No Fallout 3 at E3 2006

[astr0creep]

And here I was, thinking the topic was Fallout 3 not showing at the next E3 and fans of the franchise rejoicing that it isn't completely dead yet. <_<

 

Yet.

[kumquatq3]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Essentially, when people complain about lack of innovation, they want people to trying something new. Hence, innovation for the sake of innovation.

 

but anyways, I'm not sure what the **** the topic here is anymore

[astr0creep]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Essentially, when people complain about lack of innovation, they want people to trying something new. Hence, innovation for the sake of innovation.

 

but anyways, I'm not sure what the **** the topic here is anymore

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It should be closed and a new thread opened: Fallout 3 ideas and suggestions.

 

(w00t)

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Essentially, when people complain about lack of innovation, they want people to trying something new. Hence, innovation for the sake of innovation.

 

but anyways, I'm not sure what the **** the topic here is anymore

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is anyone asking for that ? I mean there is new as in wasnt in Fallout 1or2 , but if it were based on Oblivion , then that would hardly be innovative.

 

The main reason for not "remaking" Fallout , is because people have moved away from TB games of that type , especially RPGs. If this is going to be a 360 crossover too, well there was one TB game on the Xbox that I can think of and that was Gladius which was hardly what you would call a blockbuster.

[Jediphile]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So basically you won't let him turn over a new leaf on account of past disagreement... that's just sad.

 

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No? Maybe you should note what you actually say then...

 

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No connection?

 

You posted this...

 

And I will repeat it once again if a company makes alot of Game X that doesn't mean they can't make game Y. If that was so new genres would have never existed

I mean ID was a prof. in making FPS when Wolfenstein came around, no?  "

And Westwood was a prof. in RTS before Dune2  "

 

Not to mention said Westwood made RTS, Adventures, RPG's and all..., and most were good. How odd for a company mostly specified on C&C RTS...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You may have done so to point out that a developer can make more than one type of game, except all the examples you mentioned well over a decade old when the gaming industry looked rather different than it does today. How many people were in a development team in those days? How many are in one today? If you bring up a point like that, it has to have relevancy to the current state of affairs in the industry, and that was not the case here. In short, you compared apples and oranges...

 

Because it's no relevant to talk about new gaming concepts when the industry standard is as repetitive and unimaginative as it is today. How many genres do we even have in computer gaming today? Do we have more than five or six? Perhaps, but not a lot more than that I think.

 

And the fact that we even *can* speak of "genres" says a lot about the industry. How often have we heard in an interview that the devs make comments along the lines of "well, it'll be a FPS, but with some RPG elements" or similar, and the reporter (and readers) immediately know what we're talking about. There might have been genres of games 20 to 25 years ago in the golden age of computer gaming, but they were a lot less strictly defined than they are today, almost to the point of being meaningless. Whereas if today you say a game is an RPG as opposed to an adventure game, everybody knows what you're getting at.

 

A consequence of that is that the developers have frequently specialized in making one sort of game. Does this mean they can't make any others? No, but they don't often do so. They tend to stick to what they know instead. I doubt will be seeming Obsidian or Bioware make sports games, for example, just as I doubt EA will be putting out a lot of RPGs that they developed themselves.

 

Or are you saying that you wouldn't have any doubts about it (assuming you care), if Blizzard were developing FO3?

[Jediphile]

 

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sims is not quite so original... You're forgetting the Little Computer People

[alanschu]

Well, Bioware did make an action game not too long ago (MDK 2).

 

Bungie made FPS games, in addition to action platformers (Oni) as well as an RTS series (Myth).

[BattleCookiee]

Wan't recent or even "in the future" of such events... here you go. Not that I posted this already 5 pages ago...

 

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}>

 

 

So basically you won't let him turn over a new leaf on account of past disagreement... that's just sad.

 

When talking about FO III Hades is like a broken record... no change at all anywhere; so why adjust for any "non-existing" change?

