im glad they did take in fallout 3 .. im getting tired of knight aged based games ... specially in RPG's and MMO's ... bring on the future!!!

I used to play a bored game called Mutant Chronicles.. and the hero's had a gun and a sword (some of them) I wish more games in mmos or rpgs or even shooters would implement this. So many MMO's I tried where I wish the enemy had grenade launchers that had delay explosions .. or even a diablo based game... hrmmm..

"Steel be with you" :goodjob:

Who came up with that stupid catch phrase anyway?

Someone that needs some steel upside their head.

Best post of the week.

New IPs are very risky and Bethesda's games are very high budget.
Fallout was a HUGELY respected brand name in the cRPG genre, they probably wanted to branch out into a sci fi with guns setting, and Interplay was selling. Easy as that.

Monies

Id Software made up RAGE, and its it's own PA setting ~in-house with no license fee. :shrug:

Fallout was respected yes, but for what exactly... is it still intact in FO3? Some would say, 'yes', some would say, 'no' (some actually do say "yes & no") ~but how often are they talking about the same things?

I agree with you, but wish it were not as it is ~I don't mind Bethesda doing FO3, but it did not come out ideal IMO.
(was this a forgone conclusion or did it just work out that way? I can tell you I was psyched when I bought Oblivion and played the first ? hour, because I assumed that they would use the same engine and manage the same detail ~but with a more "series-centric" gameplay and philosophy).

They did the detail part in spades.... but that was really the icing more than the cake IMO.

The 2nd link in my SIG, I first mistook for a leaked Bethesda tech demo, and was very excited and looking forward to it ~and I eventually realized that it was a mod.

Are you aware of http://www.irontowerstudio.com/?
They are an indie company currently developing a post-apoc, low-fantasy, ancient Rome-based, TBC isometric RPG. Very much in the style of the original Fallouts (just look at that weaponry interface), with a primary focus on choice and consequence.

A couple of other games being produced under their banner with similar, what you refer to as "true RPG" design philosophy: Cyclopean (Lovecraftian TBC RPG), Scars of War (Open-ended, FPP RTC fantasy RPG), Unannounced Sci Fi project (isometric TBC, low combat).

Finally, in the last few days they have announced another unannounced project . A turn-based RPG that emphasizes survival and escape as civilization begins to decay. Interestingly, it will be headed by Brian Mitsoda (former Troika (one of the leads on Vampire: Bloodlines), Black Isle and Obsidian dev) and Annie Carlson (former Obsidian dev)


Head over to their forums for much more info.



Last remaining hope for a new Fallout game that I'll actually buy.


And hi Gizmo. Still braving the wastes I see :foodndrink:.

Yeah. They're, well, id software...
And they also haven't had a new IP since 1996 so what does that tell you.



Hmm. Does it matter at this point? :shrug:

There is no such thing as a true RPG unless you are referring to tabletop RPGs which I played enough as a kid.

Yes Beth's take is different from what came before but it doesn't mean it is any less an RPG than what Interplay created before, just a differnet approach. Whether that is good or bad lies within the eye of the beholder; some say the new approach is good while some say bad, what makes anyone correct over others is an answer far too developed for my intelligence.

Both the originals as well as Fallout 3 have about a zillion different things wrong with them; I am constantly in awe how personal preferences are often mistaken with absolute truths just because they come from the opinions or judgments of "vets".

I definately see Fallout 3 have a bigger influence with the original Fallout than its sequel and I feel in the very least the world created by Interplay was given its due dilligence. Gameplay-wise it most definately is another completely different setup but I don't feel that such a thing inherently makes a bad sequel or overall experience, simply a differnet perspective to experience a familiar subject.

This isn't to say that Fallout 3 couldn't have benefitted more from certain gameplay aspects found in the originals more such as: action and consequence, and deeper storylines; it is my main problem with Fallout 3 after all. But I hardly agree the lack of isometric turn based makes for sacriliege. And as much as I hear arguments otherwise, this seems to be one of the primary contested points of the old games versus the new.

As far as ID Software is concerned yeah they built a pretty engine just like any new engine is pretty, whether the games that use it will be any good is as much within the tastes of those who play them as all Fallout games or any games at all ever have been.

Whatever makes up what a game should have been or sholdn't is dictated by the player's own fantasy of what that game is supposed to have been and that is as moot a point as trying to determine what is good or isn't, in other words: one man's garbage is another's jewel.

I've been done with these discussions for many months. Fallout 3 is out and is what it is, debating the point is now pointless. But, will just say that the difference between Fallout 3 and other TES-like games and Fallout-like games goes much further than isometric view or turn-based combat. Though, to disregard these changes as minor is to misunderstand their impact, whether one prefers the change or not. To sum it up in as few words as possible, the main difference between these types of RPGs is that one is character driven, and the other player driven. This is a complete difference in design philosophy and affects decisions all the way through development.

It ties in with the view used, the strength of stats, the combat system, the seperation of player skill and character skill, even down to decisions on world travel style and world implementation (the go everywhere, use all items, enter every building, make a second life for yourself of TES games, is a consequence of a player-driven philosophy, where Beth want you to feel as if you are in the game. Other aspects that come under this heading are FPP view and real-time combat). The original Fallouts were RPGs with a strong character focus, this means that character skill has maximum strength (player skill can not in any way infringe on any character skill), and creating characters with different stats has a definite concrete difference on gameplay (ie. there are concrete differences in roles). TBC, and even a non-FPP view make most sense for such a game. You are not the character, so seeing the character on screen as a seperate entity is natural. TBC disallows player skill from infringing on character skill, giving these skills maximum strength without any need for developer balancing (a major headache in games, like Fallout 3, where player skill is blended with character skill and player and character are an indefinite amalgam rather than clearly separated). I too would not use the term "true RPG", but there's no question they are very different types, one being a type I enjoy very much, the other largely lacking the aspect of roleplaying that I look for in an RPG, hence why I've not yet played Fallout 3, but replay games like Fallout 1+2 and Arcanum to this day.

The other aspect that strongly differentiates the original Fallouts certainly from TES, but also from Fallout 3 is the primary focus on choice and consequence. There is more of a nod to this in Fallout 3, where Morrowind and Oblivion are almost devoid of it, but it is much more of a side dish, something necessary for that Fallout veneer, not the absolute core of the game. For Fallout 3, the main design aim is much the same as the other TES games - explore a large world, doing and being what you want, something that holds little appeal for me. This is not strongly tied to the concept of character and player driven RPGs, though, Beth's alternate core design is definitely player-driven. But, a character driven RPG, like Fallout where the player is installed as the "decision maker" and the character carries out the actions (in Fallout all actions in the game are for the character, all decisions for the player, creating a clear and definite divide between the player and his avatar). In such an RPG, plentiful choices and meaningful consequences are a natural fit, given the player is put in the role of decision maker and does not have the kind of direct input you have in Fallout 3 where you're able to wave your gun around for kicks.

Anyway, I've gone into far more detail than I intended. Was planning on ending after my character/player driven statement. As I've said, I am done with arguing these points, and won't enter into a back and forth discussion on them. I understand that other people have different views, and that many will simply not understand why any difference I've mentioned here is important, and that's fine. Just given a quick, and poorly worded, summary on why I play Fallout-like games but not TES-like games. I am not intending to convince anyone of my viewpoint, just attempting to show that this is not simply about isometric view, or even turn-based combat. Take it as you will.

Neither has Bethesda (as a developer, not publisher).

Nice to see you back Crow_Bait. :tops: Good post (as always).

Im much more into the system of TES of player centrism. What is the problem on FO3 is that its partially based on this, and partially based on character, what fails. This is because you end with lots of skill points every level, while on TES you actually need to work, building up all the skills you use, and this takes a lot of time.

Exactly. And that's partially why they bought the Fallout name, becauseit has more value than a brand new name would.

Personally I agree very much with your statements regarding choice/consequence in that it is a strong aspect of any RPG and Fallout 3 is generally missing this. The same could aslo be said of other aspects of the game I have trouble with such as details in the cities not having brahmin pens or gardens which might add to the illussion of how these communities are growing/obtaining food, also farms are sadly missing. I would have also enjoyed to have seen developed political subplots and the interaction of these factions outside my own influence with them, the way the factions in Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines have much more depth, lore, and story between themselves and within themselves than merely just the interaction and choices the player makes on behalf or against them/

Do not misunderstand my position by implying I don't get what your point is and where you are coming from, on the contrary I understand your position very well and recognize what you like and don't as much as why you like it and don't.

However my position is that even though Fallout 3 has broken the previously established gameplay set by the original 2 games it does not automatically make Fallout 3 an inferior RPG or sequel in and of itself because it was given a different design choice; my point is that the game is simply a different kind of RPG and that what many people focus on are geared towards players' own personal tastes, such as you have elegantly put it in your post, type a rpg is the type you enjoy to play as oppossed to type b.

I'm not trying to bait you into a discussion as you clearly are uninterested in having one and believe me I more than respect your views and opinions. I am offering my own extremely small potatoes counter point of view. I have enjoyed all 3 Fallout games for what they are and what they have to offer, in spite of all the flaws and shortcomings each has as far as my own expectations were before playing the game.

I very much enjoy exchanging different points of view with players who see things different than myself, of which many of the "vets" are. B)

I'm trying to curb my own "negativity" lately, but I have to say that while most of this is patently true... It is also precisely the reasons that FO3 is inferior in the context of the series.
Inferior because it "has broken the previously established gameplay set by the original 2 games"...
Inferior because it is a game that is "is simply a different kind of RPG"
Inferior because it is "geared towards players' own [non series centric] personal tastes"

Now... This does not reflect on Fallout 3's worth or merit as a game. just on its suitability for the place it occupies. No one here or at NMA or Duck & Cover would be so irked were it a Fallout branded spin off set in the Fallout gameworld. Spin-offs signify a change in format.

