Dark_Raven Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 There is something perversely satisfying in frying 30 mewling opponents in a firestorm (whether it be magical or napalm) and be done with it so you can move on You and me both. Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.E. Sawyer Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Josh, certainly you are not saying that an encounter system that has your pc fighting 25 rats while encased in hardened power armor and carrying the turbo plasma rifle is something to be copied and admired? Those sorts of encounters can be fine, or even richly satisfying, as long as they are resolved briskly. Fallout's combat system didn't allow the rapid resolution of any battle featuring 25+ characters, regardless of the power imbalance. In contrast, Darklands allowed you to mop the floor with mobs in less than a minute. As far as companions go, I am only talking about Fallout 1. If one starts to talk about Fallout 2 implemtations then they acknowledge that sequels can make postive changes in gameplay which contradicts the "one must be beholden to Fallout's way of doing things because that is all that is right and good" argument.Which is an argument I did not make. I argued that companions are an imporant part of Fallout. Saying that they aren't is like saying that skiing or rocket jumping aren't important to Tribes or Quake, respectively. In all three cases, player reactions made a relatively small feature into something very important. But compare that to Icewind Dale 2. Because of the linear nature of that game, your pcs could never really go backwards. they were always pushing forward to the next new area which was always going to be harder than the area they had just left. So, isn't the end result the same? Yes, and pushing forward in IWD2 is not as enjoyable as poking around off the beaten path and experimenting like you can in Fallout. But that poking around is dangerous because what you find might be impossible difficult -- or it might be trivially easy. Who knows? twitter tyme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girias_Solo Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) Hmm, When are you going lead design (From start to finish) a PC RPG then Sawyer? Sounds like you have an idea of what makes a decent RPG. Edit: I must say I enjoyed the combat model in the Fallout games. I am not sure I know what you mean by 'Briskly' but I can understand where you are coming from in a large scale encounter. It wasn't hellish for me, but Adytown and the regulators could get a little frustrating, though battles of this magnitude were at a minimum. Excellent with smaller battles though. Edited January 31, 2007 by Girias_Solo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirottu Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Hmm, When are you going lead design (From start to finish) a PC RPG then Sawyer? Now. This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girias_Solo Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 What? A PC RPG? Totally designed by Sawyer? (Obviously with some stupid input by marketers granted) I must go and check the news pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirottu Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 What? A PC RPG? Alien RPG is for PC as well. Totally designed by Sawyer? (Obviously with some stupid input by marketers granted) I must go and check the news pages. Sawyer is the Lead Designer for the Alien RPG. If you want something totally by Sawyer then you might be interested that Sawyer is making in his free time modules for NWN 2 that follow the Black Hound(Jefferson) storyline. This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maia Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Specific to Oblivion's system: Morrowind did not scale most of its guild and plot critical quest lines (although it did scale creatures in the world), and was severly criticized by a lot of gamers because they would go off and do exploring then get around to the quest lines and they were incredibly easy because the PC was now level 15 and the game wasn't matching that. So Bethesda took that criticism to heart and tried to correct it. They may have not succeeded entirely, but Oblivion is NOT broken in the same way Morrowind was, and to me, that gives great hope that they will learn from Oblivion and correct where that fails. Oblivion is broken in a new way. Really, Bethesda was told ad nauseam during Obl developement that for scaling to be enjoyable, it should have both minimum and maximum thresholds and some random variety. They chose to disregard it so that everything could be completed at any level and ended up with the current lackluster and absurd implementation. I hope beyond hope that they don't go that way with Fallout, because there isn't an inbuilt expectation of that kind of moronic FREEDOM!!! like there is with TES. Also, such things can be fixed with mods. The main problems though are that Bethesda just doesn't have good writers and their quest design tends to be sadly lacking. Thus, the wonderful potential of an open-ended gameplay is never realised, not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aVENGER Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 FYI, a series of articles concerning Fallout fandom is being posted on NMA. In gaming terms, Fallout is a lifetime ago. So it's not that surprising that when people think Fallout they try and look for something to judge in the here and now. But that view is not without problems. People who never played Fallout but claim it is a boring, tedious game purely on hearsay can quickly be called out for judging something without having ever tried it. But the Fallout fanbase has cultivated an angry, embittered reputation, which is also based on hearsay, but harder to unmask. Is this "fair"? This article will take a look at that and several other things, it will try to see what this bitterness is all about, if it is really there, what effect the fanbase has had on the franchise and will have in the future. We will mostly leave open the question of what kind of Fallout Bethesda is making, instead looking at the result their choices will have. So far, two parts have been published and several more should follow. Part 1 - A brief history of Fallout fandom Part 2 - About the bitterness of Fallout fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tale Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I think it's unfair to classify Fallout fans as bitter. Humans, in general, that I'd be okay with. Bitter is 'in.' "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...
Vic Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Depends one which part of the Fallout fanbase you're talking about. If you're talking about the small amount that spend most of their time and post on sites like NMA, and proclaim themselves "True/Real" Fallout fans; then yes, they are bitter and much more. A psychologist would have a field day analyzing them. If you're talking about the majority of fans, the ones who don't visit NMA and their ilk (or even visit gaming sites, period), then I doubt many are bitter at all. The only reason Fallout fans have a bad rap is because the few vocal outputs are such awful representations of the majority that don't speak out. Which is a shame, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegeri Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 They may have not succeeded entirely, but Oblivion is NOT broken in the same way Morrowind was, and to me, that gives great hope that they will learn from Oblivion and correct where that fails. It's just broken in an entirely new and even worse way. Boss: You're fired. Me: Ummm will you let me have my job if I dance for you? Boss: No, I don't think so- Me: JUST LET ME DANCE *Dances* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tale Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) M...Mo...Morrowind was.... broken? I not only disagree, but henceforth deny you the privilege of having an opinion. But, to the actual substance of what Crashgirl is saying, it's not a problem really that your net progress is 0, for many the problem is that the net progress is -. The game gets harder, nonsensically so, as your character levels. Both times playing through, my Assassin character would literally kill himself every time he meets Clanfears. It's an overcompensation that was uncalled for. Edited February 5, 2007 by Tale "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...
alanschu Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Important to note that while the RT/TB-combination was highly controversial (people feared too much attention would be paid to the RT-version, thus making TB unbalanced, much as happened to Tactics) and rumored to have multiplayer coop (again much like Tactics), the response of a vocal part of the Fallout fanbase to Van Buren was critical, especially when debating with the devs, but in general the Fallout fanbase was excited and looking forward to the game. Booooo, boo boo boo boo boooooooooooooooooooooooo! Edited February 5, 2007 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 M...Mo...Morrowind was.... broken? I not only disagree, but henceforth deny you the privilege of having an opinion. But, to the actual substance of what Crashgirl is saying, it's not a problem really that your net progress is 0, for many the problem is that the net progress is -. The game gets harder, nonsensically so, as your character levels. Both times playing through, my Assassin character would literally kill himself every time he meets Clanfears. It's an overcompensation that was uncalled for. That's because if you don't metagame and max your pc development, you get hammered later in the game. I think that's stupid but that is the way the game is balanced. As far as Oblivion goes I have much more of a problem with the pcs skill system and development than I do with scaling. My only realy problem with scaling is that bandits have such high end weapons by later in the game. Not only is it contrary to the lore of the gameworld, but it really devalues the high-end weapons when they are falling from the sky. Other than that I find the scaling creates a challenging gameworld especially later where most crpgs get easy. The skill system though is totally hosed. And I don't like being forced to metagame just to survive. 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...
