Fallout 3

[Diamond]

I am actually looking forward for that game and if it will be good, I don't care if it is not "built upon" previous series.

[Musopticon?]

Ooh, a dodge. Whatever, Hades.

 

 

Believe me, I don't exactly trust that Bethesda will manage their monolithic job with great marks, but I will give them the benefit of doubt.

[Judge Hades]

They game might as well be very well done but if they aren't going to use what made Fallout Fallout then they shouldn't call it Fallout. They should just make their own Post Apocalyptic setting and use the rules system they are use to with the TES series.

 

Frankly I would rather see them do that, and I would gladly buy that, over their Fallout 3.

Edited January 16, 2006 by Judge Hades

[astr0creep]

Of course I would make some concessions.  Such as I would expect the game to be fully 3D rendered instead of sprite based like the previous Fallouts.  I would also expect there would be a real time option, which is fine as long as I have my turn base option and it is balanced at least for turn base if not both.

 

Bethesda makes fantasy single player MMORPGs, astr0creep, and not science fiction CRPGs.  They have no experience with the genre nor the style of Fallout.  The nly development house I see that can do Fallout any sort of justice is Obsidian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hum. Single player MMORPGs do not exist Judgy! it's one or the other. Bethesda are known for their Single player, very open ended RPGs.

 

I think you need to play Fallout 1 again, just to see how much of a make over it needs.

 

Obsidian took Bioware's engine and made KOTOR 2 by order of LucasArts and by the same order, rushed it out the door FULL of bugs. As far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve so much credit as to being offered Fallout 3. They did a good job under the circumstances and I love the game but Bioware not making it was a mistake.

 

Morrowind has robots in it. Does it make it Sci-Fi? Take Morrowind and replace some models and you have a Sci-Fi RPG.

 

Based on my experience on playing (20 years)and making games for a living(6 years), I believe Bethesda can do a better job with Fallout 3 than Obsidian can.

[Judge Hades]

I disagree.

 

Morrowind played like every single MMORPG I have played yet only one player. Single player MMORPG.

 

Obsidian has people who were actually making Fallout 3, Project Van Buren, before Interplay went under and what was released was damn impressive. Moreso than anything Bethesda could do.

[astr0creep]

I disagree. 

 

Morrowind played like every single MMORPG I have played yet only one player.  Single player MMORPG.

 

Obsidian has people who were actually making Fallout 3, Project Van Buren, before Interplay went under and what was released was damn impressive.  Moreso than anything Bethesda could do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you have stock in Obsidian?

Project Van Buren is dead. Live with it. There is nothing to compare Bethesda's work with anymore. We need to look at what is there and forget what is dead.

 

Fallout 3 won't be rushed, Bethesda are a proven developper with a very good track record. That should be enough for anyone to at least WAIT and see what they come up with before thrashing them.

 

And you can be sure they will do some research before starting this thing, making sure that the product they will make will sell to the most people. Maybe you will be among the satisfied, maybe you won't.

[Llyranor]

Me having no interest in FO3 has little to do with the name. I don't have that much allegiance to the FO series - not my favorite. It has to do with Bethesda, and what THEIR view of what makes good RPGs.

 

I disagree with the very nature of what constitutes a RPG in Morrowind. Its design is completely opposite of what I look for in RPGs. Oblivion takes that, and mainstreams it even more, digging an even bigger hole. THESE are Bethesda's priorities. They are not a RPG developer I have *ANY* interest in.

 

Them making FO3 is as exciting to me as if Lionhead or GasPowered or Blizzard were making FO3. Fable, Dungeon Siege, and Diablo may have been 'good games', but those companies' RPG philosophy and mine clash, and I have zero motivation to be interested any RPGs they do. This isn't blind fanboyism, it's a realistic analysis of my tastes. It doesn't matter WHAT RPG Bethesda does - whether it's FO3 or not, I'm not interested.

 

It's like Blizzard making RTS. 7 million people bought WC3. 7 million people can't be wrong. I haven't enjoyed a single Blizzard RTS, and I'm not suddenly going to start with SC2.

[Kaftan Barlast]

The thing is that Fallout3 will most likely appeal to Morrowind fans more than it will appeal to fans of Fallout and classic CRPG's.

 

 

Bethesda has a completely different approach to CRPGs than BIS, BioWare, Troika or Obsidian. And this quote

 

IGNPC: Can we expect something similar to..    ..Morrowind..

 

 

BETHESDA: ...it would be similar in style..    ...that it is that we do best.

 

proves that Bethesda intend to stick with their method because that is what they do best. Unfortunately, that will not result in a game that fans of CRPGs will enjoy as it it favours exploration over roleplaying.

[Spider]

In his ramblings, Hades actually has a point. A sequel needs to be a sequel more than in name only. A game that builds upon an existing franchise and tries to cater to that games fanbase needs to give the fans what they want. If too many things change, those fans won't want the game while other people may get turned off because they didn't like the original. I only need to point as far as FO:BOS to illustrate my point.

 

By the way, when I write established fan base, I'm not talking about the true fanatics at places like NMA (no slight to them, I've been a member at NMA at times), but at people who played the first two games and still have fond memories of them.

