Fallout Online

[Gizmo]

And even if Troika had died afterwards, even one more Troika game would be awesome. And it's not as if Bethesda's FO3 isn't extra buggy too.

I can't help but wholly agree. The [non-Fallout] tech demo had more FO atmosphere in it's 4 minutes, than Fallout 3 had in its entirety [iMO] ~with the exception of the landscaping

(due credit where credit is due).

 

I like FO3 for many reasons, but fidelity (on any level), isn't one of them. I'd have gladly seen FO pass to Troika ~whatever the result, (even none at all).

Whatever they would have created, I think it would likely have stood the test of time, and kept it's core fanbase long after FO3 fades away.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Gizmo

[Hurlshort]

So for the folks that believe Troika would have done Fallout right, have you played Arcanum? Because that is basically what a Troika Fallout would have looked like, minus the dwarves and elves.

 

For the record, I love Arcanum. But I don't hear a lot of folks clamoring for a sequel to it like you hear for Fallout.

[Purkake]

Troika getting the Fallout license would have most likely shifted it from one grave to another. Fallout 3 opened the door to New Vegas, all the mods and generally made the franchise viable again.

 

Fallout 3 wasn't popular because it was a Fallout game, it was popular because it gave the mainstream what they wanted.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Fallout 3 wasn't popular because it was a Fallout game, it was popular because it gave the mainstream what they wanted.

 

And that's good how though?

It's obvious that for a fan, if you have to choose between an evolution of the old franchise and another game coat-painted with the franchise's setting, the fan will choose the Troika game.

[Purkake]

FO3 planed the seed for multiple new games, including New Vegas and certainly doesn't rule out other Fallout games with other engines as opposed to a mythical pie in the sky Fallout game that might very well not even have seen the light of the day and would have at best been something akin to Bloodlines.

 

Sometimes it's a good idea to look at the big picture, not just the short term fanboy fancy.

[WorstUsernameEver]

FO3 planed the seed for multiple new games, including New Vegas and certainly doesn't rule out other Fallout games with other engines as opposed to a mythical pie in the sky Fallout game that might very well not even have seen the light of the day and would have at best been something akin to Bloodlines.

 

Sometimes it's a good idea to look at the big picture, not just the short term fanboy fancy.

 

Fallout 3 pretty much killed the idea of a turn-based Fallout.

Just read the Feargus interview on GameBanshee.

That's the reality.

And what do you mean by 'at best something akin to Bloodlines' ?

Troika already did a sort of spiritual successor to Fallout with Arcanum, so they would have probably went the same route with Fallout, just with an updated (and 3d engine).

As for bugs, yeah, it would have been buggy, but is Fallout 3 bugfree?

Far from it. Bethesda even broke a lot of things with their patches.

[Purkake]

You're not going to get a turn-based anything in the AAA category anytime soon. But you can still make a non-first person Fallout game, possibly in the vain of Dragon Age.

 

By the Bloodlines reference if meant a game-stoppingly buggy release that needs years of fan-patching to be decently playable. There is quite a difference between Bloodlines' level of buggyness and FO3.

[WorstUsernameEver]

You're not going to get a turn-based anything in the AAA category anytime soon. But you can still make a non-first person Fallout game, possibly in the vain of Dragon Age.

 

By the Bloodlines reference if meant a game-stoppingly buggy release that needs years of fan-patching to be decently playable. There is quite a difference between Bloodlines' level of buggyness and FO3.

 

1 - Huh? There's a ton of turn-based games that would disagree with you.

 

2 - Bloodlines didn't need years of fan patching to be playable. While it is a truly buggy game, as far as I know the only truly gamestopping bug has an easy enough workaround.

[Purkake]

The only actual AAA turn-based games I can think of are strategy games.

 

It needed years of fan-patching to be what it was supposed to be at release. That kind of stuff just doesn't fly these days, the game would be dead on arrival, no matter how good it might actually be.

[Mikhailian]

So for the folks that believe Troika would have done Fallout right, have you played Arcanum? Because that is basically what a Troika Fallout would have looked like, minus the dwarves and elves.

 

For the record, I love Arcanum. But I don't hear a lot of folks clamoring for a sequel to it like you hear for Fallout.

I've played and loved Arcanum, but it definitely suffered from both a lack of direction at it's core, and an excess of ambition for it's scope and featureset. They tried to do way too many things on their first outing, things they should have saved for later iterations. They clearly had some very creative, passionate, and talented people, but none of them seems to have had any business sense.

[Gizmo]

So for the folks that believe Troika would have done Fallout right, have you played Arcanum? Because that is basically what a Troika Fallout would have looked like, minus the dwarves and elves.

 

For the record, I love Arcanum. But I don't hear a lot of folks clamoring for a sequel to it like you hear for Fallout.

Yes! I played it when it came out, and I recently bought it again to to replace it. And Temple of Elemental Evil too!

These are two of my top games (on a list of around 70 or so).

Though I'm pretty sure Troika's Fallout would have been fully 3d, and most likely have looked quite a lot like this...

