J.E. Sawyer Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Of course, there's no guarantee either way, so the point is moot. I think that looking at the best examples of any implementation gives you an idea of the upper potential of a concept. We all know that any idea in the history of the world is going to be terrible if it isn't executed well. But that doesn't give us an idea of how good it could be. Looking at the best examples of any concept tells us more about its potential and/or its limitations. Take first-person melee. I think it's fundamentally problematic because even the best examples of it (Oblivion, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic) still have a lot of control issues. Some people accept the control trade-off because they enjoy the more immersive experience. But I don't think anyone is going to use Trespasser or DTUM as a starting point for talking about first-person anything because it isn't really indicative of the potential of the concept; they're just fundamentally flawed. twitter tyme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkan Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Of course, there's no guarantee either way, so the point is moot. I think that looking at the best examples of any implementation gives you an idea of the upper potential of a concept. We all know that any idea in the history of the world is going to be terrible if it isn't executed well. But that doesn't give us an idea of how good it could be. Looking at the best examples of any concept tells us more about its potential and/or its limitations. Take first-person melee. I think it's fundamentally problematic because even the best examples of it (Oblivion, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic) still have a lot of control issues. Some people accept the control trade-off because they enjoy the more immersive experience. But I don't think anyone is going to use Trespasser or DTUM as a starting point for talking about first-person anything because it isn't really indicative of the potential of the concept; they're just fundamentally flawed. I'll concede that point. I just hope it isn't as annoying as Oblivion. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 I'll concede that point. I just hope it isn't as annoying as Oblivion. *in his best Yoda voice* It will be. It will be! 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...
kirottu Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 It has nothing to do with nostalgia. Fallout 3 is being billed as a direct sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. S.E.Q.U.E.L. It's rather remarkable how hard it is to get that simple concept across to some people. *sigh* Everybody who has played Fallouts wants Fallout 3 to be sequel of Fallout 1 and 2. By that I mean they want to see the sequel having stuff what made Fallouts great for them. Is just that for some people what made Fallout great wasn This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 I consider everything that is in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 important. That includes setting, atmosphere, rules system, GUI, perspective, and all. Everything that is in Fallout 1 and 2 is what made the game what it is. Take one thing out, its no longer Fallout. 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...
Pop Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 It's not Fallout if you can be a minority. Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 It's not Fallout if you can be a minority. You just don't get it. I have no problem with Bethesda expanding the game as long as the basics are fully intact. Such as I have no problem with the game being in 3D as long as I can get my top down view. I have no problem with real time combat as long as I can get my turn based combat that was in the previous games. I have said this over and over and over again yet you people are just not listening. Its no wonder I have to repeat myself. 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...
Jorian Drake Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Of course, there's no guarantee either way, so the point is moot. I think that looking at the best examples of any implementation gives you an idea of the upper potential of a concept. We all know that any idea in the history of the world is going to be terrible if it isn't executed well. But that doesn't give us an idea of how good it could be. Looking at the best examples of any concept tells us more about its potential and/or its limitations. Take first-person melee. I think it's fundamentally problematic because even the best examples of it (Oblivion, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic) still have a lot of control issues. Some people accept the control trade-off because they enjoy the more immersive experience. But I don't think anyone is going to use Trespasser or DTUM as a starting point for talking about first-person anything because it isn't really indicative of the potential of the concept; they're just fundamentally flawed. psst! that's the cursed word! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 It's not Fallout if you can be a minority. You just don't get it. I have no problem with Bethesda expanding the game as long as the basics are fully intact. Such as I have no problem with the game being in 3D as long as I can get my top down view. I have no problem with real time combat as long as I can get my turn based combat that was in the previous games. I have said this over and over and over again yet you people are just not listening. Its no wonder I have to repeat myself. Says the guy who "game up gaming" only a few days ago.. Gee, I wonder why we never listen to you or take you seriously, drama queen. And J.E. Sawyer needs to play Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay to really see the potential of first person melee. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Says the guy who "game up gaming" only a few days ago.. Gee, I wonder why we never listen to you or take you seriously, drama queen. Just because i no longer game on the PC means I cannot participate in these discussions? What are you? A forum nazi? 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...
Pop Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Godwin's Law prevails again. Of interest: In the article, did it mention the proposed multiple endings as being connected to the karma system? If so, "multiple endings" is misleading. Multiple endings would imply different paths to the end of the game, whereas outcomes dependent upon accumulated karma would imply something lesser. To put it in simpler terms, it very well could be that there are 9-12 different ending voiceovers, which are not determined by the actions you take at the end of the game but by your karma. As well, it would seem to imply that instead of area-by-area epilogues ala the other Fallouts, Fallout 3 will have broad state-of-the-union style endings, which if anything would speak to a lack of attention payed to long-term consequences of actions. Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirottu Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 I consider everything that is in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 important. That includes setting, atmosphere, rules system, GUI, perspective, and all. Everything that is in Fallout 1 and 2 is what made the game what it is. Take one thing out, its no longer Fallout. So you This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirottu Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Says the guy who "game up gaming" only a few days ago.. Gee, I wonder why we never listen to you or take you seriously, drama queen. Just because i no longer game on the PC means I cannot participate in these discussions? What are you? A forum nazi? The difference being that you only bitch and whine and if you really have stopped gaming forever then you This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 It looks to me, Kirottu, that you are resorting to personal attacks instead of forwarding the argument. If you don't agree with someone, you choose to insult them. How childish. 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...
CoM_Solaufein Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Looks like we need a time out session. When cooler heads prevail, this may be reopened. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is StrengthBaldur's Gate moddingTeamBGBaldur's Gate modder/community leaderBaldur's Gate - Enhanced Edition beta testerBaldur's Gate 2 - Enhanced Edition beta tester Icewind Dale - Enhanced Edition beta tester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts