Bethesda + Their Games

[Judge Hades]

J.E. Sawyer sated, back on the old BIS forums, that Van Buren was to have both Turn Base combat and real time combat options, but the game itself would have been balanced for Turn Base combat.

 

Shadwostrider, like I said I am not asking for Bethesda's Fallout 3 to be exclusively turn base. I am asking for the turn base option as it is played out inthe original Fallouts.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Kasoroth]

Hey, Bethesda has a style to their CRPGs and I am expecting them to keep using that style in future CRPGs with minor tweaking where it comes to graphics.  It is a style that they are comfortable with.  I think that is a perfectly legitiment expectation out of a computer game company, do to what they are comfortable with and has proven to be a success.

 

All indications is Morrowind is a success and Oblivion will also sell.  It is no great leap of logic that Fallout 3 will have very similar aspects of these two games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bethesda has had a relatively consistent style with the core Elder Scrolls games (which is a good thing in my opinion), but they've also made some spin-off games like Redguard that were quite different. Redguard may not have been a true CRPG (more of an action adventure with some RPG elements), but it did demonstrate that Bethesda is capable of doing something different from the core ES style.

 

I'm hoping that they demonstrate some of that adaptability when they make Fallout 3 and take a lot of inspiraton from the style of the original Fallout games.

 

One positive indicator that I've noted is that they claim there are more actual dialogue trees in Oblivion than in Morrowind. Morrowind's engine could actually do a kind of Fallout/Infinity Engine/NWN style dialogue tree either when you first talked to an NPC or in response to a dialogue keyword, but the interface in the editor for making them was far less user friendly than the conversation editor in NWN, and dialogue trees were barely used at all in the game (usually just an occasional yes/no question, or whether you wanted to resist arrest, pay a fine, or go to jail). If they're expanding the use of dialogue trees in Oblivion, it gives me some hope that they might use that as the primary means of conversation in Fallout 3, perhaps using the keyword dialogue only for generic "filler NPCs" such as those who only had single line floats in the original Fallouts, and maybe as a "can you tell me about...?" option like the Fallout 1 keyword dialogue system.

 

One of my favorite aspects of the Fallout games was that you had a lot of freedom to go where you wanted and do what you wanted. This is something that Bethesda does well. One concern that I have is that Bethesda's main storylines are often quite linear, whereas the Fallout games generally had just a few "critical main plot points" that you had to hit, but they had a lot of side quests that were not required, but connected to the main plot in some way and provided clues to the main plot. Bethesda's side quests have not traditionally hooked into the main plot and provided clues the way the Fallout ones did, rather there were more main plot quests that you had to do in order to get the information you needed to progress.

 

I think that Bethesda will probably do a very good job of creating a big world with freedom to go where you want, that's always been one of their strong points, and hopefully they'll give lots of options in terms of camera views. There's no reason a 3D game can't have the option for locked isometric view, first person, AND over-the-shoulder chase cam. In fact, being able to switch to first person when using a sniper rifle would be quite nice, especially if they can handle very long view distances. In Morrowind I switched back and forth between 1st person and 3rd person (1st for ranged weapons, 3rd for melee and general travel) and that worked quite well because you could switch views with a single keystroke.

 

I definitely hope they keep the SPECIAL system relatively intact. I don't necessarily dislike the Elder Scrolls learn-by-doing system, but I'd rather see Fallout 3 keep a system that at least resembles the original SPECIAL system.

 

Somehow I doubt that they'll include turn based combat (but who knows, they might surprise me). I'd like it if they did, but it wouldn't be a game killer for me if they didn't. The main thing I liked about the Fallout games was the way the plot was rather loosely structured, but many side quests tied in to the main quest in some way, and many also affected the end game slideshow showing what happened to each town. The setting was nice, but it wasn't what really made me love the original games. The turn based combat was nice, but it wasn't what made me a fan.

 

If they can achieve a similarly flexible plot structure in Fallout 3, I'll be very glad that Bethesda bought the Fallout rights. If not, I'll probably be disappointed. I'm still going to wait for more information before I make a judgement.

 

-Kasoroth

[Judge Hades]

I am just trying to find a nice middle ground that will keep both the purists and the casual crowd happy. You know, its called compromise. If Shadowstrider's attitude and the words said in those interviews of Hines and Howard are any indication on how they are going to develope Fallout 3 there will be very little of Fallout in the game except for the title.

