New stuff on F3

[Bokishi]

which is why I have very little interest in computer gaming any more.

 

yet you still discuss games on this board

[Sand]

So? I am an internet junkie.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

no matter what bethesda says, they is screwed at codex

 

They're whining nancies. I for one can't wait to lockpick my way through a Vault door, fire small mushroom clouds with my nuclear catapult and hiding from radioactivity inside a portable nuclear shelter resembling a phone booth!

Edited July 3, 2007 by Role-Player

[Sand]

Portable Fallout Shelter in the shape of a Phone Booth?!?!?

 

Please tell me you are kidding.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Are you suggesting that has nothing do with Fallout's style?

[Llyranor]

which is why I have very little interest in computer gaming any more.

Whoa whoa whoa. That's not quitting gaming forever. Flipflop time!!!

 

I, too, am not quitting gaming forever anymore, all thanks to this FO3 thread! Thanks Bethesda!

[Sand]

Hey, it worked for John Kerry and Mitt Romney.

 

Truth telling, Tale introduced me to a little game called Sam and Max...

Edited July 3, 2007 by Sand

[Llyranor]

I also have been secretly playing games

[Wombat]

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to cite the Fallout feel of a game. How often have we heard folks say that they thought a game in one genre had the feel of a game in another? While it might be subjective, the phrase certainly has a place. Not only that, but what provides the "feel" of a game might not be the same for everyone. In fact, I doubt it is the same for everyone. I couldn't cite everything that creates the Fallout "feel" for me. What I can say is that the demo certainly had a good Fallout feel, but that doesn't mean everyone will see it the same way. If we use the word "feel" at all to discuss these games, and most of us do, then we should exhibit a certain charity when anyone uses it. That's true even in cases where we don't agree with the person's views.

Honestly, I have no idea from where you picked up this since I didn't write that being subjective is unreasonable which would make literary criticism worthless. Rather, I am a person who tends to find an attitude of assuming objectivity without sharing our experiences by far unreasonable. Usually, about which do we "discuss" how we feel and exchange our subjective opinions?: materials which let share our experiences such as literatures and films. There are nothing wrong with that the content of some games enable us to do so even if they are still mostly considered as escapist entertainment. Personally, I'd like to see something like independent films in the gaming industry.

 

I'm not sure if you're identifying Hitman as a shooter, but Hitman is pretty ho-hum as far as shooting mechanics go and generally doesn't require much aiming skill (mostly because your targets are moving very slowly). Hitman is a fun game because screwing around with AI is so entertaining. It's one of the same reasons why the Thief series games are so popular. If I recall correctly, Thief: Deadly Shadows (worst title ever) used no time limit on its lockpicking minigame, but guards would continue to walk around in real-time while you were working on the lock (as they would in Splinter Cell). Personally, I really like systems like that because it encourages me to either a) scout appropriately and ensure that no one's going to interrupt me or b) work like a furious madman to complete the game as fast as possible. You still have the option of doing everything at your own pace, but you run the risk of being interrupted unless you do appropriate recon first.

I'd go further than that:

 

The lock-picking "mini-game" in Thief:DS has its own place in the whole game mechanism and the feel which lets the player in the shoes of the thief who needs to watch his hands while assigning a part of his attention to listening to the footsteps of the guards. The lock-picking min-game itself is not that complicated at all but the players need to do the task quickly and correctly. IMO, this is totally different from KotOR racing game at that the process is a kind of ritual which lets the player feel and plan like a thief in an imaginary world. Making the players feel wrapped in imaginary worlds has been an important factor of games such as Thief and System Shock series. The design philosophy is somehow important in RPG in new generation platforms, I think. There are no difference between more traditional content and the new one as a point: If a theme is chosen, the creators have to think what would be the best way to stimulate the players senses using tools at their hands. Thief series demonstrated what the sound effects could do, for example. If someone says that the first person/near first person games have immersion factor, I'd agree but if designers are not always conscious of what they would like the players to feel and how to archive it, then, they won't be able to make games like those.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Wombat

[jaguars4ever]

Is anyone else not particularly impressed with the supermutant redesign?

 

They seem to have gone with a more "realistic" approach instead of retaining the super-deformed-esque look of F1/F2 mutants & ghouls. I personally thought the old skool designs added to the retrofuture charm.

[Bokishi]

But But jag, it has oblivion gameplay, with guns

Edited July 3, 2007 by Bokishi

[Slowtrain]

Change is always a hard sell. People reacting negatively to things that are different that what came before is pretty predictable.

