No Fallout 3 at E3 2006

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

If you know English then it is clear. I think you guys are just being thickheaded on purpose to poke fun and that is all.

[alanschu]

I fail to see how a "middle ground" somehow involves keeping the original Fallout experience 100% intact.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Because it also includes real time combat and a first person view with a free roaming camera. CAN WE MAKE A DUH CHECK HERE?!?!

[astr0creep]

Because it also includes real time combat and a first person view with a free roaming camera.  CAN WE MAKE A DUH CHECK HERE?!?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How can you have a first-person view AND a free roaming camera?

 

A free-roaming first-person view? Like spectator view in online shooter games?

[alanschu]

Because it also includes real time combat and a first person view with a free roaming camera.  CAN WE MAKE A DUH CHECK HERE?!?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So your compromise is to keep the Fallout experience the same, but add some stuff. Again....some middle ground.

Edited February 27, 2006 by alanschu

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

You haven't played Neverwinter Nights have you?

 

A player controlled free roaming camera allows you to zoom in and out, and pick various camera angles. Using a camera hack from NWVault you could toggle the camera angle of NWN for it to be in first person view using the free roaming camera.

 

In the PC version of Morrowind you could toggle between over the shoulder and first person view. Simply put in that function in but instead of a fixed over the shoulder view like Morrowind make it a free roaming camera like NWN.

[BattleCookiee]

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?

 

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

 

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?

Edited February 27, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

So your compromise is to keep the Fallout experience the same, but add some stuff.  Again....some middle ground.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If what I propose is not a middle ground between what the purists want and what the causal gamer wants, then what is it? It caters to both audiences equally without sacrificing the quality for each side. Alan, again I think you are just being thickheaded for the sake of being thickheaded andreally not wanting to add anything productive to this discussion.

[astr0creep]

You haven't played Neverwinter Nights have you?

 

A player controlled free roaming camera allows you to zoom in and out, and pick various camera angles.  Using a camera hack from NWVault you could toggle the camera angle of NWN for it to be in first person view using the free roaming camera.

 

In the PC version of Morrowind you could toggle between over the shoulder and first person view.  Simply put in that function in but instead of a fixed over the shoulder view like Morrowind make it a free roaming camera like NWN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ok that makes more sense. It's not a bad idea imo but it's a detail that doesn't affect gameplay much.

 

 

Basically what you want is NWN2 in a fallout setting?

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Well, the camera system at least.

 

It won't add or detract gameplay, but it will give the player the choice in which how he or she wants to view the game.

Edited February 27, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

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

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But Ion Storms only hit was DX. It's not like they had an established fanbase for anything else because their previous titles were less than stellar.

 

A good example of fans not mattering. Kingdom Hearts (sqenix) at the time this game was loathed by FF fans (although having played it a lot changed their minds) but it had a wider appeal and sold scads anyway.

Edited February 27, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[BattleCookiee]

Might be I still don't understand why they should have a license if they don't wan't to please the licence's fans, but just their own fans.

 

If they wanted they could easily spend all the power spend on FO III on ES V or some other new series to please their own fans

[kumquatq3]

nonsense

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

a 3rd person iso game is not fallout.

 

Fallout is a setting and storyline, as well as a story style.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Since this seems to be the crux of the arguement (that has been had a million times) let me jump in:

 

Fallout IS in part a setting. It is NOT a "storyline". If FO2 took place on the east coast and had no reference (not that FO2 had a ton anyways) to FO1, it would have still been considered a sequel.

 

 

FO to me is:

 

Setting, TB combat, Nonlinear gameplay, Choices that matter, being able to play bad and good, SPECIAL, etc

 

but Iso combat isn't on that list. It really isn't something that defines FO. The problem is, TB is. It is. There is a reason alot of TB games choose an Iso prospective.

 

I've always viewed it like this: If I made Zelda a completely FP game, is it still Zelda? Would Zelda fans be mocked for getting (reasonably) upset about it? (I mean, they changed the art style of Zelda and people wanted blood)

 

What if I made Starcraft 2 TB a la Heroes of might and magic? Or Diablo 3 TB?

 

I do these things, but I called it "progress" or "evolution". Replacing the combat system is not an "update".

 

Obviously at least some existing fans of the series would not be thrilled. Not only because of the changes to aspects of the game they enjoy, but because it is OBVIOUS that such changes to camera angles and combat style will have far greater effects than just combat.

