metadigital Posted January 27, 2007 Share 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That was his point. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noceur Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) a top-down turn-based game with the gameplay of oblivion <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How would... I just... what... the... I mean... huh? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Meaning I'd rather they (Bethesda) went about upping the quality of gameplay from their previous game(s), than changing from what they're used to (i.e first person, real-time) and keeping the same kind of gameplay they had in Oblivion. Of course, it's not like they have an either/or choice in the matter. Metadigital said: "That was his point." Well, sort of. But I wasn't disagreeing with him (if you mean Sawyer). Edited January 27, 2007 by Noceur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tale Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 a top-down turn-based game with the gameplay of oblivion How would... I just... what... the... I mean... huh? Meaning I'd rather they (Bethesda) went about upping the quality of gameplay from their previous game(s), than changing from what they're used to (i.e first person, real-time) and keeping the same kind of gameplay they had in Oblivion. Of course, it's not like they have an either/or choice in the matter. Metadigital said: "That was his point." Well, sort of. But I wasn't disagreeing with him (if you mean Sawyer). I still don't understand. How could you possibly have turn-based third person with Oblivion gameplay? When Oblivion gameplay is practically defined as being real-time (third/first person)? "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noceur Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 I still don't understand. How could you possibly have turn-based third person with Oblivion gameplay? When Oblivion gameplay is practically defined as being real-time (third/first person)? Real-time and turn-based is just one aspect of gameplay. Then again, there isn't much more to Oblivions gameplay than that, which perhaps only makes my standpoint on the matter more valid. While I do like walking around in a real-time fantasy world, I'd also prefer if I could influence it (other than killing monsters in it, which noone in the world cares about unless they're a part of a mission, in which case one NPC might know about it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I'm sure deep down Hades and Gabs were hopeful. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually I don't care if it goes on the XBox 360. As long as the gameplay for the PC doesn't suffer for it, like Oblivion did, more platforms the merrier. 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...
Dark_Raven Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 It will fail and they will not port it over to the pc. Fanatics win. Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llyranor Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Yes, killing off a franchise is the stuff of winners. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 It will fail and they will not port it over to the pc. Fanatics win. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah.... All 10 of you will stop this game from selling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogo Ribeiro Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 What are you talking about? I'm not sure I understand the point of that question in particular, since you seem to be asking for clarification on something you go on to agree with further down the road when you state, quote, "t's the mechanism by which the player interacts with the setting". Regardless, a ruleset needs to be associated with a given universe since it determines how interactions with a setting are permited; it can't be an abstraction since it's the only objective platform which facilitates interaction between setting and player. Now, if your point is that a ruleset does not need to be a part of a setting, that a ruleset is a tool that has no bearing on the existence of a setting, then I agree because it does not affect how it works; only how the player works with it. Its system can be arbitrary but it's application cannot. All I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 a ruleset needs to be associated with a given universe since it determines how interactions with a setting are permitedAssociated how? In a manner that excludes any other ruleset that can perform similarly (or better) from being used for that setting? - 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...
Diogo Ribeiro Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 If you need to ask that, you're clearly not reading what I wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr insomniac Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Actually I don't care if it goes on the XBox 360. As long as the gameplay for the PC doesn't suffer for it, like Oblivion did, more platforms the merrier. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought you weren't going to play the game anyway. I took this job because I thought you were just a legend. Just a story. A story to scare little kids. But you're the real deal. The demon who dares to challenge God. So what the hell do you want? Don't seem to me like you're out to make this stinkin' world a better place. Why you gotta kill all my men? Why you gotta kill me? Nothing personal. It's just revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Regardless, a ruleset needs to be associated with a given universe since it determines how interactions with a setting are permited; it can't be an abstraction since it's the only objective platform which facilitates interaction between setting and player. Now, if your point is that a ruleset does not need to be a part of a setting, that a ruleset is a tool that has no bearing on the existence of a setting, then I agree because it does not affect how it works; only how the player works with it. Its system can be arbitrary but it's application cannot. All I'm saying. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Errr, I think we may have miscommunications about what the term abstraction means. I'm using it with this definition: "a concept or idea not associated with any specific instance." SPECIAL does not require Fallout to exist. It's not associated with any specific instance (i.e. world/game). It can be applied to whatever game world you want. Rulesets are important, but they abstract aspects of the world (such as the attributes of characters, how weapons are fired, and so on) in such a way that allows designers/players/whatevers to quantify aspects of the game world. In real life, a Strength value of 12 means nothing. What exactly does it mean to have 1 hit point remaining? And does it mean the same thing if you have 1 hit point remaining out of 4, or 1 hit point remaining out of 200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamond Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 (edited) I may be in minority here, but I'd rather see Fallout using a sort of JA2 ruleset. Edited January 28, 2007 by Diamond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I could see it working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 (edited) It will fail and they will not port it over to the pc. Fanatics win. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah.... All 10 of you will stop this game from selling. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> lolzzzzzzz Dream On Girl. There are many, many uf Us. Down with Bethy and their attempt at F3. Edited January 28, 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...
