why is analytical and tactical thinking a nessesity and hand eye cordination and reflexes are not?

It simply doesn't make sence...

 

Its simple, if I play a spellcaster character, I the player dont actually need to wave my hands, throw around small objects and speak incantantions for my character to cast spells.

 

So why sould it be diferent for other abilities?

 

If my character is a dead eye archer there sould be no need for me to be a dead eye shoot as well and if my character have a shield and nows how to block then there sould be no point for me to press a "block" key, those abilities are known to my characters and it sould reflect their skill ... not my skill.

 

There is a need for the player to input his choice for the character and real time system does not allow much more that "click here to swing sword/cast spell/fire arrow at this direction".

 

(Just for your information my analytical thinking is better then my hand eye cordination and I don't realy have anything against TB,  I'm just curious  :D )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I dont have anything against RT as long the game is a FPS with RPG elements (DeuxEx) and not the way around.

[mkreku]

I don't understand what everyone's so worried about. Bethesda will do it their way, no matter what. With Daggerfall they showed they can do a game with one hell of an atmosphere and story ("VENGEANCE!"), with Morrowind they showed they can create a very non-linear gaming experience. If only they manage to shape up their dialogues and NPC's, I am sure Fallout 3 can be good, if not great. Besides, the game is getting done. Period. Without Bethesda there would probably not be any more Fallout at all. Someone at least trying to make a new Fallout is a hell of a lot better than no chance of getting another Fallout ever again.

[Oerwinde]

I don't understand what everyone's so worried about. Bethesda will do it their way, no matter what. With Daggerfall they showed they can do a game with one hell of an atmosphere and story ("VENGEANCE!"), with Morrowind they showed they can create a very non-linear gaming experience. If only they manage to shape up their dialogues and NPC's, I am sure Fallout 3 can be good, if not great. Besides, the game is getting done. Period. Without Bethesda there would probably not be any more Fallout at all. Someone at least trying to make a new Fallout is a hell of a lot better than no chance of getting another Fallout ever again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That depends. If its as bad as Morrowind, I'd prefer it never had been made.

[mkreku]

That depends. If its as bad as Morrowind, I'd prefer it never had been made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to tell me who's holding the gun to your head, forcing you to play the game, because I need to report this horrible crime to the police.

[Oerwinde]

That depends. If its as bad as Morrowind, I'd prefer it never had been made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to tell me who's holding the gun to your head, forcing you to play the game, because I need to report this horrible crime to the police.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can't tell you. He'll shoot me if I do.

[Drakron]

Well its Fallout, they wanted the licence so they could sell the game on name alone.

 

The truth is a lot of people will buy it based on the name alone, unless it ends up as FOBOS (it can) and people get a warning before the release.

 

To tell the truth I am not looking forward to FO3 (or whatever) since in my view Fallout 3 sould have been done a long time ago and I dont think its something people will care about now since Fallout is for a niche market that already voiced they want SPECIAL, trying to "bring it to the masses" at the expense of the core market will just end up in disaster, FOBOS already shown that.

 

Perhaps its a lesson publishers need to learn that "retro gaming" is too much of a risk despite looking to the market latest fad and not really worth if its just the title with the latest maket latest fad in terms of gameplay since its going to produce a standart title in terms of quality that its not going even to appeal to the original series players.

 

And yes, I am not forced to buy it and I likely I will not ...

[NeverwinterKnight]

And yes, I am not forced to buy it and I likely I will not ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ive seen you say this for a couple of games now. is there actually games that you will buy? just curious is all.

[213374U]

Well, Real-Time in FOT was garbage

No.

 

 

That depends. If its as bad as Morrowind, I'd prefer it never had been made.

That's the kind of bigoted attitude that has earned the hard-core Fallout fans their reputation as total asses.

[Drakron]

ive seen you say this for a couple of games now.  is there actually games that you will buy?  just curious is all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I will get The Sims 2: University.

 

Things are a little dead on other games, I really dont see any new titles I am wish to play, MGS3 is months away and I am waiting for Halo 2 price to drop (I refuse to play that much for a 10 hour game) ... that is pretty much it (besides FF XII but that is likely over a year away from my PS2).

 

So far I said I would not get KotOR II, I likely will not get Fallout 3 as I would not get BG 3 ... I dont belive in resurrecting old games, even as a big Wing Command fan I would not play another Wing Commander game.

[Oerwinde]

Well, Real-Time in FOT was garbage

No.

 

Oooh, the number of people who liked the RT in FOT is up to 2. Crazy.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Oooh, the number of people who liked the RT in FOT is up to 2. Crazy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

FOT in RT was great. You could set characters to overwatch. You could make full use of a wide range of tactics , like advancing under cover fire so the enemy would keep their heads down. Assault troops equipped with grenades and shotguns could storm strongpoints while snipers picked off anything that dared to show its face.

 

Controlling 6 characters in real time took a bit of practice, but it wasnt that difficult. Really just a case of thinking ahead so that everything arrived at the point you wanted it at the same time.

 

TB on the other hand, well slow , dull and with very poorly done AI that could not react outside of it own turn. Remember this ? Walk to a corner switch to TB walk around the corner shoot and then walk back..

 

Regardless of your personal preference you have still failed to show why a game system as simple as FO (much simpler than D&D for example) needs to run in TB.

 

If the game uses the usual one character and a bunch of hangers on even the most inept and slow thinking gamer should be able to handle that.

[Laozi]

To tell the truth I am not looking forward to FO3 (or whatever) since in my view Fallout 3 sould have been done a long time ago and I dont think its something people will care about now since Fallout is for a niche market that already voiced they want SPECIAL, trying to "bring it to the masses" at the expense of the core market will just end up in disaster, FOBOS already shown that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have to agree with you on atleast one thing. I share your fear that this game might only resemble Fallout in name alone. Also Morrowind really bothered me, and then after the initial irritation it really just bored me. Where as I don't share you sort of misanthropy for the gaming industry as a whole, I do have my concerns

[mEtaLL1x]

I love both systems, as long as they suit the game.

[draakh_kimera]

This thread is at the same time kind of disturbing but also amusing. People come here and express their personal preference in how a game should be run, and then proceed to attack other people's opinions. This is then followed by a bunch of "logical" and "realistic" arguments to back up why their opinion is better. It's like they can't understand or respect other people's personal preference. At the same time, using logical arguments to strengthen an argument based purely on personal preference lacks logic completely. Of course, I won't deny that it's fun sometimes, but it seems like some people here take it a bit too far...

[Alien_77]

Oooh, the number of people who liked the RT in FOT is up to 2. Crazy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Make it three.

 

I go with mEtalLL1x opinion, as long as it suits the game. I loved TB in Fallout or SSI's Buck Rogers but RT in FOT or Baldurs Gate were okay to me too. What about a TB system which switch to RT on easy fights, for example player and NCP's are on much higher level than the the enemy and it is sure you will win the the fight without any hard loss. Just an idea.

[Oerwinde]

Oooh, the number of people who liked the RT in FOT is up to 2. Crazy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Make it three.

 

I go with mEtalLL1x opinion, as long as it suits the game. I loved TB in Fallout or SSI's Buck Rogers but RT in FOT or Baldurs Gate were okay to me too. What about a TB system which switch to RT on easy fights, for example player and NCP's are on much higher level than the the enemy and it is sure you will win the the fight without any hard loss. Just an idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was the only reason I ever used the RT option in FOT so I'm all for it as long as theres a fully turn based option. I'm not against Real Time in general, it was fine in BG, NWN, IWD, etc. I just feel that since Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 were both turn based, so should fallout 3. It would be like if they made Warcraft 4 turn based, its just not right.

[zer"0"]

Seeing as this is supposed to be a sequel to FO1&2, I would prefer they keep TB, ISO-view and SPECIAL.