 

You're not going to get a turn-based anything in the AAA category anytime soon. But you can still make a non-first person Fallout game, possibly in the vain of Dragon Age.

The only actual AAA turn-based games I can think of are strategy games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2kNTGYdKu8

I'd have this in hand right now but for TAGES being used to protect the digital retail copies that I've found for purchase. Hopefully it comes out in the States using something else ~Steam or something less onerous.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Gizmo

[Luckmann]

The only actual AAA turn-based games I can think of are strategy games.

 

[...]

Ha.. the.. wha.. bu...!

 

What about Fallout/2, Jagged Alliance/2 and X-Com/2/3?!

[Purkake]

Disciples III is most certainly a strategy game and a little short of AAA status as well...

[Volourn]

"The [non-Fallout] tech demo had more FO atmosphere in it's 4 minutes"

 

No, it didn't. There was no atomsphere. It was a tech demo.

 

btw, One can loathe Betehasda's FO3 and still feel the Troika fnaboys are full of it.

 

Troike made two heavily flawed above average games that were fun, and below average game that had potential ruined by Troika's ignorance, arrogance, and foolishness.

 

Hey, watch out, the bugbear is coming for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

There are plenty of companies that could have made a financially successful *and* enjoyable FO3. And, yes, BIo is one of them though if you hate the BIo style of games you would likely hate their version of FO3 anyways. Then again, BIO never was interested in picking up anys craps from a dead Interplay IP. They had better things to do. It's why BIO is still successful while Interplay is playing funny MMORPG games.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Volourn

[Gizmo]

Disciples III is most certainly a strategy game and a little short of AAA status as well...

Certainly... but it (meaning D2 atm) has enough RPG elements in my book to consider it an RPG, and its graphics alone class it in the AAA league IMO.

(I've seen AAA titles with worse).

 

"The [non-Fallout] tech demo had more FO atmosphere in it's 4 minutes"

No, it didn't. There was no atomsphere. It was a tech demo.

Hard to believe we watched the same clip...

 

btw, One can loathe Betehasda's FO3 and still feel the Troika fnaboys are full of it.

Troike made two heavily flawed above average games that were fun, and below average game that had potential ruined by Troika's ignorance, arrogance, and foolishness.

Hey, watch out, the bugbear is coming for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Too broad a definition to touch with a 10' pike. What's fun (defined)? ~and what arrogance? Foolishness?

Seriously?

 

There are plenty of companies that could have made a financially successful *and* enjoyable FO3. And, yes, BIo is one of them though if you hate the BIo style of games you would likely hate their version of FO3 anyways. Then again, BIO never was interested in picking up anys craps from a dead Interplay IP. They had better things to do. It's why BIO is still successful while Interplay is playing funny MMORPG games.

Not the games... That's for sure. Edited July 4, 2010 by Gizmo

[Purkake]

The only actual AAA turn-based games I can think of are strategy games.

 

[...]

Ha.. the.. wha.. bu...!

 

What about Fallout/2, Jagged Alliance/2 and X-Com/2/3?!

We were talking about the present/future.

 

Disciples III is most certainly a strategy game and a little short of AAA status as well...

Certainly... but it (meaning D2 atm) has enough RPG elements in my book to consider it an RPG, and its graphics alone class it in the AAA league IMO.

(I've seen AAA titles with worse).

Not AAA in terms of marketing or relevance, unless that changes between now and it's release.

 

So other than Troika and Bioware, who else do you think could have made a better Fallout 3?

[Volourn]

EA, SS, Activision, and pretty much any other game company that still exists...

[Purkake]

I would have loved a Fallout FPS as well, but no one listened to me

[Ausir]

FO3 planed the seed for multiple new games, including New Vegas and certainly doesn't rule out other Fallout games with other engines as opposed to a mythical pie in the sky Fallout game that might very well not even have seen the light of the day and would have at best been something akin to Bloodlines.

 

Sometimes it's a good idea to look at the big picture, not just the short term fanboy fancy.

 

I'd take "somthing akin to Bloodlines" by Troika over Fallout 3 or even New Vegas any day. Although I doubt it would have been made this way (unless the publisher insisted). Anyway, even if Troika had died anyway after releasing their own Fallout, it wouldn't rule out any future sequels by e.g. Obsidian either, since the rights to the franchise would be owned by Activision.

 

I'd also take a BioWare-style Fallout over a Bethesda-style one.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Ausir

[Luckmann]

The only actual AAA turn-based games I can think of are strategy games.

 

[...]

Ha.. the.. wha.. bu...!

 

What about Fallout/2, Jagged Alliance/2 and X-Com/2/3?!

We were talking about the present/future.

And they just magically stopped existing, or what? All of them are still great turn-based games. As for the future, it's impossible to say exactly as to what will be made. The hopes for a good turn-based game is still very much alive.

 

I would have loved a Fallout FPS as well, but no one listened to me

Bethesda did. Seriously. Fallout 3. It has some minor aspects that are traditionally considered RPG aspects thrown in there, but it's still more of an FPS than anything else, and absolutely nothing prevents you from playing it as such.

[Ausir]

We were talking about the present/future.

 

Final Fantasy and other jRPGs?

