By gameplay style are we on the whole FPS vs isometric argument again? Since you specify Bethesda's traditional gameplay style I assume this is what you are referring to.

Given your opinion on Fallout 3 would you maintain the above quoted statement were it Interplay who created Fallout 3 as an action FP RPG? Let me explain.

You advocate that it would be good for Bethesda to break from the norm of the gameplay style they have used time and again, open world real time first person RPG. Obviosuly what I interpret from my knowledge of your many previous posts is that by this sentiment you indirectly suggest it would have been better if Bethesda had branched out and made Fallout 3 isometric and turn based RPG with a dominant focus on character skill without any focus on player skill. Thereby satisfying what you would have wanted Fallout 3 to be.

But then you have also advocated about how Fallout can only be Fallout if it uses the exact same gameplay style and anything outside of the traditional gameplay established by Fallout and Fallout 2 isn't in keeping with the fundamental essence of what the original games were.

So my question is this: Does your sentiment of Bethesda changing their gameplay style being a good thing remain if you apply it on the flip side of the coin? What I mean is had Interplay been the ones who made Fallout 3 as an open world first person real time RPG, would it also then be a good thing since they also broke from their traditional gameplay and they could also benefit from the change you motion to Bethesda?

If the answer is no, then why would Bethesda benefit from changing their gameplay when other RPG developes aren't held to the same scrutiny?

Outside of the argument that Beth's Fallout 3 needed to have a established system of choices and consequences as well as a deeper storyline and deeper characters (Mind you the vast majority of characters in Fallout 1-2 were just as 1 dimensional and shallow who were more often than not simply questgivers with 1-2 lines of bonus info so this argument is relative). I see absolutely no logical reason why Fallout 3 needed to have the exact same gameplay style as the previous 2 games, in fact I would argue that this simply comes down to each players' personal preference of gameplay styles. The existence of Fallout 3 neither invalidates the other games' merits nor does it prevent you from enjoying them as much as you had before.

I would advocate that... My answer to the first is of course, "yes" and Interplay would have been wrong to alter it.
As for the latter, "no"; and the reason is simple. Bethesda is not making a spin-off (in their opinion). A spin-off would have been welcome if they did not want to make a sequel.

The traditional gameplay is not graphically dependent on 2D, but is deeply linked to the SPECIAL system (which in turn is deeply linked to the TB combat), and is not suitable for FPS play (It becomes different gameplay and a different game focus). Bluntly: FPS is fine & fun ~but not in Fallout (a spin off sure... but then a change in format and play would be natural and expected from a spin-off).

Consider another IP... Players of Dawn of War, like Warhammer, and like the setting, but they play Dawn of war for the series gameplay, not the setting ~Change the gameplay (as opposed to improving it), and you ruin the game's appeal. [even though new fans might like it :shrug:]

Fallout is a patriarch of the genre just like Planescape Torment. Its the ruler by which many of the rest are judged.

~:hehe: That term is a bit too biblical for this context, for my confort... But Granddaddy didn't have the effect I was looking for.

Fallout was as it is, by choice and design. I've read posts that claim technical lacking of the hardware as an "excuse" for using 2D Iso, but Interplay's Stonekeep shipped years before Fallout and Tim Cain worked on that one too (not as lead), and it was a First Person dungeon crawl... That's just not what Fallout was attempting. (but is a good chunk of what FO3 is attempting.)

Fallout was a less resource demanding game than FO3 (it was designed for machines with 16 megabytes of RAM and 90MHz CPU's) (and filled the CD).

Why else return for more? Its #3 in a set, The series should build on the previous game, not plagiarize it. Look at Diablo, look at Diablo 2, Look at Diablo 3... What's the common thread? Each one builds on the established gameplay and adds a new twist and incorporates new hardware features to expand on the established game.

It prevents another Fallout 3; and redefines Fallout to all newcomers. Already you can't talk Fallout series anymore without qualifying with a 1 or a 3

Yet Resident Evil changed the gameplay format drastically from Resident Evil 3 to Resident Evil 4 and yet it was just as worthy if not a superior sequel. Baldur's Gate takes place in the Forgotten Realms as does Neverwinter Nights; while they are independent of each other in terms of storyline and characters, they have the same setting. Yet Baldur's Gate uses the old isometric turn based system while Neverwinter uses third person real time and yet both can use the d20 ruleset gameplay mechanic as well as be considered just as good parts of the Forgotten Realms Chronicles (Games based on Dungeons & Dragons) in spite their opposing gameplay styles.

Actually you are contradicting yourself answering my questions. You said yes it would be good for Ausir's statement to be applied on the flip side (Meaning it would be good if Interplay had made F3 an open world real time first person RPG) and then you say they would be wrong to have done that. Your answer is then no, it would not be good in your opinion for what Ausir claims of Bathesda to be applied to someone else like Interplay. Why?