 

Exactly how much can be changed without alienating said fan base is hard to know though as it varies from person to person. Some will stay away if there is no turn-based combat, some will if the game plays out in first person. Some will if the dialogue system is the same as in Morrowind and some if SPECIAL isn't used. Some will refuse to buy it if Deathclaws are hairy.

 

Maybe Bethesda can pull of turning the game into "Oblivion with guns" and still sell it to their own established fan base, the people who loved Morrowind and probably will love Oblivion as well. But if those are the people they intend to make the game for, the name Fallout is kinda meaningless. I'm not saying that people who like Morrowind don't like Fallout, but if they're buying the game because they like the Bethesda style, then the game might as well have been called Morrowout or whatever. The point is, that if that's the case the money spent to acquire the liscense were pretty much wasted.

 

So Bethesda is probably going to try and cater to both fanbases. So where is the cut-off point? How much can they change or keep and still keep a majority of both groups happy? I have no idea, but I hope they do.

 

Very little information has been released so far, but I hope it will turn out to be a great game. I'm afraid it's going to be a lot like Morrowind (which I cannot stand). I can live with a lot of changes, but I still feel there have to be enough left of the originals for it to feel like a sequel and not an entirely different franchise.

 

The things I want and that can be deal-breakers for me are actual branching dialogue, both what my character is saying and what the NPCs are saying; the SPECIAL rule set; the feel and athmosphere of the original setting (and not that of FO: Tactics or, worse, FO: BOS) and combat that makes use of my characters skills and not my own. Maybe I can even live with a combat model similar to the one in Vampire: Bloodlines, but I'm hesitant.

 

Regardless, I am willing to give Bethesda the benefit of a doubt until more information about the game surfaces. As of yet we have no idea what they're actually planning and can only speculate.

[Llyranor]

FO3 WILL probably sell millions. They have enough of a fanbase to eat up anything they throw up. Just go read on the ES forums what their fanbase is like.

 

[astr0creep]

The thing is that Fallout3 will most likely appeal to Morrowind fans more than it will appeal to fans of Fallout and classic CRPG's.

 

 

Bethesda has a completely different approach to CRPGs than BIS, BioWare, Troika or Obsidian. And this quote

 

IGNPC: Can we expect something similar to..    ..Morrowind..

 

 

BETHESDA: ...it would be similar in style..    ...that it is that we do best.

 

proves that Bethesda intend to stick with their method because that is what they do best. Unfortunately, that will not result in a game that fans of CRPGs will enjoy as it it favours exploration over roleplaying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So... what is classic CRPG? Baldur's Gate and Planescape Torment or Ultima Underworld and Betrayal at Krondor? Or is more like X-Com?

Edited January 16, 2006 by astr0creep

[Musopticon?]

The former ones might be more relevant in this case.

[astr0creep]

The former ones might be more relevant in this case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, the latter serves the term Classic better. However, the former are more related to Fallout.

 

So Fallout fans don't want change?

 

For the record, I hope Bethesda will NOT simply change the visuals of Oblivion and make Oblivion with guns.

 

I hope they keep perks and quirks and the leveling system. I love Fallout too and I was very disapointed when Project Van Buren died.

 

I also love Morrowind and the Elder Scrolls series and out of all the Devs available, I believe Bethesda is the best one for the job.

 

Personally, I would like a First person RPG/Shooter hybrid, like System Shock or Deus Ex set in the Fallout universe with a slower pace than those 2 games, more conversation and character developpement. Turn-based combat? Anybody ever played Wizardry on PS2? FPTBC!

[Musopticon?]

Personally, I would like a First person RPG/Shooter hybrid, like System Shock or Deus Ex set in the Fallout universe with a slower pace than those 2 games, more conversation and character developpement. Turn-based combat? Anybody ever played Wizardry on PS2? FPTBC!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Marry me. Now.

[astr0creep]

Personally, I would like a First person RPG/Shooter hybrid, like System Shock or Deus Ex set in the Fallout universe with a slower pace than those 2 games, more conversation and character developpement. Turn-based combat? Anybody ever played Wizardry on PS2? FPTBC!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Marry me. Now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hire me. Now.

[karka]

In his ramblings, Hades actually has a point. A sequel needs to be a sequel more than in name only. A game that builds upon an existing franchise and tries to cater to that games fanbase needs to give the fans what they want. If too many things change, those fans won't want the game while other people may get turned off because they didn't like the original. I only need to point as far as FO:BOS to illustrate my point.

.

.

.

 

Regardless, I am willing to give Bethesda the benefit of a doubt until more information about the game surfaces. As of yet we have no idea what they're actually planning and can only speculate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nice post indeed

 

I even don't think that we will hear "war....war never changes" quote.

 

Using Fallout universe by other developers is not a problem for me. If Bethesda makes Falout: Bla Bla i will be happy. But, when it comes to Fallout 3, they should keep main elements. Of course, they can use some shiny 3D graphics engine or make AI more complex.. These are OK for me. But, changing the entire game is horrible.

Edited January 16, 2006 by karka

[Jorian Drake]

uhh, i think anything has been said, so i just think its time to close this :D

[Fionavar]

Closed at thread originator's request.