H Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 Yeah. It's a well known Natural Law that Beth's games must suck. I read it on Science somewhere. The last Bethesda's game that didn't suck was released way back in 1996. What was your point again?
random n00b Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 Err, I'm not saying FO3 will make FO1 and 2 suck. I'm saying that it will potentially destroy the uniqueness and atmosphere of the series, I guess. It's like with a TV series how people say "it sucks now" - adding more and more seasons can ruin a show. I'm hoping for new seasons of Burn Notice, but at the same time, I think season one was pretty damn ace, and I don't want to see something less than that.Fair enough. But that's a different example I think, and not fully extensible to games. Games are self-contained and don't need to share key plot elements and/or characters with other installments of a saga, which is not necessarily true for books, movies, or TV shows, where continuity is usually necessary because plot elements are left open (often as a means of keeping the audience interested in a sequel). In this regard, FO was independent from FO2, and those two will not be affected by FO3, since all they have in common is the setting. Hades, yes. I know the Fallout franchise belongs to you. Tiax rules all, and stuff.
random n00b Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 (edited) So? You don't need to be excessively creative to make a game that your regular NMA denizen would consider a "true" Fallout sequel. Isometric + SPECIAL + turn based + dialog trees = Fallout. Right? What are we arguing about, again, then? Edited May 18, 2008 by random n00b
Istima Loke Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 (edited) [...] Err, I'm not saying FO3 will make FO1 and 2 suck. I'm saying that it will potentially destroy the uniqueness and atmosphere of the series, I guess. It's like with a TV series how people say "it sucks now" - adding more and more seasons can ruin a show. I'm hoping for new seasons of Burn Notice, but at the same time, I think season one was pretty damn ace, and I don't want to see something less than that. Picture somebody telling you that Bethesda was going to do a sequel to Planescape: Torment. So now I'm wrong for thinking I was wrong? Damn it. Anyway, that's about what I originally though that phrase means. I'm glad it turns out I wasn't that much away from reality. Edited May 18, 2008 by Istima Loke I think therefore I am? Could be! Or is it really someone else Who only thinks he's me?
H Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 So? You don't need to be excessively creative to make a game that your regular NMA denizen would consider a "true" Fallout sequel. Isometric + SPECIAL + turn based + dialog trees = Fallout. Right? No. By that logic, a freaking monkey could make create a solid sequel to Fallout. If you butcher a game, put the pieces you got together and wait until lightning strikes, you get a Frankenstein's monster. There is a reason why all those Diablo clones are much worse than D2. Ever heard of the expression "greater than sum of its parts"? What are we arguing about, again, then? About Bethesda's impotence as game developers, I believe.
Slowtrain Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 Yeah. It's a well known Natural Law that Beth's games must suck. I read it on Science somewhere. I don't know ablout natural law, but all one has to do is look as far as Todd Howards last work to raise legitmate questions about Fallout 3. Oblivion had (By intentional design): - A counter-intuitive skill system that rewarded a player for putting least used skills in major slots - A leveling system that invalidated the actual significance of leveling - A gameword that was primarily designed for exploration but the game did not reward exploration - Quests that were essentially meaningless, even down to the leveled "rewards" - A piss poor and unimaginitve main story And they are just the main flaws, I could give you page after page of specific failures in game design: everything from hog farmers carrying daederic claymores to the totally broken and useless minigames. And since many of the same problems existed in MW as well, one can assume that they are part of Todd Hoawrd's design "philosphy" and will probably show up again in Fallout 3. My hope is that he has learned some lessons from the pretty intense negative reactions of people who bought the game and will make enough changes to his core philosphy that FO3 wil be better than Oblivion. I don't expect him to change everything, but even a few things would be enough. Of course, I had the same hope going from MW to Oblivion when we were assured that the problems of MW would be fixed. And that hope proved ill founded because Oblivion was far worse. If you loved Oblivion then you should probably be pretty content with what is going to happen in FO3. If you didn't love Oblivion then you have very right to be skeptical. Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 have nothing to do with it. They were made 10 years ago by different designers. Nothing in FO3 is going to change them in anyway. Rather it is all about what Todd Howatrd believes a crpg should be and how good he is at designing games. 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.
Musopticon? Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 (edited) To CG: Fortunately, Shivering Isles adressed the last three of your points. The leveling system was still horrible, but exploration was finally rewarded, the plot was very decent and the side quests generally interesting. Apparently, this was mostly thanks to Emil Pagliouro(or whatever), who is a lead designer now, so I keep hoping that F3 will be worth playing. Edited May 18, 2008 by Musopticon? kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds
Hurlshort Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 Hmm...I liked Fallout AND I like Bethesda's entire lineup of games. Woohoo!
random n00b Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 I completely disagree. Anything remotely artistic like computer games certainly has a 'soul'; something that makes the game bigger than the sum of its parts. Creating decent computer games is formulaic; creating awesome ones is anything but. Right. So, please define what the "soul" of Fallout is, so the discussion can progress. Unless it was a matter of Divine Revelation for the original team, there must be some comprehensible aspect to it, that so far, nobody has been able to quite place their finger on. This doesn't seem to conflict with the fact that folks here are certain that Beth will fail to capture that. Funny.
Slowtrain Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 To CG:Fortunately, Shivering Isles adressed the last three of your points. The leveling system was still horrible, but exploration was finally rewarded, the plot was very decent and the side quests generally interesting. Apparently, this was mostly thanks to Emil Pagliouro(or whatever), who is a lead designer now, so I keep hoping that F3 will be worth playing. I agree that SI was definitely a step foward. It's too bad that it is still entrapped in the overarching desgin flaws of the whole system, but yes, it does add to the reasons to hope for something better in FO3. I believe Emil was also reponsible for the DB faction story/quests in Oblivion, which are defintely the best parts of the main game. 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.
H Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 There's no need for greatly creative developers if all you are asking for is the same thing, over and over. Indeed. The inevitable success of the upcoming The Elder Scrolls V: The East Coast proves it. While that is mildly interesting, from a rhetorical point of view, it's completely insubstantial and therefore irrelevant when discussing something as concrete as game development. Allusions to the "soul" (which is what Frankenstein lacks, or is it?) have no place in a semi-serious conversation about anything that isn't Cartesian philosophy. Then why do Diablo clones keep failing? They have everything Diablo 2 had - phat lewt, tons of monsters, non-stop action.
Pidesco Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 They didn't have Blizzard's name behind them. Brand recognition is a powerful thing. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist I am Dan Quayle of the Romans. I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands. Heja Sverige!! Everyone should cuffawkle more. The wrench is your friend.
Xard Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 (edited) They didn't have Blizzard's name behind them. Brand recognition is a powerful thing. That and Diablo 2 is immortal king of ARPG's. There still haven't been better game in the genre - it is very hard to nail down why that is though Edited May 18, 2008 by Xard How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)
Humodour Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 (edited) I completely disagree. Anything remotely artistic like computer games certainly has a 'soul'; something that makes the game bigger than the sum of its parts. Creating decent computer games is formulaic; creating awesome ones is anything but. Right. So, please define what the "soul" of Fallout is, so the discussion can progress. Unless it was a matter of Divine Revelation for the original team, there must be some comprehensible aspect to it, that so far, nobody has been able to quite place their finger on. This doesn't seem to conflict with the fact that folks here are certain that Beth will fail to capture that. Funny. Haha, I'm pretty sure the definition of "greater than the sum of its parts" is that you can't define it fully in terms of other things, so what you're asking is kind of illogical. Fallout was a delicate balance of various concepts and mechanics - it's that balance and choice of concepts/mechanics to use that is the 'soul', I guess. That said, I doubt I'm the only one who feels art is more than the sum of its parts, and I believe that's actually a fairly widely held notion. But just because humans find it hard to capture the essence of something or explain it fully by referencing its parts doesn't mean it is divinely determined. Heck, this is the main reason so many computer games fail these days - the 'parts' don't come together well, or one of the 'parts' is poor quality and drags the entire game down. Marketing is the other reason for failure, of course. Edit: added quote. Edited May 18, 2008 by Krezack
Pidesco Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 And Diablo isn't all that much better. It's just more polished. Being competent is a wonderful thing. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist I am Dan Quayle of the Romans. I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands. Heja Sverige!! Everyone should cuffawkle more. The wrench is your friend.
Sand Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 Hades, yes. I know the Fallout franchise belongs to you. Tiax rules all, and stuff. You obviously missed the point so there is no reason to discuss this any further with you. 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"
Morgoth Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 And Diablo isn't all that much better. It's just more polished. Being competent is a wonderful thing. More polished, more stylish, more versatile, more athmospheric. It's all these little things that makes the Diablo series such a smooth and fun experience, something all other clones lacked. Maybe Hellgate London comes a bit close, but that's no wonder since it's basically from the same team. Rain makes everything better.
Pidesco Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 I'm going to disagree with stylish and atmospheric. Diablo 2 was as generic and bland as possible, and I'm guessing deliberately so. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist I am Dan Quayle of the Romans. I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands. Heja Sverige!! Everyone should cuffawkle more. The wrench is your friend.
Morgoth Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 Oh Sir you just have no taste that's all! Rain makes everything better.
Recommended Posts