6 Foot Invisible Rabbit Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 I think it is kind of cute that Shadowpaladin and Kirottu thinks that FO: Craptics was real time when it was CTB. Harvey
6 Foot Invisible Rabbit Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 FO: Craptics, FO:POS, and Lionheart all sucked. I just want to know why the hell did Bethesda wanted the Fallout franchise in the first place. Its not like they need the Fallout name to sell a Post Apocalyptic game of their design. They have a strong enough following without the need to use a name of a game that has been dead years. Harvey
Diamond Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 I think it is kind of cute that Shadowpaladin and Kirottu thinks that FO: Craptics was real time when it was CTB. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Internally in code, there is no difference.
mkreku Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 They've said in interviews that they've been fans of Fallout for years and jumped at the chance when it arrived. Apparently they have some huge fans of Fallout somewhere in the team to be able to dosh out millions of dollars for a niche license. Bethesda has always done non-linearity and free-form worlds very well, let's just hope that they straighten out their writing ability (or get some outside help *nudge* *nudge*) and dialogue system in time for Fallout 3. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
6 Foot Invisible Rabbit Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 (edited) If they are such huge fans of Fallout wouldn't they rather have a group of developers who know how to make a proper Fallout game then try to impose their own design style which does not fit in the style of Fallout. Seriously, Bethesda's design philosphies just does not fit in the style of Fallout 1 and 2. I don't see Bethesda changing in what they are comfortable with for Fallout 3 so I don't see how it will even be recognizable as Fallout except in name only. Edited March 5, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit Harvey
Gabrielle Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 You are both flawed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not possible. I am perfection.
LoneWolf16 Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 (edited) If they are such huge fans of Fallout wouldn't they rather have a group of developers who know how to make a proper Fallout game then try to impose their own design style which does not fit in the style of Fallout. Seriously, Bethesda's design philosphies just does not fit in the style of Fallout 1 and 2. I don't see Bethesda changing in what they are comfortable with for Fallout 3 so I don't see how it will even be recognizable as Fallout except in name only. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How do you know they aren't capable of a different style? You don't. And they do hire new people for projects...perhaps they've even got a few cards of their sleeves in that area...maybe they've got advisors from the original Fallout development team there to help them out a bit. You don't know all the details...and I understand that it's often best to remain skeptical in case the game does indeed suck, but a smidgen of hope surely wouldn't hurt. Just because they've stuck to a particular style for a series if games (which, by the way, is how it's supposed to be...you don't make a massive gameplay change to a game in a series, otherwise it won't be of that series anymore) doesn't mean they're incapable of handling creating a Fallout that's true to its predecessors. I need to pick up the FOs...what I've heard sounds good, all but the combat. Too slow for my tastes. Edited March 5, 2006 by LoneWolf16 I had thought that some of nature's journeymen had made men and not made them well, for they imitated humanity so abominably. - Book of Counted Sorrows 'Cause I won't know the man that kills me and I don't know these men I kill but we all wind up on the same side 'cause ain't none of us doin' god's will. - Everlast
6 Foot Invisible Rabbit Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 (edited) I am not just talking about TES games for their style, but also Sea Dogs, PotC, and their CoC game. Also they have already stated that they are going to use the same styles they feel comfortable with from their previous titles in interviews about the subject. Going by the statements that have been released by Bethesda one can easily come to the conclusion that they have no interest in making Fallout 3 recognizably Fallout. I don't deal with hope. I go by what information Bethesda developers have officially released in interviews and the style of their previous works. Hope in one hand and crap in the other. See which one gets full first. Edited March 5, 2006 by 6 Foot Invisible Rabbit Harvey
alanschu Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 Shadowstrider, since you think that SPECIAL works fine in real time give us a prime example of SPECIAL being done well in real time. The only game I have played that uses SPECIAL in real time is Lionheart and combat in that game was very poorly done and down right terrible. Show me your evidence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ..... All you did was play a bad game that happened to be SPECIAL in realtime. Proving that SPECIAL cannot be done in realtime is impossible, because you'll never be able to try every permutation of game design with the SPECIAL system (i.e. because there's an infinite number). If people gave up on something because one iteration didn't work, we wouldn't even be talking on this forum, and would likely still be in the dark ages. Stop being unreasonable, and think before you speak. All you did was play a **** game. To state, absolutely, that RT SPECIAL is impossible because one game sucked, is just being unreasonable. You'd think someone that has a University degree would understand empiricsm, and recognize that a sample size of one is useless. NOTE: This is why I poked fun at you in the other thread.....you clearly are not a reasonable person.
