Fallout 3 on the Xbox 360???

[alanschu]

Well, Bethesda has a certain style in which they make their CRPGs.  I doubt they are going to change that style for the sake of one game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's a place to start, but we won't be able to say for certain until we see some information. Sid Meier is known for making awesome empire games, but he still made an excellent little Golf Course simulator, complete with RPG elements (levelling up your pro) and so on. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that they wouldn't be making this change simply for the sake of one game.

 

It may be that they bought the license so that they could make a game with minimal tweaks to Oblivion's engine and making it Oblivion with guns. Or they could have bought the license to expand out.

 

 

If the design of the game doesn't match up what you'd like in a game, then fine. I will wholeheartedly suggest not buying it. Personally, my recommendations will be to not buy Fallout 3 if it is a bad game. If it's a great game, even though it doesn't strictly follow the "pure" Fallout fans image of the game, I'd still recommend it to people, by virtue of it being a great game.

 

The only places where I'd offer a footnote to the recommendation would be if Bethesda decides that the events that happened in previous games need not apply. The setting and style of Fallout are the most "untouchable" things I can see. Things like ruleset abstractions and perspectives can be changed, perhaps even improved and made even better. However, IIRC Fallout 3 is leaning towards being on the East Coast, which is a bonus for the content creation since they won't be restricted by any Canon.

[Sand]

Using the East Coast is a good idea. Of course any improvements to SPECIAL needs to be actual improvements. Making SPECIAL real time is not an improvement. Lionheart and Tactics prove that.

[Llyranor]

Making the game longer was also not an improvement. FO2 proved that. FO3 should be shorter than 10 hrs.

[alanschu]

I think I've offered enough credible evidence in various previous posts that such a site can and will be useful to any potential buyers of Fallout 3 who wish to get informed about the game.

 

Such as?

 

Personally, I hope that the site will be an informative, non-hostile place which can provide valuable insight into the aspects of Bethesda's upcoming FO3 and how it compares to the past games. I've clearly stated this on my first post in this thread as well on my first post ever on the RPGCodex forums. Feel free to check both.

 

I've read the RPGCodex link you provided. It's from that thread alone that my skepticism to the idea being in any way positive or constructive has grown. It's also where you have stated your support to spread the truth to people, and to show people "what they can really expect from Bethesda's upcoming Fallout 3." Sounds like you're already prepping to being [pernickety] criticisms for the sake of criticism. It's all about showing the people "the truth." You're making fallicious assumptions that people that enjoyed the original Fallout games won't possibly enjoy Fallout 3, and your goal is to convince them to not buy the game. People in that thread are stating that people such as this are not "fans," but just some "casual gamer."

 

In fact, some of the people (such as galsiah) that were the ones to suggest that perhaps a moderated, constructive style be used instead, are people that in their very same post state that they don't think that this movement will have any real effect on anything.

 

 

Right now, we have some vague quotes from Bethesda spokesmen and their past games to compare.

 

Exactly. And people such as yourself are already chastising the game, and creating websites with the specific goal to convince people to not buy the game.

Edited January 27, 2007 by metadigital

[Vic]

Making the game longer was also not an improvement. FO2 proved that. FO3 should be shorter than 10 hrs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didn't they only have a year to make it, though? Given a more lenient time frame, they probably could have upped the quality substantially.

[Llyranor]

That's irrelevant. It's irrefutable proof. Giving it more time would just be as inconsequential as actually putting effort into a real-time SPECIAL system. It just can't be done.

[alanschu]

Using the East Coast is a good idea.  Of course any improvements to SPECIAL needs to be actual improvements.  Making SPECIAL real time is not an improvement.  Lionheart and Tactics prove that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then maybe SPECIAL is the problem. If Bethesda can think of something superior, they can toss SPECIAL to the wind for all I care.

 

 

Furthermore, I'd hope that someone with a University degree would know better than citing two case studies (Lionheart and Fallout Tactics) as being unequivocal "proof" of something. The fact is, you can't really prove that real-time SPECIAL can never be an improvement. You can only really disprove it.

[Vic]

That's irrelevant. It's irrefutable proof. Giving it more time would just be as inconsequential as actually putting effort into a real-time SPECIAL system. It just can't be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that deserves an LOL.

 

So, rushing a long game to market doesn't have an effect on quality? Of course it does. They had a year to make a sequel to Fallout, and that year really shows.

[alanschu]

He's making a point and you're missing it Vic.

 

Hades made a comment about how Lionheart and Tactics are proof that realtime cannot work with SPECIAL. So Llyranor is using the same logic to prove that a long Fallout game cannot work.

Edited January 26, 2007 by alanschu

[Vic]

What's the point? More content than there was in Fallout 1 = badness? I'd rather equate the badness to a ridiculously short development time.

 

edit: woops, I'm still in the dark. You must understand I'm tired. Is he teasing Hades?

 

edit 2: nevermind, I get it.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Vic

[alanschu]

I made an edit.

[Sand]

Then maybe SPECIAL is the problem.  If Bethesda can think of something superior, they can toss SPECIAL to the wind for all I care.

 

Alan, that is like making a Dungeons and Dragons game without using the Dungeons and Dragons rules.

 

 

Furthermore, I'd hope that someone with a University degree would know better than citing two case studies (Lionheart and Fallout Tactics) as being unequivocal "proof" of something.  The fact is, you can't really prove that real-time SPECIAL can never be an improvement.  You can only really disprove it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is the proof unequivocal? No, but it is good enough for me.

[Llyranor]

Then maybe SPECIAL is the problem.  If Bethesda can think of something superior, they can toss SPECIAL to the wind for all I care.

 

Alan, that is like making a Dungeons and Dragons game without using the Dungeons and Dragons rules.