Vic Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 It will fail and they will not port it over to the pc. Fanatics win. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah.... All 10 of you will stop this game from selling. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> lolzzzzzzz Dream On Girl. There are many, many uf Us. Down with Bethy and their attempt at F3. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How many of you compared to normal Fallout fans who don't visit those rabid sites? Or compared to the amount of people who will most likely buy it due to Bethesda's name on the cover with "From the makers of Oblivion"? Or the ones who will buy it due to hype and press? Not many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I'd recommend not arguing with her on this particular point. I *think* she's just trying to be silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 It wasn't the turn base combat that made the 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fallout's encounter system wasn't so great. Wasn't what made Fallout. Learn by doing systems are incredibly hard to balance without placing huge artificial barriers in the game world. I don't like them personally, but losing SPECIAL isn't a big deal. Fallout was designed as a single player crpg, with companions thrown in for a variety. They weren't supposed to last long and/or survive the game. Companions are definitely NOT key to Fallout. Most of Fallout's quest-lines were completely stand-alone and not recognized elsewhere, Killlian wouldn't even recognize you if you went back to him after saving his ass from Gizmo. Bring Tandy back and Aradesh says thanks have some caps and that's it. Sure you get a glabal repuation bump and maybe a "label" or two, but most stand-alone quests hardly made any huge difference over how the gameplay played out ES2 Daggerfall had a faction and reputation system so far beyond what was implemented in Fallout that its not really comparable. Granted that was with Julian LeFay as lead not Todd Howard so game visions are different, but the fact remains that the ES series has already done more with factions and reputatioins than Fallout ever did. Yep, completely real-time combat. FO 3 will definitely be that. And first person. Didn't we have a superr long thread on here talking about how horrible FO combat was not long ago. I was actually one of the few people praising it. I don't see why most people would be sad to see it go, based on all the reason sput forth on that thread. Just some random thoughts. Fallout was a great game, but as usual nostalgia has glorified it to absurdity. I'm really looking forward to see what Todd and his people are going to do with it. 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...
aVENGER Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I may be in minority here, but I'd rather see Fallout using a sort of JA2 ruleset. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not 100% sure, as it's been a while, but I think BIS developers wanted to implement some of the aspects of JA2's combat into their Fallout 3 (Project Van Buren) back in the day. Things like interrupting an opponent's turn and having various combat stances (i.e. falling prone and crouching). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogo Ribeiro Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 (edited) SPECIAL does not require Fallout to exist. It's not associated with any specific instance (i.e. world/game). It can be applied to whatever game world you want. Your agitation towards what I wrote isn't justified since I'm not disagreeing with your stance. I took exception to your analysis of rulests as abstractions because it seemed you were arguing for their classification as something that had no importance to a setting or gameworld when this isn't the case; when all you were doing was using the concept of abstraction in a way that wasn't totally clear. In fact, a few posts back I explicitly stated that SPECIAL could probably use some revisions which in itself should have been a clue as to how similar our perspectives were on the subject matter. My point is rulesets are arbitrary in value, but are always required nonetheless since they facilitate player-setting interactions. They provide abstraction but - and this is where your point seemed to stem from - can't be abstracted from. This isn't different from what you're saying, alan. Edited January 28, 2007 by Role-Player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 when all you were doing was using the concept of abstraction in a way that wasn't totally clear. Sorry. I was using it in a way that is common in Computer Science. They provide abstraction but - and this is where your point seemed to stem from - can't be abstracted from. I was stating that the ruleset IS the abstraction here. Looking now your comment did seem to think that I was talking about abstracting something out of the ruleset. This is likely where things got confused between us. As long as it's all sorted out now. It sort of reminds me of the arguments my roommate and I have, where we realize we're both arguing the same thing, just from different perspectives or because of a miscommunication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogo Ribeiro Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 It happens. Apologies for any inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 (edited) Apology Accepted, Captain Needa. Edited January 28, 2007 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 (edited) Well, I am not saying that it shouldn't have real time, CrashGirl. Just that it should also have turn base as well. Not that autopause crap but true turn base. Also to tell the truth, I had more fun figuring out the rules system and such over playing the actual game. I am a rules set fanatic. Edited January 28, 2007 by Sand 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...
Recommended Posts