[Llyranor]

If the title is all that's left AND you enjoy Bethesda games, in the end, is this just blind loyalty to a dead franchise, then?

[Judge Hades]

Not blind loyalty, but loyalty yes. And I would say I like their games in general. I only own two and one of them I don't like.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Arkan]

Hey, Bethesda has a style to their CRPGs and I am expecting them to keep using that style in future CRPGs with minor tweaking where it comes to graphics.  It is a style that they are comfortable with.  I think that is a perfectly legitiment expectation out of a computer game company, do to what they are comfortable with and has proven to be a success.

 

All indications is Morrowind is a success and Oblivion will also sell.  It is no great leap of logic that Fallout 3 will have very similar aspects of these two games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bethesda has had a relatively consistent style with the core Elder Scrolls games (which is a good thing in my opinion), but they've also made some spin-off games like Redguard that were quite different. Redguard may not have been a true CRPG (more of an action adventure with some RPG elements), but it did demonstrate that Bethesda is capable of doing something different from the core ES style.

 

I'm hoping that they demonstrate some of that adaptability when they make Fallout 3 and take a lot of inspiraton from the style of the original Fallout games.

 

One positive indicator that I've noted is that they claim there are more actual dialogue trees in Oblivion than in Morrowind. Morrowind's engine could actually do a kind of Fallout/Infinity Engine/NWN style dialogue tree either when you first talked to an NPC or in response to a dialogue keyword, but the interface in the editor for making them was far less user friendly than the conversation editor in NWN, and dialogue trees were barely used at all in the game (usually just an occasional yes/no question, or whether you wanted to resist arrest, pay a fine, or go to jail). If they're expanding the use of dialogue trees in Oblivion, it gives me some hope that they might use that as the primary means of conversation in Fallout 3, perhaps using the keyword dialogue only for generic "filler NPCs" such as those who only had single line floats in the original Fallouts, and maybe as a "can you tell me about...?" option like the Fallout 1 keyword dialogue system.

 

One of my favorite aspects of the Fallout games was that you had a lot of freedom to go where you wanted and do what you wanted. This is something that Bethesda does well. One concern that I have is that Bethesda's main storylines are often quite linear, whereas the Fallout games generally had just a few "critical main plot points" that you had to hit, but they had a lot of side quests that were not required, but connected to the main plot in some way and provided clues to the main plot. Bethesda's side quests have not traditionally hooked into the main plot and provided clues the way the Fallout ones did, rather there were more main plot quests that you had to do in order to get the information you needed to progress.

 

I think that Bethesda will probably do a very good job of creating a big world with freedom to go where you want, that's always been one of their strong points, and hopefully they'll give lots of options in terms of camera views. There's no reason a 3D game can't have the option for locked isometric view, first person, AND over-the-shoulder chase cam. In fact, being able to switch to first person when using a sniper rifle would be quite nice, especially if they can handle very long view distances. In Morrowind I switched back and forth between 1st person and 3rd person (1st for ranged weapons, 3rd for melee and general travel) and that worked quite well because you could switch views with a single keystroke.

 

I definitely hope they keep the SPECIAL system relatively intact. I don't necessarily dislike the Elder Scrolls learn-by-doing system, but I'd rather see Fallout 3 keep a system that at least resembles the original SPECIAL system.

 

Somehow I doubt that they'll include turn based combat (but who knows, they might surprise me). I'd like it if they did, but it wouldn't be a game killer for me if they didn't. The main thing I liked about the Fallout games was the way the plot was rather loosely structured, but many side quests tied in to the main quest in some way, and many also affected the end game slideshow showing what happened to each town. The setting was nice, but it wasn't what really made me love the original games. The turn based combat was nice, but it wasn't what made me a fan.

 

If they can achieve a similarly flexible plot structure in Fallout 3, I'll be very glad that Bethesda bought the Fallout rights. If not, I'll probably be disappointed. I'm still going to wait for more information before I make a judgement.

 

-Kasoroth

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Nothing more really needs to be said here.

[Shadowstrider]

I am just trying to find a nice middle ground that will keep both the purists and the casual crowd happy.  You know, its called compromise.  If Shadowstrider's attitude and the words said in those interviews of Hines and Howard are any indication on how they are going to develope Fallout 3 there will be very little of Fallout in the game except for the title.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL!

 

Compromise = Do everything I want!

 

And who could forget: "If it isn't turn-based it isn't Fallout."