 

No? Maybe you should note what you actually say then...

 

I posted that companies CAN make different games than what they usually do... the "new genre" was just an example of a advanced form of this...

 

You may have done so to point out that a developer can make more than one type of game, except all the examples you mentioned well over a decade old when the gaming industry looked rather different than it does today. How many people were in a development team in those days? How many are in one today? If you bring up a point like that, it has to have relevancy to the current state of affairs in the industry, and that was not the case here. In short, you compared apples and oranges...

 

See top of this post...

 

Because it's no relevant to talk about new gaming concepts when the industry standard is as repetitive and unimaginative as it is today. How many genres do we even have in computer gaming today? Do we have more than five or six? Perhaps, but not a lot more than that I think.

 

What does THAT have to do with it? Even if there are few genres devs can make multiple of these. They are not THAT unimaginative as you might hope to believe

 

A consequence of that is that the developers have frequently specialized in making one sort of game. Does this mean they can't make any others? No, but they don't often do so. They tend to stick to what they know instead. I doubt will be seeming Obsidian or Bioware make sports games, for example, just as I doubt EA will be putting out a lot of RPGs that they developed themselves.

 

Happens more often than you are willing to believe... Once again see top of my post...

 

Or are you saying that you wouldn't have any doubts about it (assuming you care), if Blizzard were developing FO3?

 

Why would I doubt that. Blizzard has shown they take great care in what they make; be it Adventure, RPG, MMORPG or RTS. Personnally I don't like ANY of there games but that doesn't mean they can make games like games should be made and give extremely good support...

[Llyranor]

Relic is making the Outfit, Creative Assembly is making Total Warrior, etc, etc. Nothing prevents one company used to making one genre of games to make good games from another genre.

 

The difference between that and Bethesda --> FO3 is that the genre is irrelevant. Their storytelling/writing skills aren't going to magically start existing (lol subjective crap) just because it's another series.

[alanschu]

Points to Llyranor for actually putting forth a valid argument.

[Jediphile]

A consequence of that is that the developers have frequently specialized in making one sort of game. Does this mean they can't make any others? No, but they don't often do so. They tend to stick to what they know instead. I doubt will be seeming Obsidian or Bioware make sports games, for example, just as I doubt EA will be putting out a lot of RPGs that they developed themselves.

 

Happens more often than you are willing to believe... Once again see top of my post...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uh, okay. I'll be looking forward to those sports games by Bioware and Obsidian then... and the RPGs by EA... "

 

Or are you saying that you wouldn't have any doubts about it (assuming you care), if Blizzard were developing FO3?

 

Why would I doubt that. Blizzard has shown they take great care in what they make; be it Adventure, RPG, MMORPG or RTS. Personnally I don't like ANY of there games but that doesn't mean they can make games like games should be made and give extremely good support...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, leaving aside the matter of whether Diablo is an RPG or not (which I think is irrelevant in this case), I think most people will agree that Blizzard is not known for making the "deep" sort of RPGs like the FO series. That doesn't mean that they can't, it just means that I haven't seen any evidence that they can, since they don't have a tradition for it. Why would they suddenly begin now, though? Blizzard make a decent living by the games they do make, and if it ain't broke, why fix it? This also doesn't fill me with confidence that they could make a great FO3, if they ever were to make it.

[BattleCookiee]

That doesn't mean that they can't, it just means that I haven't seen any evidence that they can, since they don't have a tradition for it

 

Indeed. And why should we judge Bethesda on something they have not done yet before they have even completed that? Am I now going to judge if BioWare sport games are good or bad?

No, since I have no idea how they can actually bring it off. Once there is more information released about what they exactly do THEN you can judge wheter or not they can or cannot be succesfull at this other method.

 

For example; OE is making an ACTION RPG for the Consoles. Did they (or Black Isle) do so before? Njet... yet do I feel already that they should give up because they will screw up?

