No Fallout 3 at E3 2006

[Meshugger]

I'll be frank. Oblivion's FO3 will suck simply because Bethesda makes sucky games. It's that simple folks. Not complicated. I think out of the 20+ games that Bethesda has made, and out of the ones I actually remember playing; I barely liked one of them and that was like over 10 years ago.

 

They simply can't make a good game.

 

R00fles!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I must've mistaken you from someone else, weren't you one of the many fans of Morrowind?

[astr0creep]

I'll be frank. Oblivion's FO3 will suck simply because Bethesda makes sucky games. It's that simple folks. Not complicated. I think out of the 20+ games that Bethesda has made, and out of the ones I actually remember playing; I barely liked one of them and that was like over 10 years ago.

 

They simply can't make a good game.

 

R00fles!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They simply can't make a game thats good for you.

 

A troll is hard to make happy. But it can still be killed with fire

[Meshugger]

I think I'll throw in the fact that we still haven't seen anything on Fallout 3.  No gameplay videos, no screenshots, not even concept art.  This is pretty silly until the design becomes clear.  All we know is that it won't be 2D, and it will probably allow 1st person.  Even that isn't solidified.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's been more or less strongly implied that it will be FP (just like Oblivion) and RT combat.

 

and yes, especially till we play Oblivion, we're just guessing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even if the new gameplay would work, it wouldn't have the same funny setting/dialogue/characters as previous ones

[Volourn]

No.

 

I used: Commerical Success = Popular games.

 

As much as I dislike Bethesda, for example, there is no doubt they are very popular, and very successful.

 

Period.

 

 

"I must've mistaken you from someone else, weren't you one of the many fans of Morrowind?"

 

A huge mistake. I loathe MW.

 

 

"A troll is hard to make happy. But it can still be killed with fire"

 

I'm a troll because I dislike a game company? WOW! These defintions change a lot.

 

A fanboy is now someone who likes a game company but also hevaily critizicies them.

 

A troll is someone who dislikes a company.

 

WOWSERS!

Edited February 27, 2006 by Volourn

[astr0creep]

No.

 

I used: Commerical Success = Popular games.

 

As much as I dislike Bethesda, for example, there is no doubt they are very popular, and very successful.

 

Period.

 

 

"I must've mistaken you from someone else, weren't you one of the many fans of Morrowind?"

 

A huge mistake. I loathe MW.

 

 

"A troll is hard to make happy. But it can still be killed with fire"

 

I'm a troll because I dislike a game company? WOW! These defintions change a lot.

 

A fanboy is now someone who likes a game company but also hevaily critizicies them.

 

A troll is someone who dislikes a company.

 

WOWSERS!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

"Oblivion's FO3 will suck simply because Bethesda makes sucky games"

 

Thats bashing. You bash, you troll. Do you see any references to Bethesda's finances in that short sentence?

And Oblivion is a game, it does not make FO3, Bethesda does...

[Volourn]

"Thats bashing. You bash, you troll."

 

False.

 

A. I wasn't bashing. I was being frank.

 

B. I guess you'd prefer I'd lie, and say that I think Bethesda is awesome even though I don't believe that? Hmm...

Edited February 27, 2006 by Volourn

[astr0creep]

"Thats bashing. You bash, you troll."

 

False.

 

A. I wasn't bashing. I was being frank.

 

B. I guess you'd prefer I'd lie, and say that I think Bethesda is awesome even though I don't believe that? Hmm...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You could've said something like :"I never found Bethesda's products appealing or even entertaining. I enjoyed one of their games a long time ago(about 10 years) but their stuff now, I just don't like."

 

See? Honest, no bashing.

[Llyranor]

Same difference.

 

The games have good production values, but I can't really find anything remotely appealing about them when it comes to actually playing the game. Writing quality is subjective, but I don't see Bethesda suddenly producing good writing just because they're working on FO3.

[Volourn]

"You could've said something like :"I never found Bethesda's products appealing or even entertaining. I enjoyed one of their games a long time ago(about 10 years) but their stuff now, I just don't like."

 

Ahh.. You basically said the same exact thing I did except with flowery language. I said I was being frank; not PC. Frankness does not equal bashing.