You mean, like taking out turn-based?

[Darque]

that is like making a Dungeons and Dragons game without using the Dungeons and Dragons rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Games evolve.

 

Video games are more about settings and feel than simple rules-sets.

 

Maybe it is time for SPECIAL to take a hike.

 

I mean, if we're going to be totally "purist" here, Fallout must automatically fail since it was originally designed with GURPS in mind... right?

[Sand]

Turn base is just one facet. Even modern DnD games like NWN2 are still turn based.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Sand

[Llyranor]

Good point. So are FOT and Lionheart.

[Sand]

that is like making a Dungeons and Dragons game without using the Dungeons and Dragons rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Games evolve.

 

Video games are more about settings and feel than simple rules-sets.

 

Maybe it is time for SPECIAL to take a hike.

 

I mean, if we're going to be totally "purist" here, Fallout must automatically fail since it was originally designed with GURPS in mind... right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course games evolved. Compare the gold box games to NWN2, however they are both still turn based.

[Darque]

All games are turn based to a degree, otherwise all actions in game would happen within the same second.

 

You just want "auto-pause"

[Sand]

Good point. So are FOT and Lionheart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

FOT still has turn based elements but Lionheart was purely real time. If Bethesda uses FOT's style of turn base, which can be toggle from real time to tradition turn base then I would find it acceptable enough.

[alanschu]

Then maybe SPECIAL is the problem.  If Bethesda can think of something superior, they can toss SPECIAL to the wind for all I care.

 

Alan, that is like making a Dungeons and Dragons game without using the Dungeons and Dragons rules.

 

No it's not. It'd be more like making Baldur's Gate without making the Dungeons and Dragons rules. SPECIAL was a ruleset created to drive the Fallout games. But Fallout doesn't require it. Just like I don't think I'd need Baldur's Gate to be a D&D game for me to enjoy it (ignoring the obvious licensing that would still be required since Baldur's Gate is set in the Forgotten Realms).

 

I didn't enjoy Baldur's Gate (or any of the IE games) because they were D&D games (in fact, I'm not particularly fond of the AD&D ruleset), but rather because they were typically fun and interesting games. I enjoyed the setting and I enjoyed the characters. In fact, when I first got a chance to play Baldur's Gate, I didn't even know that it was a D&D game until I started creating a character.

 

 

I see SPECIAL as merely a means to an end to drive the Fallout game. If it was made appropriately with d20, I doubt I'd like the game any less. Instead of doing skill checks to see if your Science skill is 40%, you check to see if your Science skill is 4. Feats and skills with weapons can be added as dice roll modifiers for your ability to hit with a weapon.

 

 

Is the proof unequivocal?  No, but it is good enough for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then I imagine that Llyranor's statements about the length is also good enough for you?

[Sand]

No, because I like long games, however it might be a good enough reason for him.

[Dark_Raven]

How could you not enjoy

unwashed villagers killing a spammer

?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the best parts of Fallout2.

 

 

Four more pages since I last signed on this morning? You bunch of no lifers.

[aVENGER]

Such as?

 

For example the concept and of creating an informative site itself and the potential value of the information that such a site could provide. The whole "skipping the PR crap" in favor of truth thing.

 

I've read the RPGCodex link you provided.  It's from that thread alone that my skepticism to the idea being in any way positive or constructive has grown.  It's also where you have stated your support to spread the truth to people, and to show people "what they can really expect from Bethesda's upcoming Fallout 3."  Sounds like you're already prepping to being anal-retentive criticisms for the sake of criticism.  It's all about showing the people "the truth." 

 

And? As I've stated before if Bethesda creates a worthy FO3 I'd be happy to advocate putting its greatness on display on the site. However, as it seems to me right now, chances are much larger that we'll be getting Oblivion with Guns (read "we don't do isometric/turn-based well").

 

You're making fallicious assumptions that people that enjoyed the original Fallout games won't possibly enjoy Fallout 3, and your goal is to convince them to not buy the game.

 

You seem to interpret a lot from those few sentences. Just like before when you've accused me of indirectly calling mkreku a liar. You should really work more on that reading comprehension of yours and try to assume a bit less. BTW, as I've already stated before, in my opinnion the actual goal should be to inform people and let them decide for themselves.

 

And people such as yourself are already chastising the game, and creating websites with the specific goal to convince people to not buy the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's a start. How many times do I have to repeat that more info should be published as soon as it becomes available? Heck, I even suggested that the site should focus on publishing the fans' favorite aspects of the past games for comparison until then. also, note that I'm just a supporter of the cause, not the initiator/creator.webmaster/whatever of the future site as you and some others seem to think. Therefore, I don't have all the answers, and all I can do is suggest a course of action which I deem to be best. Consider that for a bit before blindly slinging accusations at me again.

[Dark_Raven]

The guys who want to start this anti-hype site are elitist pricks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They sound awesome. NMA and DAC are the oldest Fallout sites still in existence. They rule.

[Vic]

However, as it seems to me right now, chances are much larger that we'll be getting Oblivion with Guns (read "we don't do isometric/turn-based well").

 

It seems ironic to me that the PR is complete BS unless it's negative, and then they take Hines' word ( before they put together a team to, you know, design the game) practically as gospel.

 

Also, point out to me the exact quote where they say, "We do not do turn-based well.".

 

Edit: I know the Isometric thing. It was when Hines said:

 

"Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in style. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well."

 

Now, he said that the day they announced they purchased the license. There was no team put together to make it, and certainly nothing designed. He's a PR guy, not a developer.

 

 

The guys who want to start this anti-hype site are elitist pricks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They sound awesome. NMA and DAC are the oldest Fallout sites still in existence. They rule.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They rule their little ****-heap sites, but that's about all.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Vic