alanschu Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 That's what I'm thinking too, but of course we'll have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Jags gets exactly what I am talking about. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) Except that Jags' issues could just as well be applied to any game made by Bethesda (or any developer for that matter), not just a Fallout game. Edited January 25, 2007 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Well, excuse me for being on topic here. I thought we were talking about Fallout. Silly me. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Kitty Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 -Forcing a first person perspective without the option of going 3rd person or isometric; It's one thing to make a first person game with a third person option like Morrowind and Oblivion, or an overhead game with the option to zoom in and drive the character like in NWN2, but trying to do all three just results in watered down crappiness. -Forcing real time combat without the option of playing turned based; As above - it's better to do one well instead of spreading resources around. -Using a wiki style dialogue without any discernible conversational options. That's entirely possible even in Oblivion, bu Bethesda doesn't do good dialog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Well, excuse me for being on topic here. I thought we were talking about Fallout. Silly me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no you are talking about Fallout. Everyone else is talking about Fallout 3. Get out of the past, child. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Fallout is Fallout, regardless the number after the name. Well, at least its suppose to be. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Fallout is Fallout, regardless the number after the name. Well, at least its suppose to be. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The world turns. Life changes. IPs are sold. A new company interprets things in different ways. What was once Fallout may not be exactly the same anymore. *shrugs* I never found anyway to stop that sort of thing from happening. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Crashgirl, if you actually read my posts instead of giving the condescending attitude I am not asking for exact the same game. All I am asking for the basics of Fallout and SPECIAL to be maintained, but beyond that it can be a free for all. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamond Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 "I want a game to be exactly as I want, the rest I don't care." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Its like talking to a brick wall. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamond Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Well, that's certainly how it looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Crashgirl, if you actually read my posts instead of giving the condescending attitude I am not asking for exact the same game. All I am asking for the basics of Fallout and SPECIAL to be maintained, but beyond that it can be a free for all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> eh, its not meant to be condescending. I've been reading your post for years and am pretty familair with your take on things. I repect youe feelings about games and always have. Alls I'm saying is that FO 3 may be completely different but still really good. You are of course entitled to think otherwise. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 It seems people think that I am saying I want TB combat only, 2D sprites, and only isometric view when I don't. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguars4ever Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 "I want a game to be exactly as I want, the rest I don't care." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hades isn't asking for a game exactly as he wants. All he wants is a sequel true to the spirit of Fallout. That by definition requires it to retain certain qualities. Otherwise it's just Bethesda's take on a post nuclear RPG - but not FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Again, Jags gets it right. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 . All he wants is a sequel true to the spirit of Fallout. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What does the "spirit of Fallout" mean? I followed Fallout all through development and bought it the day it was released and played it for umpeen thousands of hours, but I still couldn't tell you what the "spirit of Fallout" is. That seems way too subjective a thing to use to define or measure the quality of a game. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidesco Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 "I want a game to be exactly as I want, the rest I don't care." Hades isn't asking for a game exactly as he wants. All he wants is a sequel true to the spirit of Fallout. That by definition requires it to retain certain qualities. Otherwise it's just Bethesda's take on a post nuclear RPG - but not FO. He's also saying that if Fallout 3 turns out to be a great game, but has nothing to do in terms of design with Fallout 1 and 2, then he will never touch the game. And that's silly. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian touristI am Dan Quayle of the Romans.I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.Heja Sverige!!Everyone should cuffawkle more.The wrench is your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Oh, I would touch the game. I would even play it. After it reached the bargain bin. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidesco Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 It's still silly. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian touristI am Dan Quayle of the Romans.I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.Heja Sverige!!Everyone should cuffawkle more.The wrench is your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Kitty Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 All he wants is a sequel true to the spirit of Fallout. That by definition requires it to retain certain qualities. Otherwise it's just Bethesda's take on a post nuclear RPG - but not FO. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a load of rubbish. The "true spirit" of a game is entirely a matter of opinion - one person might consider the rule system and type of gameplay all that matters, while another is only concerned with the characters, world and story. Sand has his own set of things he wants from a sequel, and there is nothing wrong with that, but this belief that unless Bethesda's Fallout meets a set of criteria set out by you or Sand or anyone else then it isn't Fallout is just delusional. Reminds me of the guy on the old Ion Storm boards who refused to believe DX:IW and T:DS were sequels based solely on the fact that they didn't have numbers in the title. It's petty whining from people who refuse to accept they didn't get things the way they wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Oh, I am fully ready to accept it. I just won't spend full money on something I know I will not like. That would be silly. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Yeah, well, how about we all move back onto the topic of fallout 3 itself rather than the discussion of if one person will like it, or not, or might, or will say they will, or won't, or maybe, or possibly, or etc... etc... over and over and over again. Too much drama! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Hey, its better than anything on the CW. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Yeah, well, how about we all move back onto the topic of fallout 3 itself rather than the discussion of if one person will like it, or not, or might, or will say they will, or won't, or maybe, or possibly, or etc... etc... over and over and over again. Too much drama! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Remove the source of drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts