No, Fallout shouldn't be like Morrowind, nor like Oblivion. But the two games show, that Bethesda is able to create different amospheres in various games. That's my point, and my hope.
37 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Van Buren looked like crap!
» Fri May 27, 2011 8:59 pm
No, Fallout shouldn't be like Morrowind, nor like Oblivion. But the two games show, that Bethesda is able to create different amospheres in various games. That's my point, and my hope.
-
Sammykins - Posts: 3330
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:48 am
» Sat May 28, 2011 8:54 am
The two games show, that Bethesda is able to create different amospheres in various games. That's my point, and my hope.
What different atmospheres?
A colourfull and vivid world of magic, swords and linear storylines as compared to a green/grey vivid world of magic, swords and linear storylines?
The difference between Oblivion and Morrowind is only obvious to fans of TES. The difference between FO1/2 and TES is obvious to everyone.
Bethesdas trademark so far is RPG's set in open-ended gameworlds with linear storylines as seen from the first person perspective. (No I don't count Startrek Legacy and the rest of their failures)
What worries me is that their above mentioned failuers scared Beth from doing anything else than what they are "good" at and what they can sell.
I have never liked, nor accepted that people were afraid FO3 would turn out to be Oblivion with guns, but the little info we've been getting about the game so far indicates it might just be true.
-
Phillip Brunyee - Posts: 3510
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:43 pm
» Fri May 27, 2011 9:12 pm
You really can't judge any game on a pre-alpha build intended to be used as presentation tool, to be seen only the heads of publishers and other business people. Van Buren would have been a very different game has it been released and made.
The Van Buren is from 2001/2002. So the game, van buren, was in preproduction at that time. This means if Interplay & Black Isle did get to make a Fallout 3 game, it would probably have been released in 2005 or or realistically, 2006.
And then the game's looks would have looked better as well as the gameplay would have improved.
Regardless of this, the writing and the choices presented in Van Buren are the best ones I've seen in a long time an RPG game, really keeping in line with the Fallouty feel and Fallout's roots...
The Van Buren is from 2001/2002. So the game, van buren, was in preproduction at that time. This means if Interplay & Black Isle did get to make a Fallout 3 game, it would probably have been released in 2005 or or realistically, 2006.
And then the game's looks would have looked better as well as the gameplay would have improved.
Regardless of this, the writing and the choices presented in Van Buren are the best ones I've seen in a long time an RPG game, really keeping in line with the Fallouty feel and Fallout's roots...
-
Chris Duncan - Posts: 3471
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:31 am
» Sat May 28, 2011 9:18 am
in all fairness yes it was a very early stage but still, i think the final game would still look like [censored]. The thing is that they try to make everything 3D at a time when it was still quite new, but not good enough to get that dirty and gritty look that i loved about fallout 1 and 2...
-
Eve(G) - Posts: 3546
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:45 am
» Sat May 28, 2011 12:55 am
sorry double post
-
NO suckers In Here - Posts: 3449
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:05 am
» Sat May 28, 2011 2:48 am
Well, in all Fairness: Fallout 3 seems promising. What developers say about themselves, being Fallout Fans, staying true to the original feel and so on...it all sounds very promising. And what I've seen of Fallout 3 so far does certainly not lool like oblivion with guns.
...
...
I doubt they are "real" fans.
Quite creative point there
No, Fallout shouldn't be like Morrowind, nor like Oblivion. But the two games show, that Bethesda is able to create different amospheres in various games. That's my point, and my hope.
No, Fallout shouldn't be like Morrowind, nor like Oblivion. But the two games show, that Bethesda is able to create different amospheres in various games. That's my point, and my hope.
it was not different atmosphere in my eyes. They just made Oblivion in many parts worse compared to Morrowind. So it just "feels" different. More graphics, less skills, less "grey" decisions and of course less factions. Literaly Oblivion has compared to Morrowind less from everything. If oblivion is a bad game or not, is oppinion. But it for sure had much "less" then Morrowind.
...
What worries me is that their above mentioned failuers scared Beth from doing anything else than what they are "good" at and what they can sell.
What worries me is that their above mentioned failuers scared Beth from doing anything else than what they are "good" at and what they can sell.
I am worried as well. But not cause of "failures" but more cause Bethesda thinks that games like Oblivion and Morrowind are the top of RPG development. THAT is what scares me, since they literaly offer from storyline, choices and skills NOTHING better compared to way older games. If that is really the evolution from RP-Games then I ask my self if it isnt more a degeneration that everyone just thinks to be a progress.
-
Rachel Eloise Getoutofmyface - Posts: 3445
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:20 pm
» Sat May 28, 2011 3:59 am
I dont think Fallout 1 and 2 was just about gameplay, storyline, style etc.
I personally loved to look at the art. I mean, it was great! The animations were awesome, and everything in the game were illustrated with great style and post-apocalyptic beauty, so fallout was not only an extremely intelligent game, but also amazingly pretty.
Now, Van Buren disappointed me form the start. I know it was just a tech demo and was not nearly finnished, but the direction the game was taking just reeked of Brotherhood of Steel that came out on xbox and ps2 mixed with a bit of tactics and very little real 'fallout'. I did not like the 3d characters. They looked way too refined, and then some of the hair choices and such just made me want to puke. The combat was way too brotherhood-of-steelish, and it seemed to me more like an action game than anything else. The art was very poor, and I blame that on 3d animation. 3d animation can really svck sometimes, but hey, I know the game was still in production and details to art would perhaps come later, but still, I did not like the direction Van Buren was taking,
I personally loved to look at the art. I mean, it was great! The animations were awesome, and everything in the game were illustrated with great style and post-apocalyptic beauty, so fallout was not only an extremely intelligent game, but also amazingly pretty.
Now, Van Buren disappointed me form the start. I know it was just a tech demo and was not nearly finnished, but the direction the game was taking just reeked of Brotherhood of Steel that came out on xbox and ps2 mixed with a bit of tactics and very little real 'fallout'. I did not like the 3d characters. They looked way too refined, and then some of the hair choices and such just made me want to puke. The combat was way too brotherhood-of-steelish, and it seemed to me more like an action game than anything else. The art was very poor, and I blame that on 3d animation. 3d animation can really svck sometimes, but hey, I know the game was still in production and details to art would perhaps come later, but still, I did not like the direction Van Buren was taking,
I can pretty much agree with you on that.
and I am much more excited about Fallout 3 from Bethesda than anything I have seen in Van Buren, even though we dont really know much about Beth's Fallout 3 yet.
And now i don't, at all, if you think Van Buren looked bad (mainly artwise) compared to Fallout 1&2 then i'm badazzled how you could think FO3 looks or is promised to look good, very confusing.
-
Elina - Posts: 3411
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:09 pm
» Sat May 28, 2011 1:54 am
I found that tactics combat was much better than FO2's, if I could have FO:T combat, actual vehicle control ducking and crawling on FO2 id be happy. Too bad the game wasn't as open ended and didn't have nearly as much stuff to do as FO2.
-
Melissa De Thomasis - Posts: 3412
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:52 pm
» Sat May 28, 2011 2:15 am
From what I read on the various Fallout Wiki's about the direction Van Burnen was going storywise... I dont think I would have liked it.
-
suniti - Posts: 3176
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:22 pm
» Sat May 28, 2011 2:26 am
its interesting reading these comments now that Beth-Fallout3 has been released and done so well....... i was terrified that it would be awful cos Fallout 1 & 2 were truly seminal and the direction Bethesda took it was scary...... i bought oblivion to play it cos id read that F3 was using the same engine and assumed they would be similar and i really didnt like it which made me feel even worse about it..... I couldn't be happier to have been proved wrong - Bethesda did a good job with it but, lets be clear, id sell my grannys soul to Satan to play a finished version of van buren...... regardless of what it looks like!
Yeah, the tech demo leaves a lot to be desired but thats hardly surprising given its prealpha code from the turn of the century when PC's were still below the 1GHz line. By todays standards it will never look amazing but thats not really a fair test IMHO.
My question for the folks at Bethesda is what is the chances that van buren will ever be resurrected??? I know i know, ive read the official lines plenty of times and its several years down the line since van buren was killed but the fact that the fallout community still talk about it should show just how desperate we are for anything van buren related. There are plenty of options for releasing it..... Bethesda could finish the code and release it themselves as a full stand alone title -- Fallout: Van Buren -- you could release it a downloadable content either as a separate game through xbox live arcade or something of the like or as DCL for Fallout 3..... it could be a mini game style thing that you have to access through a computer in the main game (i know a full rpg is a little large to call a mini game but thats just a technicality) or, even better, you could license the code to Interplay or Obsidian or simply to the original developers and let them finish Van Buren and release it under their own banner. I BEG OF YOU!!! please do something with the van buren code/idea....... just think of the money and praise you could get by bringing the fallen van buren project to the baying masses who would kill for it
im not sure i'll get a response from anyone who actually works for Bethesda but if any of you guys read this please reply 
Yeah, the tech demo leaves a lot to be desired but thats hardly surprising given its prealpha code from the turn of the century when PC's were still below the 1GHz line. By todays standards it will never look amazing but thats not really a fair test IMHO.
My question for the folks at Bethesda is what is the chances that van buren will ever be resurrected??? I know i know, ive read the official lines plenty of times and its several years down the line since van buren was killed but the fact that the fallout community still talk about it should show just how desperate we are for anything van buren related. There are plenty of options for releasing it..... Bethesda could finish the code and release it themselves as a full stand alone title -- Fallout: Van Buren -- you could release it a downloadable content either as a separate game through xbox live arcade or something of the like or as DCL for Fallout 3..... it could be a mini game style thing that you have to access through a computer in the main game (i know a full rpg is a little large to call a mini game but thats just a technicality) or, even better, you could license the code to Interplay or Obsidian or simply to the original developers and let them finish Van Buren and release it under their own banner. I BEG OF YOU!!! please do something with the van buren code/idea....... just think of the money and praise you could get by bringing the fallen van buren project to the baying masses who would kill for it
im not sure i'll get a response from anyone who actually works for Bethesda but if any of you guys read this please reply -
Crystal Clarke - Posts: 3410
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:55 am
» Sat May 28, 2011 8:11 am
Why would you revive a 13 month old topic ?_?
The devs have said on more than one occasion that they have no interest in releasing Van Buren or making it available to the public domain.
The devs have said on more than one occasion that they have no interest in releasing Van Buren or making it available to the public domain.
-
BEl J - Posts: 3397
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:12 am
» Sat May 28, 2011 12:14 am
its interesting reading these comments now that Beth-Fallout3 has been released and done so well
While I understand this sentiment it would have been better to have read the thread and left it alone, rather than raising it from the dead.
My question for the folks at Bethesda is what is the chances that van buren will ever be resurrected???
Bethesda has said, flat out and on multiple occasions, that they will not be releasing Van Buren as they will no release someone else's unfinished code. I also don't see them finishing the game when, in today's market, it would have to be sold as a budget title - not exactly a fitting finale for the game.
Bethesda has the design documents and they're willing to draw on them for inspiration, that's the closest Van Buren will get to being released :shrug:
-
Greg Swan - Posts: 3413
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:49 am
37 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2