... I find myself sitting here, shaking my head in slack-jawed amazement. No, seriously.

Fallout isn't about "emulating PnP" - not hardly. Certainly, not about emulating a GURPS experience - I could run a Fallout game using just about ANY published PnP system out there (although some would of course require a little more adaptation work than others). Indeed, I daresay that I could GM a fallout "game" that had no system whatsoever, apart from "GM fiat".

Indeed, I'd feel pretty confident about running a Fallout game using only ... http://www.adastragames.com/downloads/RPGs/Minimus.pdf, a four-page (originally one-page, even) RPG, available for free from the (PDF) link I've just provided. That's legally free, mind you.

Rather ... Fallout is about a particular setting, with it's particular assumptions and atmosphere. IMO, Fallout 3 captured - and expanded upon - the setting, and it's assumptiosn and especially it's atmosphere, very very well.

Understand this: System is irrelevant ... story and atmosphere are what makes something "Fallout", or "Not Fallout".


The problem you run afoul of here is this: what makes a good game, versus a bad game, is subjectivity itself. Gaming is entertainment art, and as such ... "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The presence of flaws does not make a game "bad" ... it merely makes the game "crafted by a human being". There hasn't been a perfect game in the entire history of the human race.


And again, I disagree entirely. If I say "Fallout 3 is a good fallout game", then that is clearly and simply a statement of opinion, and does not have to be supported. You are, after all, free to say "well that may be your opinion, but I disagree".

You can perhaps provide reasins why Fallout 3 is not a good Fallout game in your opinion, but the simple fact of the matter is: when it comes to "good" or "bad" in terms of entertainment art, there is no such thing as an Objective Truth. The quality or non-quality - "goodness" or "badness", if you will - of entertainment is 100% subjective. Always has been, always will be.

Firstly, I said "Who is to say what is a 'proper' RPG anyway?" You say that a 'proper' RPG is a traditional one by definition. But my point still stands as no-one is the authority on what makes a proper RPG (Just to make my point clear, when I use the term 'RPG' I'm referring to computer/videogame RPGs...not the original influence for these which is the tabletop/PnP variety that started in the 70's. I'm ignoring tabletop/PnP RPGs simply because we are talking about computer/videogames and not D&D, GURPS etc.). Generally, to me and everyone I know in my life, when someone says 'RPG' they mean a computer/videogame that takes you through a long story where you take on the 'role' of a character, gain XP and level up therefore getting new abilities. So that can mean Fallout, it can also mean Deus Ex or Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest or even bloody Pokemon!

Also, if I choose to compare WRPGs and JRPGs don't tell me not to compare them. They might be diferent genres to you but to me and a lot of er...normal ...people like me (EG. people who just play games regardless of genre - don't take offence, i say 'normal' in a light hearted way) they're the same type of game interpreted differently.


I agree with you 100% Summer. That's exactly how I feel about Fallout 3.


Again, in 100% agreement with you there mate. I loved all the RPGs back in the 90's (Planescape was brilliant) and I think Fallout 1&2 are great, but I also think Fallout 3 is great too. My best mate thinks exactly the same so you're not alone!




I agree with Lcars that a behind the scenes system doesn't make Fallout what it is. This 'ruleset' seems to define what Fallout is all about for a lot of people because it's a computer rendition of a tabletop/PnP RPG system. The thing that doesn't sit with me is that this doesn't define a 'role playing game', stat/percentage-based gameplay defines a 'strategy' game. I'll back my way of thinking up with this:

There were two games from years ago that used an isometric viewpoint, had turned-based combat, had character stats, behind the scenes virtual dice rolling etc. - basically a near identical system to that of the original Fallout (minus any talking/dialogue choices) but the games weren't RPG's they were strategy/war games. They were Warhammer 40k Space Crusade and Warhammer 40k Chaos Gate. Neither could be described as RPGs.