 

Now, sometimes fans think the changes work, see GTA3. That can obviously happen here. Sometimes, changing a forumla results in Master of Orion 3. That can happen too.

 

So the game could be good, it could be bad, but what Beth is doing isn't the "evolution" of the series or anything like that. It's them reworking the FO series to fit what they know and the engine that they have (and frankly, it likely has more than a little to do with pleasing their existing fans, it's a business, they would be retarded not to). That doesn't mean people are irrational for not liking it. You would be irrational if you wrote the game of completely.

 

Bottom line: Beth is making relatively drastic changes to what many consider to be one of the best RPGs of all time, and from the majority of things we think will remain form the originals, no one knows how those pieces will be used. It's up to them to show us that their changes and ideas work.

[kumquatq3]

Might be I still don't understand why they should have a license if they don't wan't to please the licence's fans, but just their own fans.

 

If they wanted they could easily spend all the power spend on FO III on ES V or some other new series to please their own fans

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lots of reasons. Not the least of which is that the FO name is still pretty press worthy and the obvious value of having 2 series in your portfolio. Not to mention the time you would save licensing instead of making a new universe. I mean, why make GTA3 from the GTA series?

 

EDITED

Edited February 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Might be I still don't understand why they should have a license if they don't wan't to please the licence's fans, but just their own fans.

 

If they wanted they could easily spend all the power spend on FO III on ES V or some other new series to please their own fans

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said if they want to branch out. Perhaps they are getting bored of nothing but fantasy. A property gives you a good placed to start as well as lots of shortcut potential.

 

Having FO3 also helps with the hype factor as you can see from the article. Another PA game would not generate that sort of controversey and hence free publicity.

[astr0creep]

I wonder if the debate would be so hot if Bungie was making FO3? Or Id. Or Raven.

[kumquatq3]

I wonder if the debate would be so hot if Bungie was making FO3? Or Id. Or Raven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bungie? MUCH HOTTER.

 

I'm not to bothered by Beth doing it as a company, not thrilled, but not bothered. I just don't like how they have handled it publically so far and the choices they have made.

 

 

Doesn't mean I don't understand them.

[mkreku]

Uhm.. I thought Hades made sense for once. He wants the Fallout experience to remain intact (100%) but he doesn't really care if the game is first person, third person or isometric, as that has nothing to do with Fallout. It's just technical aspects. Then he says he wants an equally cool camera as the one seen in NWN (with mods that make it even more free).

 

What's so difficult to understand about that?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As long as they maintain the look and feel I'm happy.

 

I'm more likely to do the exploring thing if I can do it in a series of vehicles.

 

It still needs to be edgy and "mature" although not over the top.

 

And that PA meets wildwest frontire

 

All the usual suspects have to be there. Ghouls, SuperMutants etc.

 

Beyond that , they can do what they like with the mechanics. As long as the game isnt dull.

[kumquatq3]

Uhm.. I thought Hades made sense for once. He wants the Fallout experience to remain intact (100%) but he doesn't really care if the game is first person, third person or isometric, as that has nothing to do with Fallout. It's just technical aspects.

 

So RT combat isn't part of Starcraft or Diablo? I find that hard to believe.

[kumquatq3]

......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As long as they maintain the look and feel I'm happy.

 

And thats perfectly fine. Doesn't mean those that demand other aspects out of a FO3 are wrong.

 

A dev said to me one time (the words might be off but the context is correct):

 

-Beth will likely make a fun and succesful FO3. The current "hardcore" base will not see it as a Fallout game tho.-

 

and I get it, from a business stand point, it might be impossible for a successful (in terms of Beths previous succes) FO to be made with iso and TB. Doesn't mean people have to be wildly happy about the choices. Doesn't mean, even in "hardcore" eyes it won't be a good RPG. The debate will just be if it is a good Fallout and frankly, that debate won't really change anything.

 

EDIT: I should note that the "The current "hardcore" base will not see it as a Fallout game tho" line cuts both ways and was originally a shot at those fans. Obviously those fans would be of a different perspective.

Edited February 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Hurlshort]

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.

[kumquatq3]

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.

[Volourn]

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!

Edited February 27, 2006 by Volourn

[kirottu]

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}>

 

Didn