alanschu Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 FO: Craptics, FO:POS, and Lionheart all sucked. I just want to know why the hell did Bethesda wanted the Fallout franchise in the first place. Its not like they need the Fallout name to sell a Post Apocalyptic game of their design. They have a strong enough following without the need to use a name of a game that has been dead years. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe because they wanted to use the Fallout Universe, and so much that comes along with it. Such as the setting and SPECIAL.
Llyranor Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 What's the point? Newsflash: Fallout sucks. Comparing them to each other in terms of suckitude is nice and all, but that doesn't make them less sucky. Sucky suck suck! Fallout! (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Cantousent Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 Swinehearted wretch. Fallout is a great game. The fanatics are a little much sometimes, though. I'm not looking forward to Fallout 3 from Bethesda, sorry Shadow, but I'm not writing it off before I see it. I'm probably going to try Oblivion when it hits the shelves. If it lives up to the hype, I'm that much closer to purchasing Fallout 3. If Fallout 3 sounds like a good game, I'll buy it. I don't expect it to be Fallout, but I'm willing to give it a shot as long as the game is solid. We're probably never going to get a Fallout 3 that looks even remotely like Fallout 1/2. The industry has advanced and publishers want to take advantage of the franchise, not the gameplay design. I think Bethesda is a great choice to make the game. Troika would have screwed it up and Obsidian would have closed the board because of the Fallout crazies jumping out of the woodwork with pitchforks and fiery brands. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
Hurlshort Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 I am not just talking about TES games for their style, but also Sea Dogs, PotC, and their CoC game. Also they have already stated that they are going to use the same styles they feel comfortable with from their previous titles in interviews about the subject. Going by the statements that have been released by Bethesda one can easily come to the conclusion that they have no interest in making Fallout 3 recognizably Fallout. I don't deal with hope. I go by what information Bethesda developers have officially released in interviews and the style of their previous works. Hope in one hand and crap in the other. See which one gets full first. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sea Dogs was developed by Akella, PotC was by another team, and what is the CoC game? Many people forget about Redguard, which was a fun action adventure title. It's very true that this game will feature different game mechanics. That's evident by the developer comments. That doesn't mean they can't capture the style and feel of the Fallout world.
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 I think it is kind of cute that Shadowpaladin and Kirottu thinks that FO: Craptics was real time when it was CTB. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The game never paused so things could take turns. Sounds like the definition of real time I used if you ask me. Movement never used up AP's in FOT either, only actions. Sounds to me that your just looking for reasons to be difficult. I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback]
6 Foot Invisible Rabbit Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 Alan, I only go by what evidence I have. If there was a wider sample of Real time SPECIAL then I would use it but there is only 1 game that uses SPECIAL and real time and well, the combat sucked in it. Harvey
metadigital Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
alanschu Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 Alan, I only go by what evidence I have. If there was a wider sample of Real time SPECIAL then I would use it but there is only 1 game that uses SPECIAL and real time and well, the combat sucked in it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Irrelevant. At best you can conclude that the RT combat in Lionheart sucked.
metadigital Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 But that's no fun. How can we have fun without sweeping generalisations about stuff we don't have any expertise in? :angry: OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 Was the purpose of posting the Oblivion box for the 15 rating ? I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback]
metadigital Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 No I just wanted to re-focus the thread back to it's title. And show ~Di what the Collector's Edition box looks like. ^_^ OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
6 Foot Invisible Rabbit Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 Irrelevant. At best you can conclude that the RT combat in Lionheart sucked. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But... but... that would be too reasonable of me. I like to stay in character. Harvey
Llyranor Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 Man, as the only turn-based 3.0 CRPG, Pool of Radiance II proved that DnD 3.0 CANNOT BE GOOD IN TURN-BASED. Given the current evidence, this is a hard, cold fact. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Recommended Posts