What made Fallout Fallout to me was taking the Vault Dweller (and his descendant in FO2) through his story. The setting. The characters I'd meet. The dialogue. The choices I'd make. I could go on and on. The fact it was isometric/turn-based, stat-based combat didn't define those games as RPGs to me and many others like me. That's probably why I like Fallout 3 - sure the writing is pretty shocking (Bethesda really need to spend some money on a decent script writer) and it would've been better if the game world and the NPCs reacted better to say, a character with 1 intelligence (I always liked how Baldur's Gate treated a character who couldn't speak properly! ). But the fact it's in a FPP or the way the game determines how much damage my current weapon does to an enemy doesn't make it an RPG to me.




Obsidian basically are Bioware. The way their games turn out is practically identical. Bioware have gone down their own route with RPGs now if their last few games are anything to go by (KoToR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Sonic). They stopped being old Bioware after NWN (which in my eyes, isn't a bad thing). Obsidian basically copied Bioware with KoToR II and NWN2 as they had no choice to reinvent the sequels, and Alpha Protocol looks dire to be perfectly honest. The less said about inXile the better...The Bard's Tale in 2004 was a pathetic attempt at an action/adventure game, Line Rider on DS and Wii speaks for itself and the project they're apparently planning has only been revealed so far to be a 'next gen action adventure game'. Not to mention they're the dev on Codemasters new criminal/bank robbing game Hei$t (which is probably the 'next gen' game they're planning).

If Bioware had done Fallout 3 I don't think it would've turned out too differently to what Bethesda have already released. Only time will tell what Obsidian will do with Fallout NV, and I doubt it will be too different to Fallout 3 as Bethesda are obviously building this franchise for today's market, not 1997-98's market.

Agreed, it is possible to convince him not to fight at all.



The realtime combat isn't as bad as you make it out to be. True, it's no Gears of War or Halo (but they're not realistic in any way). But then it's no worse than any other type of similar game (Deus Ex's combat is very similar - an unskilled agent with pistols will fire very inaccurately, just like Fallout 3, just like real life in fact. Unless you're highly skilled/practiced with a weapon of any type you will be inaccurate. Fallout 3 replicates this), Fallout 3 is not a FPS!. VATS is the way it is because it was a gameplay decision, simple. Does that make it bad, not really - if you don't like it then download a mod that changes it, that's why Bethesda released an SDK for the game.

Fallout 3 does logically work within it's setting. Just because I don't see rodents/lizards everywhere I go doesn't mean an NPC doesn't know where to go to catch them. The slavers DO have a reason to exist, .

Fallout was designed as a PnP emullation, first and foremost. That is fact. There is nothing to dispute. From Chris Taylor, "We were trying to make a very paper-and-pencil type of RPG. [...] we spent a lot of time trying to get that tabletop RPG experience into a computer game". Fallout does not use GURPS. That was the original design, but that never happened. Instead SPECIAL was designed.


The retro-futuristic design is part of what made Fallout. I'm not disagreeing. But it's only part of what made it. Fallout 3 pretty much got that part right.


I don't know how you can continue to push that considering that it is untrue. The mechanics were a set design decision. They were a part of the game as much as anything else.


What makes one like a game is subjectivity. What makes a good game is a set of objective checks applied to everything that makes the game. You can quite clearly say that certain parts of any game are good or bad. You cannot however put all of these together and come up with a conclusion, because of bias. That is why most game reviews are a load of dross. They help to make up your mind, perhaps, but you need to read everything. Not all people notice all things. Different people set different weights to different things (for example, "the fact that the combat is functional outweighs the individual flaws of the RT combat and VATS"). That's my point. Good or bad is objective, but you cannot say whether something as a whole is good or bad. But we clearly are not in agreement, so I think we should drop this, especially since it is not relevant to this discussion (I am not getting into an argument on the objective quality of Fallout 3).


Opinion is all fine and dandy, but I have proven, based on the intentions of Fallout's developers, that Fallout 3 is not a Fallout game. There are some other points, such as it being weak from an RPG perspecive (all characters tend to end up pretty samey, and you can max all of your skills) that I do not want to discuss, at least at the moment.

And that's all for one post. Since I my original post had too many quotes (or something), I'm going to break the rules and double post. Not out of ignorance, mind you. Don't hate me for it.

And now for Sengoku (a name which I quite like, by the way).


RPG on its own doesn't mean a whole lot, I suppose. Perhaps we simply need to break it all up. WRPGs with subgenres of ARPG and CRPG, and JRPGs, which all seem to follow a similar formula (i.e., you have limited control over how your characters progress, and follow a linear story; or so it seems from the ones I've played/read about). That way we could avoid some confusion. In agreement? As for your examples, Fallout and Baldur's Gate are CRPGs, Deus Ex is an ARPG, and Final Fantasy and Pokemon are JRPGs. That seems about right. Is Dragon Age the new BioWare one? That's a CRPG if I recall correctly.


Apologies if I offended. I don't see JRPGs and WRPGs as the same genre, at least from the ones I've played. In the latter you tend to have more control over the development of your character, and the stories tend to be less linear (less so in ARPGs, more so in CRPGs, from my experiences). Beyond that, consider them as you will.


I mainly chose the former two companies based on their members (inXile has Jason Anderson and Brian Fargo; Obsidian has MCA), and BioWare because they did make Baldur's Gate way back when, and that was a good RPG (even though I could never stomach the combat). I'm not making any assumptions about Alpha Protocol (it has MCA working on it, so it can't be all bad). And as for inXile, again, Brian Fargo. Not so good a businessman, but he had ideas (he founded Interplay, and was behind Wasteland, the inspiration for Fallout).


I don't know much about BioWare these days, to be honest. And NV won't be too different from Fallout 3 because I think it's going to be using the same engine. The writing had better be better, and I certainly hope they fix SPECIAL. And yes, the target audience. Nothing much to say there, fact is fact.


I know Fallout 3 is not an FPS; I'm just saying that combat wasn't very good objectively. Whether it fits or not is not so easy to determine. I'm fine with the accuracy changing depending on your skill; I found that to be pretty decent. I'm not fine with your skill determining damage (a little bit is fine, signifying your increased ability to find weak points, but not to the point that Fallout 3 takes it to). As for VATS, I just said that it was unbalanced. Does it fit in fine? I don't like it, but that's all opinion.


You don't need to see people doing it, I'd have been fine with it being implied (which it isn't, with the exception of that old woman). There SHOULD be farms, even if no one tends them; hell even Morrowind did that (with the egg mines), and Oblivion had farms, tiny and disconnected as they were. But the concept is almost entirely ignored. Maybe you can accept that; I can't. As for the slaves, the Pitt is not part of the main game, and the slavers in Pittsburgh are not even mentioned. In Fallout 2 you had the Den with its slavers, and you had Vault City and the traders with slaves. It's clear that they are used.

Took it from an anime I used to like watching called Cyber City Oedo 808, NOT the abomination that it is Dragon Ball! The only time I've really used it online is in forums and when I used to mod Vampire The Masquerade: Redemption.


I know all about the people who're in inXile and Obsidian. Thing is that you basically said in not so many words that Bethesda have [censored]ed up Fallout 3 and that either Obsidian, BioWare or inXile could have done a better job. I'm not so sure about that mate.

Obsidian and inXile's track record aren't exactly glowing are they!? KoToR II was a broken mess for whatever the reason was, NWN2 was a bit, meh. Alpha Protocol looks like Obsidian's attempt at a Mass Effect style RPG (yet another influence of Bioware's on Obsidian - do they have any ideas of their own?). Bard's Tale was woefully bad, Line Rider speaks for iteself but Hei$t looks alright. Just because some of the personnel of those companies had a hand in the original Fallout's doesn't mean they could have done a better job than Bethesda did in today's market. If Fallout 3 had come out and been like the old games and not 'set the world on fire' ( ) then everyone would've said it should've been left alone. I'm just glad that one of my favourite game franchises ever is alive and kicking. The fact that I actually like Fallout 3 is a bonus. I can look past the inconsistencies and flaws and take it for what it is.



Sounds like you do need to see people hunting or tending farms (there is kind of a farm thing going on at Arefu btw) to be happy though mate. There are even Hunters here and there. I don't understand why that must be in the game for you to enjoy it. Is it because Fallout 3 is so radically different from the previous 2 (that you clearly think are the dogs danglies, just like me) that you'll pick on the little things to justify why you dislike it so much? No offence intended, just curious why so many people are adamant that Fallout 3 is rubbish and not Fallout because of design changes whereas I can just enjoy it for what it is and still think it's great and think it is Fallout, even though I love the first 2 as well.

Like it or not, The Pitt, Anchorage, Broken Steel and anything else that comes out are part of Fallout 3. Just like Knights of the Nine, Shivering Isles and the rest are part of Oblivion. I know that they're not in the Vanilla game but they're there. I had the same thoughts when I was playing Fallout 3 for the first time - "why are there slavers if no-one has slaves anywhere?", but The Pitt has now answered that question. The fact that Pittsburgh is never mentioned is irrelevant. I wouldn't want someone I've known for two minutes to know where I make my money either.

So what?

That doesn't mean Fallout is "first and foremost" any such thing as "a PnP emulation".


... so was the isometric view. Are we going to go back to pining for that, next?


First sentence is correct. Second sentence is absolutely and unequivocably wrong. "A good game" is "A game which one likes or enjoys". ERGO, what makes something "a good game" must perforce be subjective.


*SMIRK*

No, not based on the intentions of the developers. Based on your (biased) interpretations of the statements of one of the original developers. An interpretation I, for one, do not share. You say that Chris Taylor's statement indicates that, above and beyond all else, Fallout was meant to be "a PnP emulation".

I ask: why so hard, then, to add my own stuff to it? Why so hard to change, modify, or tweak the game? Because, to me, those things are inherent in "the PnP experience".

Then, there's the lack of multiplayer. I have yet to see a PnP that didn't require at least TWO people to play - and I've been playing PnP role-playing games for something over thirty years now, so I've seen a damned LOT of the games out there. Heck, sometimes I feel it's easier to list the games I haven't played, or even GMed, than the ones I have.

...

So, if - and it's a really big if - if Fallout 1 was meant to be "a PnP emulation", then I say it failed, and failed miserably. As such, losing the vestiges of that "failure" would be an improvement.

...

But, you know? I've seen systems just as light-and-fuzzy as the one in Fallout 3. I've played them. PnP systems, even.

For example, you should try taking a look at the link I posted, to the Minimus RPG.

Well, yes. It helps to have some perspective from some of the people that worked on the originals (MCA didn't work on Fallout, but he did work on Fallout 2).


To my knowledge KotOR 2 was unfinished because LucasArts wanted it out the door as fast as possible. The rest of the game was alright, for what it was. I can't say a lot about NWN2. Alpha Protocol... I liked Mass Effect. It had its fair share of flaws (although I'd say I'm one of the few people who actually liked the Mako), but I found it enjoyable enough. I don't have a problem with ARPGS. Everything has its place. As for the rest, I can't say anything.


It certainly wouldn't have sold as much. However, when making a profit is the most important thing in your game design, you cease being a game designer and become a businessman. Your game ceases being a game and becomes a product (like most of the stuff EA churns out). Making a profit is good and all, but it can't be more important than making a good game. But I digress. It probably would have been a better Fallout game. I can't say for sure, it could have been a mess.


I'm glad for you. I wish I could. The novelty wore off too soon for me.


You don't see people actually doing anything in Fallout, but they are there. You can see the cornfield in Shady Sands. You see the person standing there. You can even talk about crop rotations and all that. The Hub is clearly the center of commerce. It has water wagons, there are caravans that leave every so often (which you can join), etc.. In Fallout 3 there are a handful of Brahmin outside Arefu, and no crops. No crops anywhere. There are a few vegetables in Rivet City. And what about the Canterbury Commons? It's supposed to be some sort of caravan hub, but it has all of five people living there, and nothing else.


I've already explained why it isn't a good Fallout game.


They aren't a part of my game. They are NOT a part of the game that I purchased. If you have to rely on addons to explain why your world doesn't make any damn sense then you fail at game design.

Damned limits and their limiting limitness.

But you're missing what people are having issues with. Gameplay wise, they took all the good parts out of SPECIAL, and left a system that a) devalues your characters stats, B) leads to many characters being very very similar, and c) is not balanced at all. For me, I found that it's feasible to play with an extremely gimped character. One for every stat. Sure, you'll be increasing those since the only perk you can choose is intense training, at least at first, but it IS doable. I was half way through OA when I lost interest for a while, then installed some mods which..well...made a mess of my save games lol. The gun waver wasn't that big of an issue. What does that mean?

That my FPS skills are more useful then my characters combat skills. I would have preferred fewer enemies, and more focus on your characters ability to shoot. Yes, you'd probably be missing a lot unless you got really close, but that's ok as long as the encounters are correctly balanced. We'd then actually have a reason to go over 100% skill, so that we can compensate for various factors that decrease our chance to hit.

But instead, they opted for a system where the player is able to do most of the compensation for the character, and has the skills affect damage. I hate that. Lower the health and keep the damage largely static.



It's a matter that it breaks from the consistency that was seen in previous games. One of the best things about Fallout 2 was the fact that all the communities were linked in someway, through trade. You don't have that in Fallout 3. The three biggest communities (well, two, I wouldn't call CC 'big') are all seperated by excessively violent areas. It's a wonder anyone is able to move around at all. Both routes to Rivet City, for example, are plagued by Super Mutants. If there was any real economic setup in DC, where are the patrols to keep the paths clear and as safe as possible? Megaton and Rivet City have both been around for half a century, there's no real excuse, especially since we have the code breaking Brotherhood hanging out, supposedly trying to keep things safe, for the last, what, 20 years?

And the lack of farms makes you wonder, how are they surviving? It breaks you out of the moment if you have to stop and wonder where they get their food from. It's not even implied in the game at all. All that comes together to conspire against Fallout 3's setting, making it less plausible.

Oddly enough, the layout of Vault 101 is an example of HOW to do it. There are several doors that are barred, so it is entirely possible to think "yeah there's a 1000 people in here", when there is clearly not that many in the game. There are areas that we can't get to that are implied to exist, but yet don't in game. That makes the relative small size of 101 acceptable. It's believable. It's a shame the rest of the game didn't follow that logic in design.



When I found out that the Pitt "answered" the reason why there was no slaves in DC, it felt like a "oh damn, they totally called us on that one....um....THEY'RE AT THE PITT YEAH!" The biggest problem is that the NPCs don't seem to understand that they are living in a dog eat dog environment. They're not taking advantage of each other. Of all the places in the game, we have one decided bad community (the slavers), and all the rest are neutralish/good. It's difficult for one to really see many in Megaton or Rivet City having slaves, because they're so damn....HAPPY. The game is in dire need of gangs that prey on people. The raiders don't count because they're all just bat s**t insane.



I disagree. For myself anyways, I can't really see a Fallout game without SPECIAL, without perks and traits. That was half the fun I had with the classics, including Tactics. The rule system was so well built. Bethesda's version comes across as very amaturish. I still can't comprehend why they would waste time and effort in redesigning something that they already had ready.

Then I suggest you read the quote again.


That was part of the mechanics. Fallout was designed with an isometric viewpoint in mind. There's nothing else to say.


This is getting nowhere so drop it.


Chris Taylor was the lead designer of the game. That quote proves what Fallout was trying to do, and indeed succeeded at. I don't see what else there is to discuss.


It's an emulation. You're not playing an actual PnP game. You know, the entire choices and consequences thing, building your character how you want. And good for you.


There's only so much a game can do, and I think it rather succeeded. It wasn't perfect. I'm not claiming it is.

Now, I could go on about how Fallout 3 is a poor sequel, ignoring things like mechanics if you want, since this conversation is not getting anywhere.

Looking at the last few pages, it seems obvious to me that this is an issue about whether or not one should stick to the formulae of a game when making a sequel.

Personally, I think it's simply silly to debate whether or not a game is a "proper" sequel or not. I think people need to face the facts that it is up to the companies, not the fans. If you are a dedicated fan of the first two games but not the third, you can always argue that you don't like the changes that they made.

However, it isn't at all reasonable for you to argue that it is an objective truth that a game is not a "proper" sequel just because it differed too much from your personal image of what it should have been like.

I could just as well argue that Fallout 2 is not a "proper" sequel to Fallout, because it took virtually no steps forward at all. I'd rather look at it as another example of how Black Isle/Obsidian don't have the coj?nes to take any risks at all so they just tread old ground and capitalize on the hard work of other developers. Fallout 2 was in my mind just a standalone expansion. It made a carbon-copy of the first game and made up a new story to play through.

Bethesda at least have what it takes to experiment with what can be done with RPGs, rather than just churn out rudimentary graphical interfaces for PnP-gaming.

When they got their hands on the rights to make Fallout 3, Bethesda clearly saw many things in the first two games that could potentially be quite detrimental to the enjoyment of the game for alot of people, and they decided to change it and morph it into something of their own.

In the end, what matters to me is that they did that, regardless of the opinions of the hardcoe fans who will never be happy about any concessions you make, and made a much more enjoyable game that still felt like Fallout, without having to wait for the HP counter to count down to -100 and a screen telling you how much you svck before you're allowed to reload a save after being killed.

If they had made another PnP graphical interface instead, I probably wouldn't have bought it unless I could have picked it up from a bargain-bin for next to nothing, there are already two identical games in the series, do we really need a third?

Are you saying that quality is entirely objective and not dependant on personal opinion?

I have. Several times. And I don't get the same meaning out of it. Language is funny that way, after all.


... and what I get out of THIS is: "Why yes, yes it should have been an isometric-view game again. Anything else simply isn't fallout, because it deviates from the Sacred View of those who gave us the Holy Originals." :shakehead:



I do not beleive your interpretation of the quote in question is accurate. For one thing, the quote does not assign any especial level of importance to that PnP experience - especially not in any sort of relational hierarchy as regards the other elements of the game. For sure, that PnP experience was important to the original developers. I won't argue that - it's patently clear from the quote, prima faciae. However, for it to be "first and foremost" would mean that the PnP experience had to be more improtant than anything else in teh game ... including the setting.

And that is where your interpretation and mine part ways. YOU see the quote as assigning that "more than anythign else" level of importance to "PnP experience" ... and I do not, because there is no such claim, clause, or other indication anywhere in the quoted text.


Choices and consequences? Building your character how you want? Well ... that's all in Fallout 3, anyway.

On top of which, that's role-playing game stuff, not PnP stuff, anyway!


It certainly succeeded as a great game. But, my statement was that if it was supposed to be "first and foremost" an emulation of PnP gaming, then at that specific thing, it failed miserably.

It might be silly to debate, but I really have nothing better to do. Study for my maths test on Monday? Bah.


I do NOT want to get into this argument again.


Fallout 2 was released a year after the first. It provided some interface improvements (namely mouse wheel), and increased control over NPCs. More weapons, a use for Charisma, far more use for Doctor, kept Small Guns good to the endgame, made Big Guns worth using, and made unarmed more fun to play. It made a lot of mistakes, with some locations not fitting in the Fallout world (New Reno, which while damn brilliant in a vacuum, had no real reason to exist), and some other silly ideas (dream sequences, talking Deathclaws, a talking Spore Plant). And all of those pop culture references. It was also very buggy. Yeah, it wasn't perfect, but it was a very good game, if a little at odds with some parts of Fallout's setting.