[Purkake]

FO3 planed the seed for multiple new games, including New Vegas and certainly doesn't rule out other Fallout games with other engines as opposed to a mythical pie in the sky Fallout game that might very well not even have seen the light of the day and would have at best been something akin to Bloodlines.

 

Sometimes it's a good idea to look at the big picture, not just the short term fanboy fancy.

 

I'd take "somthing akin to Bloodlines" by Troika over Fallout 3 or even New Vegas any day. Although I doubt it would have been made this way (unless the publisher insisted). Anyway, even if Troika had died anyway after releasing their own Fallout, it wouldn't rule out any future sequels by e.g. Obsidian either, since the rights to the franchise would be owned by Activision.

 

I'd also take a BioWare-style Fallout over a Bethesda-style one.

Again, I was referring to Bloodlines' bugginess, not the gameplay style. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point then.

 

Generally speaking, it's weird that only Fallout seems to bring out such strong feelings around these parts. It's not like it was the only good game made around that time.

 

The only actual AAA turn-based games I can think of are strategy games.

 

[...]

Ha.. the.. wha.. bu...!

 

What about Fallout/2, Jagged Alliance/2 and X-Com/2/3?!

We were talking about the present/future.

And they just magically stopped existing, or what? All of them are still great turn-based games. As for the future, it's impossible to say exactly as to what will be made. The hopes for a good turn-based game is still very much alive.

All of those games existing has nothing what so ever to do with the discussion I was having with Worst. I wouldn't be very optimistic about future turn-based games in non-strategy genres.

 

I would have loved a Fallout FPS as well, but no one listened to me

Bethesda did. Seriously. Fallout 3. It has some minor aspects that are traditionally considered RPG aspects thrown in there, but it's still more of an FPS than anything else, and absolutely nothing prevents you from playing it as such.

Oh, please.

 

We were talking about the present/future.

 

Final Fantasy and other jRPGs?

XIII has a real-time combat system. As for other JRPGs, is that the direction Fallout 3 should have taken?

Edited July 5, 2010 by Purkake

[Ausir]

Again, I was referring to Bloodlines' bugginess, not the gameplay style. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point then.

 

Bethesda's Fallout 3 is also buggy as hell. And I'd definitely take a buggy Troika game over a hypothetical 100% bug-free Bethesda game anytime as well.

 

Generally speaking, it's weird that only Fallout seems to bring out such strong feelings around these parts. It's not like it was the only good game made around that time.

 

What else did you expect in this forum, given that some of the devs at Obsidian were involved in the creation of Fallout and 2 and that they're making FNV now?

 

XIII has a real-time combat system. As for other JRPGs, is that the direction Fallout 3 should have taken?

 

I didn't say I'd like Fallout 3 to be a jPRG. You just asked for examples of modern non-strategy AAA turn-based games.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Ausir

[Purkake]

That's true, but it's also part of the never changing classic JRPG formula.

 

EDIT: Wait, why am I arguing that anyway? I was actually agreeing with Worst that we're not going to get a new turn-based Fallout anytime soon. My point was that we might still get a Dragon Age style one.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Purkake

[Gizmo]

Disciples III is most certainly a strategy game and a little short of AAA status as well...

Certainly... but it (meaning D2 atm) has enough RPG elements in my book to consider it an RPG, and its graphics alone class it in the AAA league IMO.

(I've seen AAA titles with worse).

Not AAA in terms of marketing or relevance, unless that changes between now and it's release.

What's an AAA title really entail? What defines it.

~Cursory look finds this definition as one among many... http://www.troelsfolmann.com/blog/?p=30

 

So other than Troika and Bioware, who else do you think could have made a better Fallout 3?

Good question. I've never given it thought before...

First off though, I expect that my definition of "better" is not mainstream ~so to speak.

In this case "better" [for me] means a title that delivers the equivalent experience I've come to expect in a series, while expanding upon the past installments; and adding new twists that still fall within the plausible bounds of that series... ~long winded def. sure.

 

What company would tackle a sequel with that in mind ~and paramount? Don't know; (possibly none).

A few come to mind as "could have been cool if they tried"... They are Shiny, Planetmoon, Relic, and CDProjekt ~Bear in mind this excludes Troika, Obsidian, & BlackIsle (and Blizzard, and Carbine Studios).

Each of those first four companies would have lent great strengths (and great weakness) to a Fallout sequel. Strengths found in Troika/Obsidian. I believe I'd see something in each company's version that would please and amuse ~but If I had to risk it all on one of them.... Relic & Shiny would have the mechanics tick like a top of the line Swiss movement; but none of their games hold a candle to BlackIsle when it comes to dialog and events ~ and Shiny is gone.

Planetmoon's Fallout would kill and put you in stitches, but not look the part, nor be harsh enough. So I'd have to go with CDprojekt, and hope for a Post Apoc. Witcher [V1.] with a hybrid 3d/ISO FO:Tactics style combat system (with no magic and also no timed clicks ~even though I enjoyed it in Witcher ~its not appropriate in Fallout IMO).

Edited July 5, 2010 by Gizmo