Hell Kitty Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 A good reviewer should research a bit of the game's lore and history, in case it claims to be a continuation of a franchise, so that he might get a clearer overview. I remember Thief fans kicking up quite a stink over T:DS because Garrett didn't wear a cloak like in the original games, and carried a dagger instead of a sword. These things were of vital importance to the character and gameworld as far as many hardcore fans were concerned, but I guarantee that reviewers and the gaming public in general don't worry about these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Fallout 3 by Bethsoft is one of the very few software titles I am looking forward to. Obviously I am not as savy and discerning a gamer as all those NMA and Codex boys. And I am also easily manipulated by the Bethsoft PR machine. I'm glad those fallout boys are so bent on trying to save me from myself. 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...
Llyranor Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 In any case, purists can pretend to be all hardcore and stuff, but wouldn't people who enjoy FO1/2 *and* 3 - regardless of how different it is - be 'truer' fans of the series just by default? (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 In any case, purists can pretend to be all hardcore and stuff, but wouldn't people who enjoy FO1/2 *and* 3 - regardless of how different it is - be 'truer' fans of the series just by default? Does Master of Orion 3 ring a bell...? “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llyranor Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Now, of course, the argument would be that some people would actually have to like MOO1/2 *and* 3. I'm sure some, er, people... do. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Point is, you can make a game that is aimed at a group of people who has some very different expections from what the developer would like to do. MOO fans weren't really thrilled about MOO2, but they didn't exactly go on a religious crusade to have it banned from stores. MOO3 however, was so vastly different that it didn't appeal to old fans, because it was part of an established (sort of) franchise it didn't really appeal to new fans. Of course it didn't help either that it was a crappy game. Sometimes I do wonder what the heck Bethsoft wanted with that licens (besides subsidise Herves FOOL project) :cool: Odds are, the crowd of people who like that glorified diablo clone called Oblivion would have kissed the ground that Todd & Co walks on if they had just announced that they are doing a grungy sci-fi version of Oblivion and few people would have been unhappy. “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Now, of course, the argument would be that some people would actually have to like MOO1/2 *and* 3. I'm sure some, er, people... do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do! Not that Moo3 was great, but it wasn't bad once you got it patched so that most things worked. Moo2 wasn't nearly as good as Moo either, so I can't hold that against it. I guess I just don't have the same reverence for the name Fallout as some people. Fallout 3 will stand or fall on its own as a good game or not. The quality of Fallout has no effect on the quality of Fallout 3. 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...
Slowtrain Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Odds are, the crowd of people who like that glorified diablo clone called Oblivion would have kissed the ground that Todd & Co walks on if they had just announced that they are doing a grungy sci-fi version of Oblivion and few people would have been unhappy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually I'd rather kiss the ground that Julian LeFay walked on since I think he did a better job as the lead designer of the ES games. But Todd Howard has done a pretty decent job in a lot of areas. I look forward to seeing more of his and his teams work. 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...
Dark_Raven Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I personally saw a bunch people on various other (non-Fallout related) forums getting pretty excited when someone mentioned that Fallout 3 is being made. After others pointed out what kind of a game they can actually expect the excitement levels dropped drastically. I personally saw a whole bunch of people that loved Fallout get giddy with glee when they heard it was being made by Bethesda! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It made me want to puke. Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolai Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Embrace the revolution, flowers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Whether a particular game is a "real sequel" is entirely a matter of opinion. What exactly is a "real Fallout fan"? If someone loved the original, but doesn't have a problem with Bethesda making something very different, does that mean they aren't part of the "real Fallout fanbase"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a pretty good question. While I certainly can't speak for the entire fallout fanbase, my personal option is that if Bethesda simply chose to make a non-canonical spin-off game based on the fallout universe and call it something other than FO3 most people wouldn't even bother protesting. However, if they call their game Fallout 3 people will have certain expectations and if those are not fulfilled then they clearly wouldn't be pleased about it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fanatical Fallout lover here. It already doesn't meet my expectations. Not 2D like the first two, using some Oblivion 3D engine. None of orignal team is involved. Greats like Chris Avellone, Feargus Urquhart, Tim Cain, Jesse Reynolds, Leonard Boyarsky and many more. I have my doubts they will be true to Fallout canon and also, that great cheesy Fallout humor as well. Edited January 26, 2007 by Dark_Raven Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamond Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I have my doubts they will be true to Fallout cannon too, Fallout didn't even have cannons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 But it did have mini guns. Mini guns FTW! Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) I could care less if its true to the Fallout "canon". Whatever. Its a game. As long as its internally consistent enough that I'm not sitting there scratching my head and trying to figure out how the gameworld is reacting then I don't care if the deathclaws are hairy, wear lounge jackets and smoke stogies. ALso the cheesy humor is mostly a Fallout 2 device and for me personally was one of the reasons I didn't enjoy it as much as Fallout 1. Having Cassidy say "I am the master, now you are the learner" while he is popping someone with a sniper rifle kind of kills the mood of the gameworld. edit: Was that Cassidy or Lenny who says that? Can't remember now. Its still stupid. Edited January 26, 2007 by CrashGirl 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...
Diamond Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 How could you not enjoy unwashed villagers killing a spammer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 How could you not enjoy unwashed villagers killing a spammer ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the little easter egg encounters weren't as bothersome. They were fairly isolated and didn't impact the "real" game much. I was never a big fan of them though and mostly just ignored them. I recognize a lot of people enjoyed the mini-game aspect of tracking them down and experiencing them. It wouldn't bother me if they were in or out of FO 3. 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...
Volourn Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 "my personal option is that if Bethesda simply chose to make a non-canonical spin-off game based on the fallout universe and call it something other than FO3 most people wouldn't even bother protesting." Your personal option is wrong, and history doesn't back up. The FO Fanatics protested both FOT and FOBOS simply because they were non-canonical spin off games based on the fallout universe and were called something other than FO3. So... whya re you making stuff up? Also, of note, I like FOBOS gets a bad rap. It's a pretty good Action game, imo. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 "my personal option is that if Bethesda simply chose to make a non-canonical spin-off game based on the fallout universe and call it something other than FO3 most people wouldn't even bother protesting." Your personal option is wrong, and history doesn't back up. The FO Fanatics protested both FOT and FOBOS simply because they were non-canonical spin off games based on the fallout universe and were called something other than FO3. So... whya re you making stuff up? She said most people wouldn't bother protesting. It'd be a pretty sad and unsuccessful franchise if the rabid punks at NMA&Co. accounted for most of the fanbase. You fail reading comprehension. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Volo makes an evasion roll to avoid damage from Point To Obvious Blunder:(1) automatic failure! - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 And aVENGER, the people here are very much bashing the idea. You're just not seeing it. That's not really the impression I got. It's been stated repeatedly that the goal of this doesn't really accomplish anything. It's not going to get you the Fallout that you want, and the impact on anything will be insignificant (if there's impact at all). Futhermore, there's no reason to believe that the sites are going to be sources of unbiased, objective truth. The site is being created in protest of where people think Fallout 3 is going to go. It's entire idea was spawned out of bitterness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 And, the people involved bring their own biasness to it. They should look in the mirror. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 MOO fans weren't really thrilled about MOO2. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Speak for yourself. I loved and wasted many hours playing MOO, and when MOO2 came out, I loved and wasted many hours playing MOO2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 When dealing in sequels and using material from the same setting the game needs to be wholly consistent. Think the Fallout universe as a DnD setting. If a developer makes a FR game in which Elminster was a talking frog, and Nasher a female drow I don't think that would get passed WotC all that well. Fallout 3 needs to be consistent in canon with FO2 and FO1 for it is a continuation of the series. Now if they place Fallout 3 in a less used area of the world in the Fallout universe then they have more freedom. Such as setting in Europe would allow more freedom to put in their own spin of things because not much was really done there except what was stated in the intros. If they set in in southern California then they will have more restrictions. Setting consistency is a must if you are going to make a game that has a long established history. 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...
Volourn Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 "If a developer makes a FR game in which Elminster was a talking frog, and Nasher a female drow I don't think that would get passed WotC all that well." And? WOTC can do what they wnat. they own D&D. In fact, if they approved Nasher as a female drow; that would be there right just as it was Interplay's right to make FOBOS depsite it not being like FO1 or 2. Bethesda has the rights to FO3, and therefore have the right to make it as they see fit. FO Fanatics have the rightt o complain; but they don't have the right to say that Betehsda cna't do that as Betehsda does have the right. Bethesda has only one limitation that we know of - they can't make a MMORPG as Inteprlay kept those rights. They could do anything else with FO3 including adding dwarves, elves, and magic. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 MOO fans weren't really thrilled about MOO2. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Speak for yourself. I loved and wasted many hours playing MOO, and when MOO2 came out, I loved and wasted many hours playing MOO2. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And then came MOO3 ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts