Llyranor Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Well, technically, he could go on a murderous rampage and wipe out the Bethesda studios, so he's actually pretty moderate. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
213374U Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Just you wait... - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
aVENGER Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Apparently, you are contradicting yourself Not really. If someone decides not to buy Bethesda's FO3 based on something he/she reads on the site, say a comparison between FO1's turn-based combat and FO3's (hypothetical) real-time combat, an accomplishment has been made. Why? Because if Bethesda makes a FO3 which doesn't appeal to some people who liked the past two games, and they refuse to buy it because of certain features that were altered, the resulting lack of sales would signal the developers that they lost a portion of their customers due to such design decisions. That's what I'm advocating here. You want to impose yout view of what you think the game should be on the developers themselves, by having their product fail. This is fanaticism, in the worst possible way. Yay. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> See above.^
Llyranor Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Apparently, you are contradicting yourself Not really. If someone decides not to buy Bethesda's FO3 based on something he/she reads on the site, say a comparison between FO1's turn-based combat and FO3's (hypothetical) real-time combat, an accomplishment has been made. Why? Because if Bethesda makes a FO3 which doesn't appeal to some people who liked the past two games, and they refuse to buy it because of certain features that were altered, the resulting lack of sales would signal the developers that they lost a portion of their customers due to such design decisions. That's what I'm advocating here. Advocate as you must, but do you really think that the number of 'lost sales' will in any way compare to the number of new sales from mainstream gamers who actually like watered-down crap? It sounds trivial at best. This isn't FOPOS watered-down crap, it's 'lol 2+ yrs in the making' watered-down crap. There's somewhat of a difference. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Diogo Ribeiro Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 This isn't FOPOS watered-down crap, it's 'lol 2+ yrs in the making' watered-down crap. There's somewhat of a difference. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's shinier crap?
Llyranor Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 It's 'we're charging money for freaking horse armor and you will buy it anyway and love it' watered-down crap. Bethesda can't lose with that fanbase. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Sand Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Llyr has a good point there. 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"
Tale Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Rule No.3 : You only talk about The Hivemind when you can't provide a solid counter argument and want to impress your little clique who wants to make the Obsidian boards their own self-aggrandizing webspace. Oh god, this post just got me totally hot. Want to make out? "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Tale Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 It's 'we're charging money for freaking horse armor and you will buy it anyway and love it' watered-down crap. Bethesda can't lose with that fanbase. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. It's a way to help off-set massive development costs. "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
J.E. Sawyer Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 It wasn't the turn base combat that made the game bad. It was everything else it had, and lack what it didn't, that made the game bad. PoR:RoMD had terrible turn-based combat and also was terrible in many other ways. Depending on how far Bethesda goes in restructuring SPECIAL and the combat system, it might wind up being mechanically similar to various FPSs/TPSs with some sort of aim-assist or stat-based accuracy modifiers. If that's the case, it will be as similar to F1 and F2 as GTA3 was to GTA and GTA2 -- but that doesn't say anything about whether or not it will be fun to the average person. If they take firearms in the direction of Bloodlines -- yeah, I don't think many people will like it. If the firearms feel solid even at low levels and become better over time, I think a lot of people will like it. People make comparisons to F:BoS as though that's proof that a Fallout title with heavy action is doomed to fail. F:BoS, like PoR:RoMD, was a bad game, across the board. Forget genre classifications, it wasn't fun in any way. I think that Oblivion was about as anti-Fallout as you can get short of the ability to wander around, but millions of people had fun with it. I sort of break down the sad-face-for-Fallout elements in Oblivion as follows: * Scaling encounters - Terrible, not Fallout at all. * Learn-by-doing - Not SPECIAL. * No companions - Not Fallout. * Completely stand-alone quest lines that are not recognized elsewhere - Terrible and not Fallout. * No significant reputation system - Bad news and not Fallout. * Completely real-time combat - Not SPECIAL. The things above that are not like SPECIAL/Fallout and terrible in an RPG are the things that I am most eager to see changed in Fallout 3. When learn-by-doing systems are done well, I like them. When real-time combat is done well (as it is in a lot of FPSs), I like it. Companions... well, I'd like to see them if they can be done well, but my heart isn't set on them. The things I really want to see Bethesda change in Fallout 3 all have to do with choice and consequence -- which I still believe are most important in an RPG, regardless of rule mechanics or combat systems. twitter tyme
Llyranor Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 The things I really want to see Bethesda change in Fallout 3 all have to do with choice and consequence HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
alanschu Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Video games are more about settings and feel than simple rules-sets. Those "simple rulesets" are what dictate how a game plays, which is far more important in interactive entertainment than how good it looks. I think the idea was that a ruleset is an abstraction. It's possible that you could have a infinite number of rulesets that all work and make for a fun game with a particular setting.
alanschu Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Apparently, you are contradicting yourself Not really. If someone decides not to buy Bethesda's FO3 based on something he/she reads on the site, say a comparison between FO1's turn-based combat and FO3's (hypothetical) real-time combat, an accomplishment has been made. Why? Because if Bethesda makes a FO3 which doesn't appeal to some people who liked the past two games, and they refuse to buy it because of certain features that were altered, the resulting lack of sales would signal the developers that they lost a portion of their customers due to such design decisions. That's what I'm advocating here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is it still an accomplishment if you convince old school Fallout players to actually buy Fallout 3?
Sand Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Not really. A rules set often dictates and influence how one plays the game. Such as building a character differs greatly between Dungeons and Dragons and GURPS. Sure, you can have the same basic concept, but how the character develops and how the player plays it will differ because of the different game mechanics. 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"
Sand Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Is it still an accomplishment if you convince old school Fallout players to actually buy Fallout 3? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would think so. 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"
alanschu Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 The things I really want to see Bethesda change in Fallout 3 all have to do with choice and consequence HA HA HA HA HA HA HA <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your optimism is palpable!
Noceur Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) Huh? Was there ever any doubt wether it'd be released for the Xbox/Xbox360? o_o Frankly, I'll be more surprised if it doesn't get released for the 'Box. Edited January 27, 2007 by Noceur
metadigital Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Huh? Was there ever any doubt wether it'd be released for the Xbox/Xbox360? o_o <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Llyranor Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 I'm sure deep down Hades and Gabs were hopeful. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Darque Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Hopefully it'll be built for PC and ported to the Xbox rather than the other way around.
Diogo Ribeiro Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 I think the idea was that a ruleset is an abstraction. It's possible that you could have a infinite number of rulesets that all work and make for a fun game with a particular setting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's hard to abstract from something which directly impacts how you interact with a game. An infinite number of rulesets that all work may provide for a functional system that serves as a means to interact with the gameworld even if they all possess minute differences among them, but those differences will still provide much more of an impact on gameplay than setting. Fallout worked because players could interact with the well developed post-apocalyptic setting through a stable, functional and diverse - though not perfect - ruleset. Had the ruleset been broken, running contrary to its own rules, or just plain non-functional, there would be no fun to be had from playing the game.
J.E. Sawyer Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA I think it's more likely that Bethesda will change those things than move to a top-down third person camera with turn-based combat. twitter tyme
alanschu Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) It's hard to abstract from something which directly impacts how you interact with a game. What are you talking about? The ruleset is the abstraction because it doesn't need to be associated with the Universe. You can use a ruleset to do whatever you want, it doesn't have to be a specific game. In this sense (not being associated with a specific instance), it is an abstraction. In the case of computer game, it served as a mechanism by which we can quantify the attributes and abilities of a character (among other things). But it's still an abstraction. I mean, what exactly is a Strength value of 12? The only real thing we can get from it is that a Strength value of 12 is greater than a Strength value of 11 (i.e. relative comparisons). An infinite number of rulesets that all work may provide for a functional system that serves as a means to interact with the gameworld even if they all possess minute differences among them, but those differences will still provide much more of an impact on gameplay than setting. On specific gameplay yes, because it's the mechanism by which the player interacts with the setting. In terms of what makes a game fun, I don't think it's any more important than the setting and other creative aspects. Rock solid rulesets can't carry a poor, boring game, and a great game creatively will be hampered by a poor ruleset. Fallout worked because players could interact with the well developed post-apocalyptic setting through a stable, functional and diverse - though not perfect - ruleset. Had the ruleset been broken, running contrary to its own rules, or just plain non-functional, there would be no fun to be had from playing the game. The thing is, how the ruleset works is arbitrary. As long as it is functional and doesn't hinder experiencing the game world, it doesn't matter really matter what it is. Had Fallout not had an interesting premise and been an overall boring game, I suspect there'd be little fun to be had from playing the game just the same. Edited January 27, 2007 by alanschu
Noceur Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it's more likely that Bethesda will change those things than move to a top-down third person camera with turn-based combat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I'd rather have a 1st person or 3rd person game with action and consequences etc than a top-down turn-based game with the gameplay of oblivion... so yeah, hopefully.
Tale Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 a top-down turn-based game with the gameplay of oblivion How would... I just... what... the... I mean... huh? "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Recommended Posts