But like Tod Howard says in the interview they will do what they think is fun. And to my knowledge Bethesda have never done a TB game.

This I think makes it clear that FO3 would probably be RT and possibly worse off for it. IMHO.

Still, I believe if a game is designed with thoughtfulness toward gameplay/fun-factor, it becomes moot to the player whether its RT/TB. Its all in the design.

I certainly don't judge my games by whether they are RT/TB. But rather fun-factor, immersion and gameplay.

[mEtaLL1x]

Again, it's all about story/atmosphere/style and dialogs.

 

Combat system? I don't give a damn.

[213374U]

Oooh, the number of people who liked the RT in FOT is up to 2. Crazy.

So? That doesn't make it crap. That only proves that people have poor tastes.

 

 

This thread is at the same time kind of disturbing but also amusing.  People come here and express their personal preference in how a game should be run, and then proceed to attack other people's opinions.  This is then followed by a bunch of "logical" and "realistic" arguments to back up why their opinion is better.  It's like they can't understand or respect other people's personal preference.  At the same time, using logical arguments to strengthen an argument based purely on personal preference lacks logic completely.  Of course, I won't deny that it's fun sometimes, but it seems like some people here take it a bit too far...

Thanks for such an insightful review so full of truthful analyses and other deep stuff. Um, I'd study it more indepth, but suddenly the john's calling out to me. You understand.

[Alien_77]

Again, it's all about story/atmosphere/style and dialogs.

Combat system? I don't give a damn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats true, but CRGP's have much more facet's than an old style adventure game. So its okay to discuss about TB/RT.

[Batrilor]

Greetings.

 

This is my first post on these forums.

 

I've been eagerly awaiting Fallout 3, and I was sadden to hear that BIS have closed down and are unable to complete Van Buren.

 

I've been trying to find all sorts of information about this game and when I heard that Bethesda bought the rights I felt betrayed. Not that Bethesda is a bad company, they have had great success with their Elederscrolls series, but what works for that series might not work for Fallout.

 

I've read many forums on this subject and most fans of Fallout feels that Bethesda can't make Fallout justice.

 

The interview posted in this thread do offers some light, but like most people working for gaming industries the answers are shady or not existant. Asking a 2 part question gives you the answer to one, but hardly both part. Or you get a respons that isn't related to the question in the first place.

 

So how do I want Fallout 3 to be? 3/4 isometric view is what the other fallout games used. It worked. You had a nice overview of your character, party and foes as well as the area around your character.

 

Will Bethesda go for this view, a view that we know works and by looking at the old Van Buren screenshots we know that BIS was going for that view again, but with 3d graphics as well as the possability to rotate the camera at 90 degree angles. So we would be able to see whats might be obstructed by a wall or something.

 

I read what the Bethesda guy said in a interview. They are currently working on Elderscrolls Oblivion. Using a new engine, and an engine they will use for Fallout 3.

 

Based on the screenshots I've seen of Oblivion it will look like Morrowwind. 1st person view. So if they are going to use the same engine for Fallout then it will probably be a 1st person view game.

 

They say they are big fans of the fallout series and that they will do what they can to make it justice. But they also say that they will stick with what they know and what works. In this case it is their flagship, the Elder Scrolls series. They know how to make a 1st person view game, but they don't know much about a 3/4 ISO view game. So based on what they say, they will most likely not even try to make a 3/4 Isometric view game.

 

How about Turnbased or Realtime combat?

They know that most of the most vocal fans want turnbased combat, but they also say they will do what they think will be the most fun. Once again we look at their flagship, Elder Scrolls. Based on their sales they will probably draw the conclusion that realtime is the most fun. It is what they have been doing before and are doing in Oblivion.

 

Since I don't work in the gaming industry I don't know how much you can twiddle with a game engine, or what limitation you might have. It is possible that the engine used for Oblivion is versitile enough to allow 3rd person view, allow isometric view and allow turnbased or pause/give order/unpause capabilities.