alanschu Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Well, the first article was a pleasant surprise. The second article was much more in line with what I expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Where's my giant anti-Fallout mallet? I know I left it around here somewhere. 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 February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 FYI, a series of articles concerning Fallout fandom is being posted on NMA. In gaming terms, Fallout is a lifetime ago. So it's not that surprising that when people think Fallout they try and look for something to judge in the here and now. But that view is not without problems. People who never played Fallout but claim it is a boring, tedious game purely on hearsay can quickly be called out for judging something without having ever tried it. But the Fallout fanbase has cultivated an angry, embittered reputation, which is also based on hearsay, but harder to unmask. Is this "fair"? This article will take a look at that and several other things, it will try to see what this bitterness is all about, if it is really there, what effect the fanbase has had on the franchise and will have in the future. We will mostly leave open the question of what kind of Fallout Bethesda is making, instead looking at the result their choices will have. So far, two parts have been published and several more should follow. Part 1 - A brief history of Fallout fandom Part 2 - About the bitterness of Fallout fans Excellent read. I would have to disagree with one point. This die hard fan happens to think Tactics is alright. I know it's not a sequel to the first two games. It happens to take place in that game world, nothing more. Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aVENGER Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) I would have to disagree with one point. This die hard fan happens to think Tactics is alright. I know it's not a sequel to the first two games. It happens to take place in that game world, nothing more. IIRC, the main issues about FO:T, among hardcore fans, were that: a) it wasn't FO3 b) it disregarded Fallout canon in many aspects (i.e. furry Deathclaws, fossil fuel powered vehicles, BOS portrayed as a bunch of extremists...etc.) despite taking place in the same setting. Save for that, a lot of people thought that FO:T was a fun game in its own right (and genre). Edited February 5, 2007 by aVENGER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Yeah, those furry deathclaws. Holy ****, the indiginity of it all. I'm amazed anyone can sleep at night. 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...
213374U Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 IIRC, the main issues about FO:T, among hardcore fans, were that: a) it wasn't FO3 b) it disregarded Fallout canon in many aspects (i.e. furry Deathclaws, fossil fuel powered vehicles, BOS portrayed as a bunch of extremists...etc.) despite taking place in the same setting. Save for that, a lot of people thought that FO:T was a fun game in its own right (and genre).Disregarded FO canon in rather vague ways, thus becoming the Tactics Heresy, and attracting the amount of hate, fear and outrage that heresies rightfully stir. Makes perfect sense. - 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 February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Disregarded FO canon in rather vague ways, thus becoming the Tactics Heresy, and attracting the amount of hate, fear and outrage that heresies rightfully stir. It could be argued, as I already did somewhere else, that the splinter faction in Tactics isn't an entirely inconsistent perspective on the original Brotherhood of Steel. There were some instances in the original Fallout where Maxson himself didn't seem to be that happy with the Elder's points of view, and in Fallout 2 it is said by a Brotherhood of Steel member that they are no longer as powerful as they once were. It's not a terribly complex exercise to imagine some reasons for a falling out, nor a consequence to those divergences of opinion leading to what we found in Tactics, so as a complaint, it's not very strong. But pointing out that the appearance of fully-functioning fossil fuel powered vehicles and installations doesn't exactly jive well in a setting where the world went to war because there was no fossil fuel to go around isn't exactly vague, and neither is pointing out that Deathclaws were a highly mutated form of chamaleons and not a furry amalgam of different species which could be mind-controlled by wasteland beastmen. Fanatics or not, most people that took those issues to heart have explained in-depth why they believe their portrayal wasn't accurate. And it's their decision to take those non-cannon situations as they want to. I'm sure there are some who take it upon themselves to not let those poorly handled elements affect their enjoyment of the game (ie, bask upon the glory of CrashGirl's kindergarten-styled "lolz furry!" dismissal of that particular point), but gamers who enjoyed Fallout for its (mostly) well developed and internally coherent setting probably won't be as accepting. Or are we trying to blame them for not appreciating games in the same way we do? Because y'know, that would make sense! Edited February 5, 2007 by Role-Player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowstrider Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Your statements are highly flawed and inaccurate. The war was caused by insufficient fuel, not an utter absence of