[kumquatq3]

The games have good production values, but I can't really find anything remotely appealing about them when it comes to actually playing the game. Writing quality is subjective, but I don't see Bethesda suddenly producing good writing just because they're working on FO3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

^the band wagon I'm generally on

[astr0creep]

"You could've said something like :"I never found Bethesda's products appealing or even entertaining. I enjoyed one of their games a long time ago(about 10 years) but their stuff now, I just don't like."

 

Ahh.. You basically said the same exact thing I did except with flowery language. I said I was being frank; not PC. Frankness does not equal bashing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To me, saying a company is sucky is bashing. Saying their products are not right for me is not bashing.

 

Meh. Pointless bickering.

[Jediphile]

I would have thought the difference between Ion Storm and Bethesda was pretty clear.

 

Just pointing out what can happen to a company that has made a few games that the fans aren't too happy with...

 

How very sweet. You presume something, put it in his mouth, then proceed to redicule him for it. I think he's quite capable of putting his foot in his mouth without you helping him...

 

Lol, one thread you cannot save your reasoning, so let's continue in another?

Might I also remind you that this is yet another ironic statement (fix that detector!) based on the fact that in every FO III thread Hades tells us how bad First Person FO is and how they are going to "Oblivionise it"... but where is the information that can point to such a conclusion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Resorting to make it personal rather than address the point I made. Very compelling argumentation there - that sure puts me in my place and no mistake!

 

Very bad examples. Those games were based on new concepts. How old are they? How many games based on new concepts have you seen in, say, the last three or four years?

 

The gaming industry being as repetitive in conceptual innovation as it has been for a while, that is an exceedingly fallacious argument.

 

And thus... only demonstrates that companies CAN make different types of genres instead of only 1. And so new genres where created. And I noted some of these new genres...

Don't start ripping examples out of their context

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You didn't see to notice, so I'll ask about the games again (note that the following is a direct copy and paste from above):

 

How old are they? How many games based on new concepts have you seen in, say, the last three or four years?

 

Again, it is unreasonable to compare the current situation to conditions of a time when there was far more room for innovation and originality than there is today. In case you haven't noticed, the gaming industry constantly changes - it's no longer the brain childs of a few dedicated fans working in a basement somewhere...

 

Oh, and that means that developers can no longer create for other genres except their root one? Then why does TimeGate make RTS and FPS? Why does Bethesda make Oblvion type games and pirating games? Why does Rockstar make different games than GTA? Why does Gas Powered Games make Hack&Slash and RTS, how can Blizzard make Hack&Slash and RTS and MMORPG? Eh, explain that then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't try to imply that I said a company could make only one type of game. I did not.

 

You're just avoiding the issue and you know it. If you can't answer, then you would be better adviced not to reply to my posts at all.

 

If you didn't get the point the first (or second) time: How many games based on entirely new gaming concepts have you seen in the last three or four years?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

: How many games based on entirely new gaming concepts have you seen in the last three or four years?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just the ones I can think of right now.

 

Nintendogs

Katamari

Trauma Center

That Japanese cheerleading game who's name I can never remember.

 

Not exactly on topic, but one of the reasons you dont see new concepts is because of the hardware. Because the hardware hasnt changed people get into a habbit of thinking a particular way.

 

For example you couldnt have Nintendogs without a microphone although you could arguably scratch with a mouse pointer, the stylus is also a big part of the game.

 

Am I the only one seeing the irony here ? People are talking about new concepts but are constantly asking for games which are the same as those released years ago.

 

Oh I was just told to add Dance Dance (the thing with the dance mat) and Singstar....

 

Although I'd really rather not.

 

And those Eye Toy games.

Edited February 27, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[BattleCookiee]

Resorting to make it personal rather than address the point I made. Very compelling argumentation there - that sure puts me in my place and no mistake! 

 

Oh... but I did get to the point after that personal remark!

You think "I put something in his mouth" but it is all in respons of what came out of his is this and many previous topics

 

You didn't see to notice, so I'll ask about the games again (note that the following is a direct copy and paste from above):

 

How old are they? How many games based on new concepts have you seen in, say, the last three or four years?