 

Baiting isn't very nice. Stop it.

[Llyranor]

Well, if the franchise as you know it is dead, then all that remains is just the name. In the end, if you enjoy Bethesda games, you'll only be depriving yourself of a RPG you'll potentially enjoy. In this day and age where RPGs are rare enough as it is, who ultimately pays the price? Probably not Bethesda. They have enough clout that they can do anything they want to the franchise and people will buy it. The issue is whether or not you'd be able to let the Fallout name be and just focus on the game itself for what it is, though you've probably already answered this.

[Judge Hades]

Shadowstrider, I am trying to be reasonable. Yes, let the game have real time combat but let there also be turn base combat as well. What is the harm in having both systems? Are you saying that you guys are incapable of doing this? That you lack skill to balance the combat system in both regards?

 

The more options you give the game the wider the audience you will have.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Judge Hades]

Well, if the franchise as you know it is dead, then all that remains is just the name. In the end, if you enjoy Bethesda games, you'll only be depriving yourself of a RPG you'll potentially enjoy. In this day and age where RPGs are rare enough as it is, who ultimately pays the price? Probably not Bethesda. They have enough clout that they can do anything they want to the franchise and people will buy it. The issue is whether or not you'd be able to let the Fallout name be and just focus on the game itself for what it is, though you've probably already answered this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I have. Also Shadowstrider has confirmed a few things for me about Bethesda's attitude toward the franchise.

[Shadowstrider]

Shadowstrider, I am trying to be reasonable. Yes, let the game have real time combat but let there also be turn base combat as well.  What is the harm in having both systems?  Are you saying that you guys are incapable of doing this?  That you lack skill to balance the combat system in both regards?

 

The more options you give the game the wider the audience you will have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you have any idea how much game development costs?

 

Hypothetically, lets say Fallout 3 was using TB combat. Do you know how much time and money it would require to add in RT combat? How about the opposite?

 

Its not as if we could sit a programmer or two down and say "Alright, now program in real time implementation. You have two days." It requires teams of people, and gobs of time.

 

A game development company has to balance workload with the rewards associated with it.

[Llyranor]

Like I said, Bethesda can do whatever they want with the franchise now

[Judge Hades]

Excuses.

 

It has been done with Fallout Tactics and that system was quite satisfactory for the task it was given.

[Darque]

It has been done with Fallout Tactics and that system was quite satisfactory for the task it was given.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, will you be paying for it?

[Shadowstrider]

Obviously, Hades knows more about Fallout 3 than I do.

 

Whens it coming out? Oh, oh! When can we expect the first screenshots?

 

Will there be a downloadable demo? If not, I refuse to buy it.

 

I mean, since you seem to know the Execs. so well, can you at least tell me if capes, dual-wielding and horses are in? What about jedi? Any cameos from Drizzt?

[Judge Hades]

Now you are just being ridiculous. You have proven to me that Fallout will be indeed Fallout in name only. You win so be happy.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Jack the Ripper]

Now you are just being ridiculous.  You have proven to me that Fallout will be indeed Fallout in an,e only.  You win so be happy. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, that was fun to watch. Anybody got an image that says "pwn'd" on it somewhere in their photobucket?

[Judge Hades]

Such graphical displays are childish and annoying.

[Llyranor]

Go go Bethesda PR

[Shadowstrider]

I suck at PR. Will you go out with me?

 

They're so going to fire my ass.

[Judge Hades]

Well, I hope they do not and I duly apologize if that happens. I would not want that to happen to anyone.

 

Of course as far as I am concerned our discussion is completely off the record and I most certainly will not hold to anything that is said here at this forum. As far as I am concerned what happens at Obsidian stays at Obsidian.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Shadowstrider]

*Shrugs*

 

Nothing I've said here is indicative of anything, except for my spite towards all things living.

 

EDIT: And my personal philosophy.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Shadowstrider

[Judge Hades]

At least we have that in common.

 

Then again there is a little bit of me also hopes that it is Oblivion with Guns just to piss off the Codexers.

[Berserk]

*Shrugs*

 

Nothing I've said here is indicative of anything, except for my spite towards every whiny, rabid falloutfan.

 

EDIT: And my personal philosophy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fixed your post there..

[Llyranor]

I wouldn't take anything ShadowStrider says as any indication of what FO3 may or may not be. I doubt he'd risk revealing stuff he shouldn't.