[Sand]

I am of the thought is that if they are going to spend all that money and all that time to make a Fallout game they should have made it a Fallout game. This set up Bethesda could have worked well for a Post Apocalyptic action CRPG without the Fallout name on it. It would still sell and it wouldn't have had the Fallout baggage. It might very well be the best CRPG ever made but as it stands its not Fallout and that is the issue that many naysayers have about this game.

[Llyranor]

I dunno, this time they'll sell buttloads and piss off a ton of people. Two birds, one stone.

[Sand]

Oh yes, pissing off people is always a good thing for a business to do.

[Llyranor]

It is when FO3 is going to outsell all previous games in the franchise combined.

[Sand]

Well that is a no brainer. When Fallout 1 and 2 were released they were PC only games and the market for PC was small. FO3 is on 3 platforms and the market is freaking huge compared when FO1 and FO2 was released. Its a no brainer that FO3 will outsell FO1 and FO2. A new multiplatform game out selling a single platform game that was released 10 years ago is not all that impressive.

[Musopticon?]

Actually, all Fallouts and their combined releases in different compilations and collector's editions have been selling pretty steadily over the years. Nearly anyone with a PC has at least tried them.

 

Funnily enough, besides the lable "From the makers of TES:Oblivion" the Fallout name is going to be one of the biggest sellers for this release.

[Sand]

The game would probably sell just as well if not more if it didn't have the Fallout name on it. After 10 years of nothing other than two lame spin offs Fallout's name recognition means nothing except for the old timers and hell, the game isn't even recognizably the same game as the other two main Fallouts which makes the old fanbase pretty much irrelevant.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

The name recognition still holds. Maybe not directly with individual gamers, but with the industry, which automatically boosts its following and interest. Nothing exists in isolation, Sand. A gamer does not have to have played something to recognize a name and derive interest from others.

[Sand]

I just think that the game will suffer more for the name recognition than without it. Bethesda could have saved a lot of money by making their own Post Apocalyptic CRPG and it would have still sell just as well.

[Hurlshort]

I just think that the game will suffer more for the name recognition than without it. Bethesda could have saved a lot of money by making their own Post Apocalyptic CRPG and it would have still sell just as well.

 

I'm not sure about that. Bethesda's brand isn't just money in the bank. Original IP's are always a risk. Buying the Fallout license ensures that a good deal of their advertising is already done for them. Gamers know Fallout, even if just by word of mouth. Sure, they'll tick some fans off, but the name recognition is worth more than a couple thousand angry fans.

[Enoch]

Today's Washington Post has an article about the selling of video games, with Bethesda's exhibition of F3 as its centerpiece.

 

Here's the link (may require free registration). Be sure to check out the video, too, especially to see some of the swag the reviewers got to take home (I want that Vault-tec lunchbox!).

Edited July 3, 2007 by Enoch

[Lord Niah]

Depends on how it is implemented. In most crpgs (that I know of), combat seems to part of the "main" game. Whereas "mini" games replaces your main interface with a new interface and a new set of "rules", effectively becoming a different game.

Sounds like entering combat or conversation in Fallout.

 

 

The problem is not that they are using minigames, but rather the style of the mini-games. Your traditional audience for CRPGs and turn-based strategy has always prefered games that involve:

 

#1 learning complex rule sets with deep possiblities for combining the rules in creative ways

#2 Using long range planning (i.e. strategy) and/or shorter range planning (i.e. tactics)

#3 Some sort of emotional appeal and immersion (this last one is more important for those who like CRPGs)

 

 

The combat "minigame" in most CRPGs involves an exercise of #2. The character building mini-game (which is related to the combat minigame) involves #1 and #2 (i.e. long range planning). The Oblivion lock picking minigame involves twitch (or the skeleton key )

[mr insomniac]

I just think that the game will suffer more for the name recognition than without it. Bethesda could have saved a lot of money by making their own Post Apocalyptic CRPG and it would have still sell just as well.

 

I'm not sure about that. Bethesda's brand isn't just money in the bank. Original IP's are always a risk. Buying the Fallout license ensures that a good deal of their advertising is already done for them. Gamers know Fallout, even if just by word of mouth. Sure, they'll tick some fans off, but the name recognition is worth more than a couple thousand angry fans.

I agree with this. Bioware might have been able to pull it off, they've already branched out successfully with games that don't have "Baldur's Gate" in the title. Gamers would more easily accept a different Post-Apocalyptic game from them. Bethesda, perhaps not. The majority of their fanbase would probably have been crying for Elder Scrolls V, but since the new game has Fallout in the title, it's recognizable, it's exciting, it's all kinds of both positive and negative things to all kinds of gamers, and it will probably do very well, at least initially. I'll wait and find out how good (or bad) it is before I buy it, but I'm interested in it, and I barely played Morrowind and haven't touched Oblivion.