I can assume that's how they will make them because those two games sold far better than the the first two. Companies make games to make a profit. Quality games is one way of doing it. Making games that cater to the masses is another (such as 50 Cent's Video Game). The easier route of course, is making games that cater to the masses. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. It's much easier to sell a game when your game targets an audience that is less critical and doesn't demand high quality products.


Oh, and reading from your list of "RPGs" it's very easy to tell you have no idea what we are talking about. Good day to you.

For one, Baldur's Gate fans simply do not like Bethesda's style of games at all (the recent ones anyways).

It's really one person in particular in this thread who set me off, mostly because he started right off the bat with just full on insulting Bethesda and their games. Also I do understand RPG's did use too be a lot better, but JRPG's flood the market nowadays, but sometimes gems can come out. (Persona 3, in my opinion, was quite brilliant.) So, I apologize for insulting or offending someone, which I'm sure I did. And as far as two games being representative of everything a developer will make in the future IS rather arrogant, and hating/disliking them for it is ignorant too me. If Bethesda does continue down the same path as they have however, I will concede my point, and continue playing the games and finding the little parts in them that makes them unique to me.

The premise is swarm to a point in both formats. The orginal games had a fixed overview camera which only changed when the character moved from one screen to another (multiple screens could be within the same room); think of it this way: one corner of the room would be displayed within a fixed camera angle while another corner would appear from a different position/camera angle. The games also used auto aim features since you couldn't move the camera, it was necessary to be able to aim at enemies or even find hidden ones.

After Resident Evil 4 the gameplay was altered to a third person perspective with the player controlling the aiming manually, via laser sights on the weapons that show where the shots go.

While enemies still "swarm" the player, gameplay is radically different in the way you control your character and how combat works. While you may find some that disagree, it has been a general consensus that changing the gameplay style of the games breathed new air into the stale series. While I don't think Fallout was stale before Fallout 3, I do believe that the effect was a generally positive one with the changes to the gameplay; not because it didn't evolve from the orginal system but instead brought a new alternative for players to experience the wonderful world that Interplay originally developed.



I played BG2 and I thought that was turn based? It's been a while so I could be wrong.

Well then NWN is the perfect example to compare with what happened in Fallout. I would argue that Bioware's relaunch of the series which altered gameplay was indeed a very good thing, even though it wasn't an extension of the original. Just because Bioware's NWN changed the gameplay then by your definition it would be a poor RPG and a poor sequel. I would argue against that being that Bio's NWN is generally considered one of the better RPGs.

The very opposite can be said using your same food anology; you were expecting this food to be prepared this way and when you get there the plate is prepared differently and it tastes great. So just because it wasn't prepared in the exact same way that you remembered then it takes away from the value of the new plate? Hardly, instead it would open your palette to experience variety and appreciate the different ways the same plate is prepared. This is at least how I interpret this and mind you I realize that not everyone will have the same reaction, my basis is going from the notion that although the new plate is different but it is still good as what it is; this is when I can enjoy both varieties in spite of its differences.



I disagree. Take Brothers in Arms which I would argue is far deeper than Half Life 2 is, I think the game was only enriched by the deeper story and characters and is a shame that other shooters lack the ambition and drive to create complex stories and characters. It also introduced a strategic system where you can set orders for your squads (Also like Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter). In BiA the strategy-like map screen where you study the battlefield and issue orders pauses the action and allows you as much time as you want to make your decisions (GR:AW keeps the action going in spite of working on the tactical map). The introduction of these systems enhance the gameplay as opposed to take away from it simply because I'm not running around like a headless chicken firing at everything in sight like Call of Duty 4.

So I would argue it adds to the exprerience instead of taking away from it.


It's sad you have this viewpoint but Fallout 3 must still have something to offer if you still evaluate it as a good game even if it's not a good sequel. Can you not enjoy it for what it is as opposed to what you would have wished it to be?



Ang Lee's was the original film thus it is Fallout 1, Louis Leterrier's followup is Fallout 3. My intention of this example is to show how the followup is both a sequel and a reimagining at the same time and can still work as well as the original and then comparing the same result to Fallout 3 to the originals.

I disagree with your take on BG3; as long as it remains within the same genre (RPG) I would argue that it could be first person like Vampire Bloodlines and still be a proper sequel. But again we see differently in the argument of whether it should build on what came before or not being a factor for it being a proper sequel; you feel it should while I think it doesn't need to. Now if you said BG3 was a real time strategy game then I would argue it wasn't an appropriate followup. But that's just me



Yes! Keep us posted! The Enclave will only get scarier now; yup gonna be reaching for those fatmans (Fatmen?) now when I encounter those patrols :wacko:

Hold on... what's so different between the gameplay of BG and NWN?
The only (substantial) differences I can think of have to do mostly with the interface, the newer D&D rules (which was a 'proper', expected and justified change imo - regardless of the 'quality' of the rules), the fact that NWN was 3D (which is actually barely substantial as the camera could be very similar to the BG one anyway) and the henchmen instead of a party. Now, aside from the henchmen, I don't see any real deviation in the gameplay - only 'evolution', or deterioration if you so wish... but still deep down the same thing and definitely an extension imo (and still as 'RPG' as ever).

I think you guys tend to pay too much attention to more trivial aspects... some change is always necessary though always risky - but it doesn't compare with the 90 degrees turn that FO3 took!
Come on... it's not about the cameras or about the amount of dimensions (:D) or the lines of text or even about being turn-based or real time... I think what matters more is about where the challenge lies = mainly the old player vs. character skill thing - the need to calculate carefully vs. click fast... change those and then you just have a different game.

It runs the risk of suggesting a double standard, but I truly believe that you cannot apply a hard rule across all titles, so in some instances it really is a double (even triple) standard at times, with some games. Duke Nukem 1 & 2 were platformers in the style of Alien Carnage (though DN1 came first); Duke3D came later and was at its core, DN2 ~made 3D (and a play on words). The change was for the better in several ways, and the gameplay was not really that different ~You were still running left and right, hopping on crates and ledges, and collecting guns and powerups, but it also incorporated new play as enabled by the new capabilities of the engine. Was it a good sequel? (was it a sequel at all?). Duke Nukem Manhatten Project is arguably closer to DN2 in 3d made with a different intent. That game focused itself more on the gameplay aspect of jumping and jetpacks than level exploration, (though both still focused on powerups and secrets).

I like them both and could argue both as the better sequel for mutually exclusive reasons, though I'm partial to calling Duke3D a really welcome spin-off that I enjoyed a lot... and one that permanently redefined the series ~as FO3 has done.
(and also that most everyone enjoyed Duke 3D more than DN:MP ~Including me). I did however really like DN:MP and consider it better Sequel material than Duke 3D.

I cannot see it this way ~That is the ultimate Cup-is-half-full ~Even if its ? full of cement; "Well... I can't eat it, but it makes a wonderful doorstop, to let in the breeze" .

Its funny, but Fallout 1 and NWN (1 ~IE Goldbox games in general), had quite a lot in common combat-wise (though I'd say that GB games were more advanced in this regard, graphics aside ~totally aside :bolt:). The premise was the same though; Iconographic representation. The icons served the same purpose as model miniatures on a real board. Fallout indisputably was meant as "The best GURPS for the PC", and though it was never allowed to be, it remained close ~deliberately. Remaining close in any respect is not even a twinkling in FO3's eye; How then can it possibly be a proper sequel? :shrug: (as opposed to simply being set in the same world)

Baldur's Gate evolved from the GB games, but shares little in common with them other than being in the Forgotten realms. It is a sequel to none of them, and a game all of its own, though it keeps the Icon mechanic (but now animated and a bit prettier). There is another game ~its a cracked gem of a game that was [IMO] a good 3d sequel to a goldbox game ~That being Pool of Radiance 2. (I hated it ~Parts of it... But I loved many parts of it too). It was the "perfect storm" developed by Stormfront, and they had developed a Gold-Box title in the day. The game was beautiful, and offered true TB combat (like the original), and [combat aside], it truly felt "right" as a sequel to the original (despite all of its flaws ~And despite the original being FPP ).

Speaking of Cup-is-half-full/empty... Bioware's Baldur's Gate & NWN use D&D combat to glue parts of the story together, SSI's GB games (and stormfront's PoR2) use the story to glue D&D combats together.
***
I play games with Gameplay 1st and story second ~always... Some play games for Story/or setting 1st, and gameplay 2nd. Such a player might take any game that offered an interesting continuance of the setting & tale as a worthy sequel; But for one that looks to the game play as king, and treats the story as condiment... It just doesn't suffice ~for such a player its like dabbing a wad of wasabi in sushi instead of the other way around.

Neverwinter Nights is a great name ~Fallout is a great name. NWN sells on the toolset (for me at least FO3 sells on the toolset). Personally I did not care much for NWN1or2 (I recall years ago describing it as "lard"), that doesn't mean I didn't really want to like it, or that I was not impressed with it, or that I won't play it, but for some reason I never found it that much fun to play.

I would argue that an IP (unlike a setting) is never apart from its gameplay, and its "mission" as a game. Planescape & BG2 are not games that you can just pick up for an hour, then drop for a week (unlike Doom, Pacman, and FO3 ~No slight intended either). In fact, it has been argued to me that [loosely put] "People now, don't have time to play games with that kind of commitment, and they just want to have fun with the hours they have". My thinking on this is simply let fall the IP in favor of a new one, rather than shoe-horn targeted gameplay into an IP not known for it.

Ang Lee's wasn't a re-invention? ['course it was]. While valid, it must be kept in mind that film to game comparisons are not a 1 to 1 affair with accurate results. The Game aspect is what draws most ~not the story (or has that changed in the last several years?); I'd argue that the Hulk, Batman , superman, and Ironman could all be made as opera and still be valid re-imagining and fun to watch, yet remaking Fallout as a puzzle game, or a turn based http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNiz09DpaYc, would not.

**Incidentally This is Disciples 3 (due out soon)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pg7nZwwnaI&NR=1

For me... It really distills down to the base game being more important than setting or the story.
*In Chess, it doesn't matter what kingdom the armies are from, all that matters is the battle, (but a Civil War or LOTR Chess set adds some nice atmosphere).

:tops:

It is, you don't have to click "End Turn" like in most turn based games but all characters still take turns during combat.

BG is round based under the hood; all PC's & NPC's fall in line, but there is no turn. (It does offer the option to pause the action at the end of a round, or by other condition)
IIRC BG unpauses the action should you enter inventory... The game is Real time /w Pause, and allows the player to adjust PC actions on the fly.

**By quirk of the engine, you can play Myth 1 & 2 (Fantasy RTS's) the same way, by opening the menu [Pause], and issuing orders to your units, then closing the menu [Unpause]. ~But that does not make it turn based (or even round based).

Consider Pool of Radiance... That game accepts consecutive actions for the PC's so long as they still have attacks left (literally action points). Players can end the remainder of a PC turn with the GUARD option, that puts the PC on the defensive and causes counter attacks should an enemy pass it adjacent during it's own turn.

*You don't click 'end turn' in PoR either... once your PC exhausts their potential, the next entity takes it's turn.

Those 'other communities' are minorities of their own... Bethesda is the biggest RPG developer along with BioWare, hence catch lots of wind while the smaller fish get a lot of leeway.

I might ask you the same, seems you haven't.

Or other games irrelevant to Fallout ... I would have thought.

I think the big problem is that Bethesda tries to appeal to every audience (AKA "the broadest audience possible") and in the end they fail to appeal to the audience that should matter the most: The RPG audience. I don't know if it's intentional or not; Bethesda may honestly believe that they're appealing to the RPG crowd (or at least what they believe the RPG crowd is), but I don't think Bethesda actually pays attention to anyone outside of their own community. Even then they've been alienating a good portion of their veteran fan base.



Isn't a turn a certain amount of rounds in Baldur's Gate? I'm pretty sure I remember some spells and status effects have a description that mention turns.



There's no rule against discussing other games as long as the discussion remains relevant to Fallout as far as I know. There is a rule against what the moderators call "cross-site trolling", though.

Both Bethesda & BioWare need to tread a very thin rope --- appealing to as large an audience as possible to make up for development costs while not alienating their fanbase. BioWare does this by providing a linear story with well-written dialogue & corny romances, Bethesda by combining in-depth lore & hours and hours of explorative gameplay.

But I personally think when Bethesda made Oblivion, they were not trying to appeal to an audience as broad as possible... Oblivion was just a misguided, exaggerated attempt at trying to alleviate some of the complaints of their core fanbase about Morrowind... I'm sure Bethesda will take to heart the numerous complaints about Oblivion and 'reverse' some bad design choices upon developing TES V.

Another example that Bethesda takes to heart the stirrings of the fanbase, is Broken Steel.

Distorted view? Lookee here: Most of us here like open, sandbox RPGs in which we can make our own stories, rather than the more common (unfortunately) story driven games. If you are such an expert on the genre, you would know this.

:shrug: I know it... I like those too (or I wouldn't be posting here)
A common view around here though is: 'RPG = Bethesda' which is... just not right... especially since Bethesda's games are so unique.
RPG is a lot more than just Bethesda - or: RGP is a lot more than "open, sandbox in which you can make your own stories".
If you don't know that then your view is 'distorted'.



And btw, are you actually making your own stories anyway... I doesn't seem so to me anymore - more like mix & match of a bunch of available pre-made stories.
It's alright, but that whole 'do your own thing' seems to me more of an exaggeration since Daggerfall.

Please name a long game series that has never alienated any veteran fans of the series that were all made by the same developer. I would truly love to see a series like that exists because I've never heard of one that was actually able to do that.



Agreed.


For better or worse Bethesda does listen to there fans and does try to fix things people found wrong about there games. If that change is good or not is a whole other matter.

Actually that's a fairly recent phenomenon, and it's probably the result of people demanding substantial changes on every aspect in every new installment of a series. Up until the late 90s most series would have very few changes from one game to the next, and, besides the story and some slightly enhanced gameplay, changes where mostly cosmetic. Nowadays that's considered a 'bad' thing for some odd reason... (Might & Magic comes to mind - changes where made after the 4th game but the fanbase remained loyal until the 8th - after that the company decided to substantially 'modernize' the game, they made a horrible mess, the fanbase was lost and no further games where made). Bethesda, however, seems to be changing their 'target audience' in each of their games... they remain on top because they obviously know what they're doing, but they always leave a number of old fans bitter.

Actually that's not fairly recent phenomenon at all considering it's been common place for a decade. Even minor gameplay changes of the supposed glory days of gaming always pissed somebody off regardless.




Times change and people have developed different tastes?



They've been changing things around majorally since Battlespire and Redguard so this is not a new thing there doing regardless of what fans think. Of the six TES games they've done they all remain similiar but have major changes in them especially the four games after Daggerfall. As far as leaving old fans bitter. Have you met some of the supposed TES veterans on here? A few of them are [censored] fanatical crazies who worship there favorite TES game (usually morrowind) like it's a God. Seriously no matter what Bethesda does there still going to be pissed because the next game isn't Morrowind 4.

Yeah, that's not true at all. Sequels tend to be rehashes, and that's as true now as it ever was. And some segment of the audience will always complain, even when changes are just cosmetic. You can find online petitions concerning Diablo 3's color scheme that have tens of thousands of signatures.

Honestly, I think TES is a series that hasn't been tinkered with very much considering the fact that it's been around for 15 years. By the time Ultima was 15 years old, Garriot had changed it into an action-RPG with platforming. That series went through all sorts of crazy changes from 1-9.

Most TES and Fallout 3 fans I know of just wander around and do quests, not "make their own stories".



I don't recall saying that this was unique to Bethesda. Of course I also didn't say that it wasn't unique to Bethesda either, so the vague wording is my fault.



I'm pretty sure Bethesda's fan base didn't consist entirely (or mostly even) of power gamers before Oblivion came out; that's definitely the crowd that Oblivion (and Fallout 3) felt tailored for.

If you realy want to talk about power gaming in Bethesda games Morrowind caters to that more then Oblivion and Fallout 3 combined. I'd say Fallout 3 was not as bad as Oblivion in this regard. Granted Fallout 3 does cater to that style of play it's not as bad as there previous two games at least. Hopefully Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 4 won't cater to that at all.

I don't think all Oblivion players are power gamers... besides, 'power gaming' is possible in almost any RPG.

I'm arriving late for the party it seems.

First of all I love the game and I consider it an excellent Post-Apocalyptic RPG designed by Bethesda, not a Fallout title, because of many differences with the previous titles.

I found the atmosphere of Fallout 1 to be the best. It's depressing. Most of the citizens are dirty, don't have education, the presence of dirty brothels or street gangs hanging at a tavern, casinos where citizens waste the few bottle caps they have and, most of all, the music.

Some of Fallout 3's music are excellent and fit the "Emptiness" feeling perfectly, but many are too Epic or too Conventional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwmFIYucQ1s&feature=PlayList&p=0095E406D6D3C700&index=0is, personally, the best single song of any Fallout title. It inspires emptiness, desolation, desperation. Some of Fallout 3's explore songs, while being excellent to listen to out of the game, just feel too "neutral" sometimes when traveling around the wasteland. (I'm not talking about the radio stations)

Another thing that helped set the desolation atmosphere was the fact that in Fallout 1 and 2, most of the dialogue was not voiced. This made you use your imagination to create your own voice associated to that NPC depending on his attitude and his use of words. While listening to a Fallout 3 voice you've already heard on 30 other NPCs is redundant and doesn't help getting immersed in the game (Or giving a unique personality the NPC)

Then, the dialogue itself. Some of Fallout 3's is excellent, well written. But sometimes it's not as good. Moira Brown comes to mind here. (MEGATON SPOILER!)

In Fallout 1 and 2, having a bad karma or bad traits such as Child Killer or Slaver, affected the way people greeted you or the information they gave you. In Fallout 3, that is barely the case. Some generic NPCs will hate you if you have bad karma. some will greet you with a hateful tone, but it doesn't go further than that. They will still give you directions around town or quest information like anybody else.

Also lacking in the dialogue are the skill check options and the fact that Intelligence options are really, really badly written. The game should not tell the player that option A is a skill check by writing [Repair] before the answer. That's something the player should guess by looking at the given answer. And the Intelligence answers... they don't make sense. They are something most humans of Intelligence of 5 could answer.

"[Intelligence] So you use the radio to do the Good Fight?"
"You sure are as intelligent as your father!"

Other features I miss from Fallout 1 and 2 were the usefulness of skills. If you had First Aid, you could patch yourself up naturally without the use of stimpacks, or patch up your companions. You could use computers to learn new things and gain experience points (Science Skill). You could gamble as well. All for experience points. But in Fallout 3, the ways to gain EXP are Speech Challenges, combat, removing traps/mines and advancing through quests.
Succesfully using your explosives skill to Or the several instances where you can repair broken doors/electronics but you don't get EXP points. The player should be rewarded for using his non-combat skills other than Speech, Science and Lockpick.

I'll finish here with the SPECIAL system, which is not SPECIAL anymore. Actually, it is for the first levels, but afterwards you become a master of more than your 3 tagged skills. Currently, my character is level 23 and has 100 in Science, Medical, Small Guns, Energy Weapons, Repair, Explosives and Lockpick.

When I started that character, I had Medical, Science and Small Guns as tagged skills. My Doctor quickly became a killing machine.

Fallout's SPECIAL greatly limited the "Master of All Trades" aspect of many role-playing games. By the time I hit Level 15 in Fallout 1, only my 3 tagged skills were at 200%. The rest were slowly improving. Your characters in Fallout 3 are unique only at the first levels, afterwards they are the same. Removing Stat Requirements for the use of weapons/armors was a bad decision. How come a character with 1 in Strength and Endurance be able to wear Power Armor or shoot a Minigun/Rocket Launcher/Fatman without problem?
Giving a Perk every level didn't help either.

So, in conclusion, I love Bethesda's Post-Apocalyptic game for what it is, an Action game first and foremost with RPG elements. (But stronger RPG elements than your usual Action/RPG game)
But do I consider it "Fallout" ? Not at all.

@johngalt89 : Like to generalize much? I think so.

True, but the fanbase wouldn't change because of minor changes.


Smaller attention spans it seems to me. I don't buy the different tastes things - 10 years ago the game industry seemed to me much more diverse. You had all kinds of games for all kinds of tastes, and if you bought an RPG you wouldn't end up playing a FPS.


Redguard & Battlespire are spinoffs they don't count as parts of the main series.


Perhaps. But still, you will notice that fanatical crazies who worship Morrowind are very different people than the fanatical crazies who worship Daggerfall and the fanatical crazies who worship Oblivion.
See? that's the point -> different fanatical crazies for each game


Ultima did that? Well I haven't really finished any Ultima game so I can't be sure, but I did play a bit of 4 and then a bit of 7 and they seemed to have the same overall gameplay 'philosophy' to me even though there were 2 more games in between. I don't know what happened later but often in such game series, major changes are their undoing (as in M&M).
But anyway, I wouldn't know what happened in Ultima and I don't see any benefit in discussing individual games - they might be exceptions, I might have not played the the ones you mention or you might have not played the ones I mention... it's pointless.

My point is simply this: 10-15 years ago when I bought a sequel of I game I've played I pretty much knew what I was going to play even without reading any reviews or anything.
(heh... Looking at screenshots of sequels of that time, you most often can't even tell which game is which - not that that really matters though... just an observation - nowadays you can't tell which game is which from their screenshots of completely different games from completely different companies)
Like if someone buys FO2 because they liked FO1.
Now if someone buys FO3 because they liked FO2 without having heard or seen anything about it... surprise!

I'm actually willing to bet that most devoted FO3 fans will see what I mean as soon as FO4 comes out - prepare, because by then you'll be a 'fanatical crazy who worships FO3'

Fallout 3 is hardly a rehash, yet it remains canon to the other Fallouts, in essence, thought not in every minor detail, which would indeed then make it just a rehash, with complaints. Any changes made and there would be complaints of it not being canon.



Which depending on their choice of quests and their choices of how they do them, also the other play, can make a substantially different play-through (story) experience each time.




Never mind, you haven't missed much, the first page pretty well covers it.

Not canon then in your view. (canon: General rule or principle by which something is judged - dictionary). Fallout 3 does in general, follow the Fallout line by having all the essence that the early Fallouts had, updated. Differences are nothing to substantially change it from being a Fallout game.

Bethesda interview snippet:-
"Has the harshness and maturity of the world of Fallout 3 been tempered from the earlier games?" and I can certainly say "No, it hasn't been."

True, and even more-so than earlier versions. A worthy Fallout 3.