I disagree about Bethesda having anything to do with innovation, but even if they do "experiment" as you so say, it shouldn't be with something that is so clearly defined. Make a new IP.


Read: they wanted to sell as many copies as possible. I can't hate them from a business perspective, as that is fairly logical, but I can hate them as game designers.


I'd have been happy with Van Buren, and that made a fair many changes, especially in the way of perks. As for the HP counter thing, I agree. As I said: not perfect. Always room for improvement.


Van Buren seemed like it would add a fair set of new things to the game while still keeping that Fallout feel. Can't say for sure, just from what I've read on the wiki.


Just read my previous posts. In summary, yes. I'm saying that quality is objective. Whether something is good or bad. I'm also saying that there is no possible way for anyone to be able to claim whether something is overall good or bad. So in the end it all comes down to opinion.


Fine, I take back the "first and foremost" part. It was still important. Setting was important. Mechanics was also important. One or the other isn't good enough. Happy?


You can max all of your stats in Fallout 3! SPECIAL is irrelevant! There are NO consequences when it comes to making your character, since you can get away with everything.

Um.

We are?



Well yeah. They dumbed it down so it's more accessible. That is debatable that it was a good idea. I for one think it was a horrible idea, as the game is horribly unbalanced now. For example, an RPG, which is suppose to be designed to created varied characters, fails if a character can top off all their skills, especially if they haven't hit the level cap yet. Now a game like Mass Effect, it can be excused to an extent, as there are different classes, that makes inidividual characters different. It also has a strict level design which ensures that players can't cap their abilities before hitting the level cap.

So basically, Bethesda sold out on most of the fans of the originals to appeal to a new audience. Which is rather insulting.



I miss the "You are DEAD" endings. Watching your corpse flop around for a few seconds before reloadings just isn't the same. But in any case, why ditch the older fans completely and seek out a new audience? Why not aim to keep as much as the old fans as possible? Most 'hardcoe' fans I've seen would PREFER the original viewpoint and turn base, but that's not the crux of their issues. It has to do with the setting, story, and the rules that govern the gameplay. (all three of which are entirely independant of the viewpoint used in the game, and whether or not it's real time or turn based)



Don't worry, there'll be 'hardcoe's around to pick up the lack you make by not buying it

We've already had a break from the rule set prior to this, and it was a horrible, HORRIBLE mess. It's kinda like how developers keep making 'spiritual successors' to XCom, but fail, everytime, to capture what made it good.

I, for one, am hoping the New Vegas a) creates a more compelling and intelligent storyline, B) rebalances SPECIAL to be more like the originals, and c) outsell Fallout 3. Then maybe Bethesda would wake up and see how to do it right.

(Continued due to limit on quotes-per-post)


So, what ... because you're not "winning", the conversation is "going nowhere" ...?? :facepalm:

Not really. Just because it seems fairly clear that neither of us will give way. As I said, once we start reiterating the same thing three times, the conversation is dead. I think we're getting dangerously close. Besides, there is no "winning". This is a nice civil conversation between two people of differing opinions. A nice civil conversation that is almost going in a circle. I don't want this thread to end up closed, not until it lives to its natural end.

So I guess I'll jsut cut through all of this and make this point:

Like it or not, FO3 is what it is. It's not FO1, and FO4 won't be FO1, and F:NV won't be FO1 either, and no matter how much I enjoyed FO1, I enjoy FO3 as well. and I''m looking forward to FO4 and F:NV to being more like FO3 than FO1.

Do we really ahve to go through tis argument every time a new game or DLC is announced?

@ Fred Jimberson:
Good posts :trophy: :tops:


Yes it is... In this you are incorrect. Tim Cain painstakingly designed an intricate G.U.R.P.S. combat engine for the computer. The idea was to make it as close to G.U.R.P.S. as possible. The game's other aspects were secondary (and indeed were changed around a bit during development ~ A prototype of Fallout shipped on the game CD that shows it appearing as a fantasy setting with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfOVLdmEHkg and shield).

