Fallout Online

[HoonDing]

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

Iron Tower Studios?

[Ausir]

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.

 

I doubt we'll see a Dragon Age style one, not with Bethesda owning the license.

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

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.

Likely because it's one of the few recent games that have effectively ruined it's entire franchise with "neo-games". You'll probably see a similar reaction to the new "X-Com" (I shudder even to call it that).

[Purkake]

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

Iron Tower Studios?

The one-man studio that has been making a single indie game for how long now?

 

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.

 

I doubt we'll see a Dragon Age style one, not with Bethesda owning the license.

They don't seem to be too shy about licensing it out to other people as well and they can't use the same engine forever.

 

[...]

 

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.

Likely because it's one of the few recent games that have effectively ruined it's entire franchise with "neo-games". You'll probably see a similar reaction to the new "X-Com" (I shudder even to call it that).

Why didn't Fallout: BoS ruin the franchise? Did Dark Alliance ruin the Baldur's Gate franchise? Did the various Jagged Alliance 3s ruin the Jagged Alliance franchise?

[Luckmann]

[...]

Why didn't Fallout: BoS ruin the franchise? Did Dark Alliance ruin the Baldur's Gate franchise? Did the various Jagged Alliance 3s ruin the Jagged Alliance franchise?

Fallout: BoS and Dark Alliance were never considered canon by anyone at all, nor where they major releases or released on the same formats as the main titles, nor where they direct continuations of their predecessors. Apart from being vehemently sucky into the extremes, they simply never garnered very much attention. They managed to dodge the bullets by simply being obscure and have absolutely no relation to their namesakes.

 

And as far as I know, there are only two Jagged Alliance games, not counting stand-alone expansions. That said, I think Jagged Alliance is much more resistant to tampering, because there simply isn't that much to tamper with, as long as you stay somewhat true to the basic format. Each installment have been relatively stand-alone with only the basic premise that you're in charge of a mercenary force in "the real world". Not much canonicity to break.

[Purkake]

So you are more pissed off about Fallout 3 because it was actually popular and generally well received? That sounds kind of petty. Also Fallout 3 is hardly a direct continuation of the series, it takes place over a century later, in a different location and with almost all new characters.

[Mikhailian]

[...]

 

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.

Likely because it's one of the few recent games that have effectively ruined it's entire franchise with "neo-games". You'll probably see a similar reaction to the new "X-Com" (I shudder even to call it that).

From what I've seen on various forums, peoples reactions seem to fall into three groups.

 

Group 1: I've never played the series, but this looks interesting. I hope it plays like (insert generic shooter name).

Group 2: This looks gay.

Group 3: OMG, WTF did they do with xcom? Did Enforcer teach you nothing, 2k?

[Purkake]

Hey, Xenoshock might be a good game, don't discount it just yet.

[Volourn]

"Apart from being vehemently sucky into the extremes, they simply never garnered very much attention."

 

Huh? BGDA was a very popular, successful game. Enough so to get a sequel, and offshoots. It was also a pretty good game.

[Luckmann]

So you are more pissed off about Fallout 3 because it was actually popular and generally well received? That sounds kind of petty. Also Fallout 3 is hardly a direct continuation of the series, it takes place over a century later, in a different location and with almost all new characters.

How did this suddenly become a matter about me? You asked a general question, which I answered with my own interpretation of events; the why's and the whens. If we're talking about me specificly, though, it has nothing to do with Fallout 3 being popular or not - it's pretty rubbish and would've been pretty rubbish whether it was popular or not - just like how I dislike Baldur's Gate: DA and Fallout: BoS.

 

It should come as no surprise that Fallout 3 comes up in conversations much more often. It's existence cannot be disregarded in the same fashion as the aforementioned games. I don't dislike Fallout 3 more because it's more popular.

 

And even if Fallout 3 is in another part of the universe, like it or not, but it -is- a direct continuation of the franchise. The two other examples you gave can be considered spinoffs at best. I would've preferred if Fallout 3 was similarly classed as a spinoff, but alas, c'est la vie.

[Mikhailian]

Hey, Xenoshock might be a good game, don't discount it just yet.

I lol'd at xenoshock. Unfortunately, the game's director "Angry Australian Man" has failed to convince me it's anything more than a studio cynically cashing in on a classic game's mind share with the media.

[kirottu]

"Apart from being vehemently sucky into the extremes, they simply never garnered very much attention."

 

Huh? BGDA was a very popular, successful game. Enough so to get a sequel, and offshoots. It was also a pretty good game.

 

I remember having good time playing BGDA in co-op.

[Purkake]

@Mikhailian: There really isn't all that much mindshare to cash in on.

 

I just hope that the new X-COM won't bring another 3 years of blind hate.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Purkake

[Bos_hybrid]

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

Iron Tower Studios?

The one-man studio that has been making a single indie game for how long now?

 

It's not one man anymore, not that I would want Iorn Tower to be developing FO. Fine with FO in Bethsoft and OEI hands.

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

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.

Likely because it's one of the few recent games that have effectively ruined it's entire franchise with "neo-games". You'll probably see a similar reaction to the new "X-Com" (I shudder even to call it that).

From what I've seen on various forums, peoples reactions seem to fall into three groups.

 

Group 1: I've never played the series, but this looks interesting. I hope it plays like (insert generic shooter name).

Group 2: This looks gay.

Group 3: OMG, WTF did they do with xcom? Did Enforcer teach you nothing, 2k?

Yeah, I think that sums it up.

 

What irks me the most is that, from the setting to the gameplay, it doesn't seem to share anything that makes X-Com X-Com. So one have to ask himself why they even want to have the X-Com label. It's not like it appeals to the old X-Com fans, or that the "next generation" of "gamers" even know what X-Com entails. My brother recently saw my PC Gamer magazine with X-Com on the cover and went "Oh, awesome! A new X-Com".

 

Shortly before reading the article and exclaiming "This looks gay".

[Mikhailian]

@Mikhailian: There really isn't all that much mindshare to cash in on.

 

I just hope that the new X-COM won't bring another 3 years of blind hate.

I've actually run into many videogame journos who've praised x-com in their editorials, and claimed it as one of their personal all time faves. It has also frequented top ten lists of various websites over the years.

 

This one from ign (a bit old, I'll admit) even put it at the very top of their list: http://pc.ign.com/articles/772/772285p1.html

[Purkake]

Video game journalists liking Fallout 3 didn't stop any of the hate...

[Mikhailian]

Video game journalists liking Fallout 3 didn't stop any of the hate...

I'm not really sure what your point is...

[Morgoth]

Haters gonna hate. Nobody cares how many people love or hate your game. It's only the $$$ that counts.

[Purkake]

Video game journalists liking Fallout 3 didn't stop any of the hate...

I'm not really sure what your point is...

Game press praised Fallout 3 -> fanboys of older Fallouts hated it.

 

Game press praises X-COM -> ?

[Ausir]

So you are more pissed off about Fallout 3 because it was actually popular and generally well received? That sounds kind of petty. Also Fallout 3 is hardly a direct continuation of the series, it takes place over a century later, in a different location and with almost all new characters.

 

Actually, it takes place only 38 years after Fallout 2, which is half of the gap between Fallout 1 and 2.

[Purkake]

Ok, but that doesn't make it a more direct continuation of the series.

[Ausir]

It continues the Enclave part of the Fallout 2 story.

[Walsingham]

I think it would make sense (sorta) to set at least one fallout in Europe. You've got so much more to play with in terms of the retro '50s. ...um ok I just tried to think of some things and fell flat.. but there must be something you could use?

[Oner]

Just not another russian PA.