fuel. It's not hard to believe that America would have fuel reserves, it's also not hard to believe that people would have uncovered these fuel reserves. As for furry Deathclaws, who cares? Everyone who has played Fallout knows that Deathclaws were mutated chameleons. Everyone knows a tactics developer said that they "evolved" hair, and yeah it's stupid. Forget it. Pretend the term "Deathclaw" is just that, a term for giant hulking beasts that roam the wasteland. The ones in Chicago were mutated bears. Honestly, of all the problems with Fallout 1, 2, Tactics, and BoS, this has got to be the weakest issue to raise for concern. I'm much more concerned with the sentient ones, and I really don't give a **** about those, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogo Ribeiro Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 The war was caused by insufficient fuel, not an utter absence of fuel. An 'enough' was meant to go there but nonetheless I stand corrected. The point still stands, however. It's not hard to believe that America would have fuel reserves, it's also not hard to believe that people would have uncovered these fuel reserves.Red herring. The issue is not with the existence of these fuel reserves, but with the rampant availability of said reserves. If fuel is such a scarce commodity in the wasteland then why is the splinter cell of the Brotherhood of Steel using it on aircraft to venture into the wasteland? Why are they wasting it on several vehicules for their squads? Where are they getting it from? As for furry Deathclaws, who cares? Everyone who has played Fallout knows that Deathclaws were mutated chameleons. Everyone knows a tactics developer said that they "evolved" hair, and yeah it's stupid. Forget it. Pretend the term "Deathclaw" is just that, a term for giant hulking beasts that roam the wasteland. I guess I could pull an Oblivion and 'pretend' it's all sorts of awesomeness but it seems that no matter how much I pretend about stuff, the game never plays that way. Imagine that! Honestly, of all the problems with Fallout 1, 2, Tactics, and BoS, this has got to be the weakest issue to raise for concern. I'm much more concerned with the sentient ones, and I really don't give a **** about those, either. So you're more concerned with something you don't really give a **** about? Definitely not flawed and inaccurate. You're neglecting the main issue of my post, which you may have noticed if you weren't trying to explore the flaws and inaccuracies of my statements when there was only one. It's been blatantly established by you and others that you don't care about some of the criticism, or that you feel they are not important. More power to you, I guess. However, just because someone's criticism does not meet with your criteria does not meet it's any less valid or important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowtrain Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Actually if you look closely you will notice that its not hair at all, but feathers. That's right, FEATHERY deathclaws. Like viscious chickens. Not only a ghastly canonical violation, but they make great quilts and pillows. 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 February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Disregarded FO canon in rather vague ways, thus becoming the Tactics Heresy, and attracting the amount of hate, fear and outrage that heresies rightfully stir. It could be argued, as I already did somewhere else, that the splinter faction in Tactics isn't an entirely inconsistent perspective on the original Brotherhood of Steel. There were some instances in the original Fallout where Maxson himself didn't seem to be that happy with the Elder's points of view, and in Fallout 2 it is said by a Brotherhood of Steel member that they are no longer as powerful as they once were. It's not a terribly complex exercise to imagine some reasons for a falling out, nor a consequence to those divergences of opinion leading to what we found in Tactics, so as a complaint, it's not very strong. But pointing out that the appearance of fully-functioning fossil fuel powered vehicles and installations doesn't exactly jive well in a setting where the world went to war because there was no fossil fuel to go around isn't exactly vague, and neither is pointing out that Deathclaws were a highly mutated form of chamaleons and not a furry amalgam of different species which could be mind-controlled by wasteland beastmen. Fanatics or not, most people that took those issues to heart have explained in-depth why they believe their portrayal wasn't accurate. And it's their decision to take those non-cannon situations as they want to. I'm sure there are some who take it upon themselves to not let those poorly handled elements affect their enjoyment of the game (ie, bask upon the glory of CrashGirl's kindergarten-styled "lolz furry!" dismissal of that particular point), but gamers who enjoyed Fallout for its (mostly) well developed and internally coherent setting probably won't be as accepting. Or are we trying to blame them for not appreciating games in the same way we do? Because y'know, that would make sense! You know, I think its totally cool to take a game this seriously. I mean hey, whatever floats your boat. But to expect others to take it this seriously, and even worse, get all pouty when they don't, is a bit out there. Note that is not directed at you specifically, RP, even though I quoted you. 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...
Recommended Posts