No; because they might even make it good... who knows... I will judge once I see what they make of this one; instead of way before when no information is known other than "action RPG with UE3" (might or might not be PNJ)

[alanschu]

Well, they did make Dark Alliance.

[karka]

I really hate Elder Scrolls lovers those are didn't play or didn't like Fallout games to say "Hey! Trust Bethesda. Thay are making good games buddy".

[BattleCookiee]

Well, they did make Dark Alliance.

 

And look, it is a top down action game. And PNJ (or the next) will be First Person or 3rd person or a combo. They seem to do the reverse of what Bethesda does.

EDIT; Actually... they do precisely the same... from iso to 3rdP/FP

 

Why trust one more than the other with it if one created some wideopen boring games and the other just one game, which was storydriving... forced path linear and not that great in quality (we all know why though, but still)

Edited February 27, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[astr0creep]

I really hate Elder Scrolls lovers those are didn't play or didn't like Fallout games to say "Hey! Trust Bethesda. Thay are making good games buddy".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I really hate Fallout lovers those are didn't play or didn't like Elder Scrolls games to say "Hey! Don't trust Bethesda. Thay are making crappy games buddy".

 

 

Perspective, perspective.

 

Seriously, I don't hate anyone, especially anyone who shares the same passtime as I do.

Edited February 27, 2006 by astr0creep

[Llyranor]

Meh, writing transcends game genres.

[karka]

I really hate Elder Scrolls lovers those are didn't play or didn't like Fallout games to say "Hey! Trust Bethesda. Thay are making good games buddy".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I really hate Fallout lovers those are didn't play or didn't like Elder Scrolls games to say "Hey! Don't trust Bethesda. Thay are making crappy games buddy".

 

 

Perspective, perspective.

 

Seriously, I don't hate anyone, especially anyone who shares the same passtime as I do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I played Daggerfall and Morrowind. They suck! :D

 

And of course i don't hate anyone too! It was just a reaction. (w00t)

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Relic is making the Outfit, Creative Assembly is making Total Warrior, etc, etc. Nothing prevents one company used to making one genre of games to make good games from another genre.

 

The difference between that and Bethesda --> FO3 is that the genre is irrelevant. Their storytelling/writing skills aren't going to magically start existing (lol subjective crap) just because it's another series.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not really talking about a different genre though. But rather the sort of RPGs that Bethesda like to make. And are known for.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

... and the RPGs by EA...    "

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lord of the Rings Third Age

Lord of the Rings Tactics

 

EA publish a lot of stuff.

[Jediphile]

... and the RPGs by EA...    "

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lord of the Rings Third Age

Lord of the Rings Tactics

 

EA publish a lot of stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Aren't those strategy games?

[SSgtSniper]

Well, Bioware did make an action game not too long ago (MDK 2).

 

Bungie made FPS games, in addition to action platformers (Oni) as well as an RTS series (Myth).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Don't forget Gnop! That was the shizzle. I hear this Pimps At Sea game they are working on will be good too....

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Aren't those strategy games?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Top one is an RPG the bottom one is a strategy RPG.

[metadigital]

But I think the project is sort of doomed from the beginning, because some fans of the originals (be it FO or some other game, or even movies or books) can be pretty rabid. I mean, I can't imagine what Lucas should have done to make *all* the fans like the prequel episodes, or what Obsidian should have done to make *all* the K1 fans like K2. It's just not possible.

 

It'll be the same with FO3, no doubt.

 

It might have been easier if Bethesda had just launched a "Fallout - the next generation" or similar

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you seem pretty optimistic. Who said *every* fan has to be pleased? If it's a good game then people will buy it: if I like it I'll buy it; others won't.

 

Perhaps the most interesting comment you make is the reference (unconscious?) to "The Next Generation",

[Gabrielle]

No Fallout 3 for you.

 

I have nothing against Bethseda, I just have something against someone making Fallout 3 other that the original creators. Unfortunately Betheseda is going to catch the flack from the fanatics

Edited February 27, 2006 by Gabrielle