 

More than 10 years old. None (except maybe the GTA-concept). And yes; that REALLY takes away the point I tried to make (Companies that can make more than 1 type of games) by being completely irrelevant . Good job!

 

Don't try to imply that I said a company could make only one type of game. I did not.

 

Then why debate with me when stating this...? Yes, I never said it wasn't; BUT I disagree when you said it was

 

You're just avoiding the issue and you know it. If you can't answer, then you would be better adviced not to reply to my posts at all.

 

I am not avoiding the issue. After all your questions had nothing to do with what I tried to prove AT ALL...

 

If you didn't get the point the first (or second) time: How many games based on entirely new gaming concepts have you seen in the last three or four years?

 

See above. And I still think it is a completely random question you are asking here, with absolutely NO connection with my post...

[astr0creep]

: How many games based on entirely new gaming concepts have you seen in the last three or four years?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just the ones I can think of right now.

 

Nintendogs

Katamari

Trauma Center

That Japanese cheerleading game who's name I can never remember.

 

Not exactly on topic, but one of the reasons you dont see new concepts is because of the hardware. Because the hardware hasnt changed people get into a habbit of thinking a particular way.

 

For example you couldnt have Nintendogs without a microphone although you could arguably scratch with a mouse pointer, the stylus is also a big part of the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I always thought it was the same reasons as with movies. Execs don't want to take risks so original ideas are waved most of the time.

 

You learn something every day

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I always thought it was the same reasons as with movies. Execs don't want to take risks so original ideas are waved most of the time.

 

You learn something every day 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh I dont doubt thats true either. But since there is no known factor when you have something new like the DS it's much easier to get some innovation going.

For example if you look at the PSP which dosnt have innovative hardware, you will see the usual suspects (more GTA, Racing Games etc).

Edited February 27, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[BattleCookiee]

 

Do I forget games like The Sims or Darwinia...

[Hurlshort]

I'd accuse Volourn of bashing, but then that would be bashing. In the end, it's all baldurdash. It's all opinions here. Certain people will pop into every MMORPG thread and bash them, as others will do for any Bethesday thread, and so on. It's an endless cycle. Do we expect different results? I think we are all insane.

[alanschu]

You didn't see to notice, so I'll ask about the games again (note that the following is a direct copy and paste from above):

 

How old are they? How many games based on new concepts have you seen in, say, the last three or four years?

 

I'm not sure really what this has to do with anything, because even if Bethesda were to make the perfect Fallout game in the perfect Fallout Universe, it wouldn't be based on a "new" concept. So what does it matter if there was 100 or 0 new concepts in the last three or four years.

[kumquatq3]

are we saying that changing the FO formula in the name of innovative is a good thing? Last time I checked, the FO formula isn't exactly one that has been run into the ground.

 

Innovation is needed in all these FPS on the market, not a FO RPG.

 

I think "fine tuning" and "Minor evolution" are the terms to use for a FO RPG.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

 

Do I forget games like The Sims or Darwinia...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How old is the Sims ?

[BattleCookiee]

How old is the Sims ?

 

Released in 2000.

 

Wow, is it that long ago? These expansions must have blinded me from seeing the old-ness

[Hurlshort]

are we saying that changing the FO formula in the name of innovative is a good thing? Last time I checked, the FO formula isn't exactly one that has been run into the ground.

 

Innovation is needed in all these FPS on the market, not a FO RPG.

 

I think "fine tuning" and "Minor evolution" are the terms to use for a FO RPG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fallout will not reach commercial success as a 2-D top down RPG. While I would love to see them go the way of NWN in terms of game engines, that is still a major evolution.

[kumquatq3]

are we saying that changing the FO formula in the name of innovative is a good thing? Last time I checked, the FO formula isn't exactly one that has been run into the ground.

 

Innovation is needed in all these FPS on the market, not a FO RPG.

 

I think "fine tuning" and "Minor evolution" are the terms to use for a FO RPG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fallout will not reach commercial success as a 2-D top down RPG. While I would love to see them go the way of NWN in terms of game engines, that is still a major evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure, but the topic was innovation for the sake of innovation

[alanschu]

I didn't think we were trying to innovate for the sake of innovation. Meh.