If your argument is that Bethesda can benefit from changing their traditional style then why does Interplay not? I repeat:

Outside of the argument that Beth's Fallout 3 needed to have a established system of choices and consequences as well as a deeper storyline and deeper characters (Mind you the vast majority of characters in Fallout 1-2 were just as 1 dimensional and shallow who were more often than not simply questgivers with 1-2 lines of bonus info so this argument is relative). I see absolutely no logical reason why Fallout 3 needed to have the exact same gameplay style as the previous 2 games, in fact I would argue that this simply comes down to each players' personal preference of gameplay styles. The existence of Fallout 3 neither invalidates the other games' merits nor does it prevent you from enjoying them as much as you had before.



True but Phantasy Star 3: Generations of Doom was developed in 1990 for the Sega Genesis and had much deeper characters than any of the 3 Fallout games. Fallout's npcs, much like the majority of the overhyped deeper npcs of Morrowind, were nothing more than quest givers with no growth as characters neither in a society based level nor independent level as a consequence of the actions of the player, nor the world around them. I don't think this had anything to do with techical limitations as opposed to the intent of the developers to focus on other aspects of the game.

Just because the SPECIAL system doesn't work as before doesn't mean it doesn't work, it just works differently. Yes I get that you want a character driven game and not a player/character hybrid. But just because the gameplay changed, it by no way means that it is any lesser or better than what had been established before, it's just something new.

Many games these days combine elements from other genres, action games and strategy games include RPG-like skill trees, tactical games include hybrid combat systems, rpgs have modified combat systems reminiscent of action games, etc. Remember how old school shooters like Wolfenstein and Doom were simply dungeon crawlers with run and shoot everything mentalities? Some modern day shooters have changed to include things like crafting, multiple dialogue trees that alter events, etc. RPGs have also changed to include attributes from other genres.



I don't think it plagiarizes it more like redefines it as a different interpretation of the same source material. Kind of like the way that two people never give exactly the same story when describing one event. Redifining something I don't think is a bad thing.

Fallout 3 is a sequel because the franchise was for all purposes dead since its developer was dead and the developer which acquired its license decided to reinvent the world in a way it had not been done before and using the strengths that the company had developed with their previous titles. Sure they could have named the game Fallout: Washington and then keep making spin offs in that manner and there would never be a proper sequel. And what would that have accomplished outside of not annoying the previous games' fans over gameplay debates?

Basically how I interpret Fallout 3 is like the Incredible Hulk movie: It was a sort of sequel to Ang Lee's film which sort of alludes to what happened before yet at the same time a brand new movie all on its own making its own world and franchise. Beth's Fallout 3 is a reintroduction of Fallout to the world and that's why its a sequel instead of a spinoff. That's what I think anyway :shrug:

Hey I like the original games a lot and I agree that some of its unique attributes were sort of lost in translation with the new format. But all in all I think Fallout 3 compliments Fallout 1 and 2 rather well, it just does so in a different manner. As far as the gameplay goes, I have loads of fun with Fallout 3 the same as I did with 1 and 2; yup it plays different but honestly I find that a good thing as it offers variety within the same universe. :hehe:

PS. Still hoping to see more of that awesome armor of yours Gizmo! I plan on running away from it many a time when I encounter those a-holes across the wastelands! :ahhh: :hubbahubba:

I can't really comment having not played any of them... but am I right that the premise is simply swarm, and you play a survivalist that shoots zombies? (how would the the switch not benefit that kind of a game?) ~Now... what if Resident Evil 6 (is there one?) were to convert to the style seen on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNfQ_B6_xy8&NR=1... would such a change be a benefit or a detriment? (and to whom?) Baldur's Gate is not turnbased, though it does use a modified D&D system under the hood. ~Actually http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/neverwinter-nights_ IS turn Based , though Bioware's Remake/reboot (the one you mean) was not. The setting is the same (just like all warhammer 40k games), but the gameplay is different and made for different players seeking a different experience. ~New [IE. radically different] gameplay is enough... Its simply not what was sought. Have you ever ordered food, and been offered a substitute dish... Good, but not what you wanted ~well... It was not what you wanted (regardless of its taste). Imagine the chef's new and improved baked Alaska now uses Jello instead of Ice-cream ~Tastes great... So what... You harped to your friends about this great dish only served "right" in this one restaurant... and the new owner has changed the recipe on you. Its a SPECIAL game, and as you [unintentionally] say... Its not [technically] as SPECIAL as it was before. Ahhh... Here we go... You are absolutely right, except, that were Doom 3 to have tried being as deep as Halflife 2 (or Far cry 2?) ~it wouldn't really be offering up the DOOM experience IMO. (Same for Serious SAM). DOOM IS the definitive "shoot everything mentality" game. Changing that would be bad. Though unpopular answer... I'd have sooner seen it stay dead, than return like an old friend that wasn't (as seen in Pet Cemetery). To me... Ang Lee's Film was the FO3 I mentioned Warhammer before.. and Like Forgotten Realms, all games based on them share the setting, but they are not all [respectively] sequels of each other for it. So If Baldur's Gate 3 was a NWN2 clone, it would not be a proper sequel to the Baldur's Gate series even were it set in Candle Keep. I'm working on it and I'll post updates as I have them :thumbsup:

Alot of the problems that fans of the original series have the game is that it is too different from the originals.

Thing is, If I was developer and I'd just bought a well known IP(regardless of being fallout or whatever), I'd want to put my own stamp on it so to differentiate myself from the previous games.

There is a balancing act they had to try and address of, while keeping some of the things that made the original fallout(to try and make the original fans happy), they had to put their own stamp on it enough that their core userbase they have built up over the last decade or so happy as well(and also playing to bethesda's own strengths, world building for example, I don't think anyone denies Bethesda probably makes the best living, breathing worlds right now In mainstream videogames).

I believe upon reflection they would probably admit they never did enough things right to please the original fans, and perhaps stuck to the old formula of just focusing on the world,exploration and so on. It seems that alot of the things they probably set out to do to please the original fans got left by the wayside, once they got stuck into their routine of following to the letter what they are well known for and indeed good at, not really taking that many risks(aside from ofcourse introducing this IP to alot of people who have never heard of fallout).

It's a very difficult position Bethesda is in, to be honest. Ofcourse they want everyone to love their games, but do they want to stray too much from what made them one of the biggest RPG names in the business? Especially since when it comes to RPG's and the mainstream audience, you make one mistake and they'll forget about you and go and play the most recent FPS or whatever.

Not this again. That Fatman fits WELL in a military environment which features power armor. One would expect that after over 100 years a Davy Crockett like system would be sufficiently miniaturized dimentionally and in terms of yield type and magnatude that it would be portable and useful. A Fatman type weapon is supported by the GAME technology.

Not this thread again.

Most people DON'T CARE about continuation of canon minutiae from previous games.

I have no problem with one part of a vast country being way ahead of another part of the country ... if it actually is.

As I said, there is a kind of burnt looking scrub (plant life) in Fallout 3 which can be turned on in options.

Is Fallout 3 supposed to be a direct sequel of Fallout 2 anyway, with all the play and quirks of 2 ... or a Fallout (3) game in it's own right, but in the style of Fallouts 1 and 2 (which it unmistakeably is), as was Fallout 2 compared to Fallout 1.

Each Fallout having bit of a new slant of the scenario but keeping within the same Fallout game-style. Fallout 3 shouldn't be just a direct follow-on, making it in effect just a Fallout 2 with mods ... even though it would make it oh so canon.

Fallout 3 can be played with thought or just not caring what the outcome is. With a bit of thought you can play it as easy or as hard as you like, much as you could in Fallout 2, which was not that difficult. The fact that there is a marker in this game, there is nothing wrong that, there is the option to not use it.

Fallout 3 is not Oblivion with guns, those who say it is are mistakenly comparing the general similar structures of what any or most role-play games are, and not comparing the completely different contents and play of two games such as Oblivion and Fallout 3. It's what makes all the difference when comparing two games, but it seems not everybody can see that.



'fraid so, I've been here before as well.

I also say Fallout 3 is Oblivion with guns... unfortunately...

I really wish it was Morrowind with guns instead







(Now just wait until TES5 is out - all the new fans will be coming in claiming that it's FO3 with swords... it will be fun fun fun!)

Well, Fallout 3 as it is now is more close to Oblivion with mods than Fallout 2 with mods, which in my opinion shouldn't be the case. The middle ground between what Bethesda does/has done for years now and what Fallout 1 and 2 were should at least be more obvious (and preferably leaning towards Fallouts a bit more).

Van Buren was hardly Fallout 2 with mods. It was the logical evolution of the series.

Go figure, a right winger.. always willing to get in your face and intimidate you by spewing a bunch of [censored].

You really haven't paid much attention to the RPG community outside of Bethesda have you? A good portion of them have played Daggerfall and Morrowind; just because Bethesda isn't particularly popular outside of the Bethesda community doesn't mean that everyone else is ignorant. Either way it doesn't matter, what matters is Bethesda now, not the Bethesda ten years ago.

Especially Daggerfall is very well respected even in the most hardcoe cRPG communities.

Indeed, but there's a huge split for Morrowind (leaning towards it being unplayable without mods) and very few consider Oblivion or Fallout 3 any good.

So totally avoid my question.



How is it tribals on the West Coast are able to sustain plant life, yet no one on the East Coast can sustain any sort of plant life (Outside of Harold, but I don't count that since that was a total chainsaw to the original lore)? Makes no sense at all.



And yes, the West Coast is far ahead of the East Coast. Have you actually played Fallout 1 or 2? They are so ahead of the East Coast it's like they live in completely different universes.

Most of the other RPG communities who's opinions have weight actually have played Morrowind and Daggerfall. However, Bethesda is no longer the same company as it once was. You will never see a game like Morrowind or Daggerfall produced by them ever again. Their two more recent games (Oblivion and Fallout 3) cater to the mind of a 13 year old kid who just wants to blow up stuff or hack and slash.

I can agree with this... But the game is stupid with it... A scavenger would just as soon shoot you with it from across the street as use a BB gun or 10mm. The only way a Fatman would fit in Fallout ~at all, would have been had they designed their overhead map exactly as was done in FO2, but (as with owning the car), added a twist if you owned a working Fatman...Allowing you to remove locations from the overhead map outright (losing all benefits from the place, but ending all threats.)

So it really is just "pew! pew!" :ahhh: for most people then?

You just figured this out now? Why do you think our hobby's gone to pot, hah.

fdb

It wasn't that it was bad or anything. Just that once you do everything in it, you kinda wish you had those dlcs. Cause I loved the game so much, I didn't want the story to end.

Well then I have no idea why they believe that. Really since Fallout 1/2 I haven't played an RPG with any real depth besides Morrowind. And two games that aren't very RPGy equals Bethesda being horrible? You implied that most communities say that Bethesda makes bad games. That's why I said they must be ignorant. Maybe you could name the communities for me next time so I can specify which communities seem ignorant too me? Just because I find most RPG's fall into the same general plot/character's doesn't mean they're ALL the same. And I get the feeling the "communities" you mention are really just some of the people on DAC and NMA, and possibly even some of the people on this forum that were absolutely disgusted by Oblivion.

So what other RPGs have you played since Fallout 1/2 then?

You see, therein is where the problem lies. You can't assume, after two games, that's how they're going to make their games? I've played Oblivion, Fallout 3, Morrowind, and Daggerfall. Oblivion & Fallout 3, while they do it less, have some truly great quests & characters. You can't blame a small set of fans that are like that as the whole of everyone who plays it, or even who the game is catered too. There's certainly large sects of people that powergamed through classics like the Fallout series, or some of the original Final Fantasy. I've been playing RPGs since I was eight, and my brother the same. My brother simply powergames through every RPG, while I take time too learn more about backstory, the characters, and how it works. The truth is, RPGs, just like every genre of game, has a majority of people who play a game just to play it. Just too get everything in the game, then put it down and say "There I'm done". That is, unfortunately, how video games are now, and always have been. Now I agree that with Oblivion & Fallout 3 they attracted more FPS fans. However, anyone who bought the game just because it's First-Person did not try and uncover the depth and lore in those games, and likely didn't even play it too completion.



Let's see...Final Fantasy 10, and 12, Final Fantasy 5, Persona 3, Bioshock had RPGish elements, Mass Effect, A couple of the Fire Emblem Games, a number of those rereleases of the Final Fantasy games on handhelds, the first Phantasy Star game released on PS2, a .hack game, a Pokemon game, all the Kingdom Hearts games, Two Worlds, a LOTR game on PS2 I can't remember the name of, the Dragon Quest game released on PS2, a remake of the first Dragonquest on handheld, a Gauntlet game on PS2, both Dark Cloud games, both Fables, Two Worlds, both Champions Of Norrath games on PS2, and that's about it. Yes I release that's not the majority of RPG's released, but it still represents a rather large percentage of how must RPG's these days are. If we include MMORPG's I've also played Guild Wars for quite a chunk of time, and a little bit of WoW.

I suppose I do need to play the KOTOR and Baldur's Gates games though. Those are next on my list of games too get then.

You should. None of the other games you mentioned qualify as 'pure (western ) RPGs' which explains your 'distorted' view of the genre.
Most heated arguments on these forums seem to result by the fact that people who where introduced to the genre through Bethesda's more recent games have a very different understanding of the genre than people who are used to playing the more 'focused' '90s (and even '80s) RPGs as well as their most recent equivalents.
The result is that you can't really have a picture of what we're talking about - thus finding yourself having to resort to inaccuracies or even such 'persuasive' arguments as "shove it up your a.."

Do play Baldur's Gate - (without a walkthrough btw) - and give it time - it may take weeks to finish, and you'll get a clearer idea of what the 'old veterans' are talking about.

I don't think we're allowed to discuss other forums here in detail, so I'm not sure I can tell you which ones I'm talking about. Needless to say I don't think most of them are arguing that Bethesda fans are wrong in their viewpoints; Bethesda's style of games just aren't very popular outside of its own fan base which is in fact a minority.