That's what I'm thinking too, but of course we'll have to wait and see.

Jags gets exactly what I am talking about.

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, 200719 yr by alanschu

Well, excuse me for being on topic here. I thought we were talking about Fallout.

 

Silly me.

-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.

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.

Fallout is Fallout, regardless the number after the name. Well, at least its suppose to be.

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.

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.

"I want a game to be exactly as I want, the rest I don't care."

Its like talking to a brick wall.

Well, that's certainly how it looks.

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.

It seems people think that I am saying I want TB combat only, 2D sprites, and only isometric view when I don't.

"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.

Again, Jags gets it right.

.  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.

"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.

Oh, I would touch the game. I would even play it. After it reached the bargain bin.

It's still silly.

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.

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.

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!

 

Hey, its better than anything on the CW.

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.