 

I enjoy the Fallout series a great deal. And I can't wait to see what Bethesda will do with the franchise. I might be disapointed or I might be surprised. My initial reaction was disapointment, but my feelings have changed a little bit. Not much but a little.

 

What I find strange is that over at Bethesda there are no Fallout 3 forum. There used to be a place where people could discuss it but it is removed. All their forums are no concentrating on their Elder Scrolls series.

 

They won't start working on Fallout 3 until Oblivion is completed, but they are working on some of the ideas they have for the game. Still. They bought the franchise in July 2004 and it is now closing in on April 2005. And no information over at Bethesda about Fallout.

 

Hopefully they will release more information or at least dedicate a forum to Fallout 3 when Olbivion have gone gold. Since they have a few people working on it and are stating that they will start programming and such when Oblivion is competed they should be getting close to finalizing the storyline, have some concept art or maybe even some screenshots ready. Oblivion is to be released in the summer which is between June-August. Only a few more months away.

 

Sorry for the long post.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Its the system that BG, KoTOR, IWD and NWN use, its a turn base system ... not a real time system no matter how many idiots think its a real time system.

 

Yes, we definetely need more of the kind of idiots that believe simultaneous actions are the same as individual, sequential actions.

 

 

Well, Real-Time in FOT was garbage

No.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Probably not garbage, but not that good either. I only needed to have all the members of the party in overwatch mode and move them along the map, they'd terminate their targets nearly automatically. There wasn't a real need for tactics. The poor AI, contrary to several statements made here, was poor regardless of the system you played it on. It showed its flaws both in realtime and turnbased.

 

 

 

As for the whole realtime vs turnbased, one of the good things about turnbased combat, in comparison to pure realtime, is that given it's admitedly slower nature and lack of time constrains for accessing options, the interface can be indepth, and so can the number of combat options. A pure realtime game generally cannot present that many options to a player, and there has to be a compromise between the interface's levels of complexity and simplicity, and the combat model's depth. In a turnbased game, you're not under any pressure to issue commands, so the interface can be deeper and combat options can be immense. In realtime, options are usually reduced for the sake of giving the player a set of commands which are quick to operate.

 

However, what realtime with pause (not pure realtime) basically manages right is to give players a faster combat model while still allowing for the same depth of combat options to be there, along with an interface that isn't streamlined for the sake of realtime combat. If you can pause then you have all the time to access the interface and to plan your attacks, just as you would in turnbased.

 

The problem is that adding a pause feature is basically adding an improvement while inserting a drawback, the most obvious one being the need to access the interface repeatedly in short amounts of time due to realtime itself. In order to adapt to certain situations in combat, the player has to repeatedly access the interface, more precisely, the pause function. Granted, he can use hotkeys and neglect the pause function, but that's neglecting the main aspect of the system. The other aspect is that once unpaused, you're still left with realtime, which has a tendency to be chaotic at best. Ranged combat in particular doesn't go very well with realtime. Turnbased minimizes that discrepancy a bit, at least.

 

Infinity Engine and Neverwinter Nights combat also had to contend with another problem, which was to take into account the conversion of combat rules into realtime. Pausing to quickly issue commands was often times nullified or not as efficient as it could be because all characters had to obey the six second rule and their animations had to be played out in order to reflect this. With this kind of constrain (ie, using a realtime with pause system which is not trying to adapt any rules which would conflict with its design), the realtime with pause system of those games was a bit compromised, and not as good as it could have been.

 

 

As for a system being outdated, that's got more to do with gamers' general appreciation of the system in a given time, not with anything inherent to the system. Realtime had been considered outdated in the past, then it came back and became widely accepted again, while turnbased was on the other side of that. Both realtime and turnbased's perceived flaws can, and have been, dealt with in several games in the past. They aren't improved more often because there is a tendency to imitate rather than inovate, the blatant example being clones of successful games or game formulas.

 

 

And Happy Easter or somesuch.