[edit: to be fair, someone did put a note on the final docs that said ~loosely, "just enough GURPS to make the GURPsers happy", but I'd bet that came much later.]




... But that is the way of http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=35764, and the reason Fallout 3 fails miserably as a sequel, despite success as a game.

FO:Tactics isn't an RPG either, and its closest of all, and it even meets a few criteria.

No, you're right, it didn't... but IMO it defined part of the series as a whole.

I think we're all aware of that. I don't think anyone wants Fallout 1 again. I want Van Buren. It won't happen. Bad luck for me (and those who share my views). Thing is, I find this--talking about Fallout 3--rather enjoyable.


Why not? Provided we're not hijacking a completely unrelated thread (and remain civil), I don't see the harm.


You know, it never occurred to me to link to that. 20/20 hindsight and all that.

No harm, but not that useful, considering that all of this boils down to personal preference. It's akin to arguing aboth which color is best, or what movie is the best movie ever.

I thought I'd quote pretty much the only note-worthy content that came from those quote vomits I chose to dizzingly sift through. I would have quoted more, but some of it was too personaly driven to be noted, regardless of its validity.


[quote name='_Pax_' post='14205428' date='Apr 25 2009, 01:50 PM']So, what ... because you're not "winning", the conversation is "going nowhere" ...?? :facepalm:[/quote]
[quote name='Gizmo' post='14205617' date='Apr 25 2009, 03:01 PM']Better yet... think of RPG's as being similar to that Claw game you find in shopping malls, where you pay your money and have use of the Claw (to grab a toy from the bin). While it would be easy to just do it yourself, the object is to do it with the claw (and operate under the limitations of it).[/quote]
Except that those things, like any arcade machine, are designed to take your money and laugh. I have a seasonal job in an arcade, and whilst we're all aware that 'machines are cons' seeing it first hand you'll realise the extent House always wins.

I'll also include [src="http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=35764"]this link[/url] posted by the one and only Gizmo, as I believe its an important history. And anyone with any respect for the series as a whole would take the time to read it.

I see RPGs as waking up tomorrow in a different world and having to make my way in that world. I must operate within the boundaries of that world, and as best I can, not bring knowledge into that world from this one. That is, I AM the mage, or the thief, or the Vault Dweller. I try to keep that illusion as long as possible, and again, i try to only know what I would know if I really were that character.

In that context, a lot of what other folks want in games tend to make maintaining that illusion more difficult. Manipulating stats, trying to play from guidebooks, trying to min/max is all counter to my RP philosophy.

I find your claw anology interesting, because the claw can't do anything by itself. it's a tool to play a game. The game is to use the tool in the best way possible. It's a chess piece, a cardboard counter in an Avalon Hill game. it means nothing except a marker...a focus.

For me, playing an RPG like that seems shallow emotionally, but if folks like to play that way, it's fine with me.

Nice I was misquoted! I feel special now! Anyway, yeah, SPECIAL was developed first and the rest of the details was build up around it. All of gamesas current "innovation is to see how good they can shoehorn other series into there Oblivion mold...FO3 skill system is a perfect example of this. skill improvments on the 25 points base improvment scale. topping off at 100. Even at 15 skill if you shoot manually you beat out what VATS says your supoosed to be shooting at. Easily obtained "superman of all skills" and little to no C&C. what C&C there is is basicly down to "I have a house here and not here".

Salut :meh:
Ahhh... the "V" word, as sick as I feel today, just the mention of it might causes an uneasy stir in me guts. :yuck:

:lmao:

*But hey... I can see it as deserved. : :

Indeed they are. (I never play them myself, but the point was to illustrate the loose parallel that the players of each are outside of the box, and the PC is inside, and its what you have available to use.)

*[in this case.. PC= Player Character / Pitiful Claw ]