FO3 is "inferior" in the same way as a http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Useless.jpg. They might cost the same, but are not really interchangeable and/or suitable for the same wants and intentions. (and I guarantee you there are men and women in this world that would be livid to the point of hemorrhage if their orders were switched and they got the wrong four wheeler ).

There is nothing wrong with FO3 IMO, except that it is the wrong game for a sequel, and I can't get the experience from it that I've come to expect from the series. Hence FO3 is wrong, but still a fantastic game with a beautifully rendered post apocalypse.

I heartly disagree Gizmo, it might be inferior to you because it isn't the game you wanted but it isn't inferior inherently of itself. That's just my point it's players' personal tastes that are dictating what they consider a good RPG or not, there is no universal truth that dictates what makes an RPG good or bad when it is related to the gameplay design.

Spin offs signify a different story (Mostly with new characters or with a few originally established characters now being the focus) that is told within the same universe that was established in a previous game. Gameplay isn't necessarily a factor on a spin off though it can be like Fallout Tactics.

With your way of thinking KotOR, Mass Effect, Neverwinter Nights 2, Vampire Bloodlines, and anything that doesn't have that style of gameplay is an inferior RPG.

Plenty of games have changed their gameplay subtly or radically with true sequels. Not that I even consider Fallout 3 a true sequel anyway as it is not continuing the story of the previous games' protagonists. Fallout 3 is like the Incredible Hulk movie: part pseudo sequel and part remake. It is reinventing how the proper series is played, thus the sequel title but it isn't related really to the people, places or events of the previous games. At least that's how I view it. :shrug:

Oh and btw Gizmo I love your Advanced Power Armor, it looks very intimidating just like F2's intro movie! :foodndrink:

Thank you
(I just updated it a bit)

We are "talking at cross purpose", reading your post, I don't disagree with it. My post (above) does not call FO3 an inferior RPG, and [thinking the way I do], I do not consider any of those titles you mention as inferior. What I mean with the example above, is that FO3 should have been called something else. I explained it with the car anology... good as a lamborghini is, its just not suitable to use as a tractor. Fallout 1 & 2 were like tractors, FO3 is the lamborghini (click the picture link in the earlier post ).

Put another way (and perhaps better)... There are a dozen games set in the Warhammer universe, and even an upcoming FPS, You can make a Warhammer FPS ~but it won't be a good sequel to Dawn of War, because the players of Dawn of War are interested in controlling a large force, and having a wide unlocked view of the land. Make Dawn of War 3 an FPS centered around a single Space Marine, and you throw out the gameplay of the series while retaining the setting, ~ In it's own dissimilar way, this is what FO3 did with several aspects of the Fallout series.

Now in exchange it adds tremendous visual interactivity and pulls off a believable FPP experience in the Fallout landscape (Something Fallout deliberately did not do ~and consider that the game they made before Fallout was a first person RPG called Stonekeep). Fallout (the series) was created to be "the best implementation of G.U.R.P.S. for the PC" ~if there is any doubt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc6gvAzuipU&feature=channel_page. The menus and even the conversation "thingy" (?), fostered an almost tangible sense of detached observance. The player decides and the PC acts it out ~[if he can!]. Fallout was (like Dawn of War), depicting a computer enactment of miniatures on the stage, handling the rules and animating the pieces so that you could see what it would really be like (and by this I don't mean "see what it would really be like to be there"). Combat was for the sake of the system, not to simulate real life gunfights. I can get that from any FPS made in the in the last 16 years. What I want (and why I'd return to the series) is a wide unlocked overhead view, and combat for the sake of the system, and the setting, and the awesome writing, and to carefully plot my path through the verbal minefield that was Fallout. Conversely, Fallout 3 pays barely a nod to the system, and its NPC dialogs are mostly without risk (it would seem), and I'm fairly sure its Sandbox related.

*Its true that Steve Jackson pulled the license for GURPS, forcing them to hastily alter the details to avoid infringement, but they kept pretty close to the core gameplay.


** Also (and its not fair to hold it against), FO3 dialog lacks the "bite" found in the previous games...
Compare them and decide:

• FO1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134648/quotes
  
• FO2 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183066/quotes
  
• FO3 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1073664/quotes

It amuses me to think that the same sort of discussion, with exactly the same kind of arguments lasted for such a long time.
One might think that people would have came to a conclusion by now.

But here's helpful hint. Lets get down to the basics and clearly outline definitions of things like roleplaying game, sequal, and so on. That might help to bring the discussion to a fruitful conclusion.

Otherwise some will say that fallout 3 is an rpg game (using diablo roleplaying game definition) while others will say that fallout is shallow ripoff of fallout 1/2 designed for shooter crowd with upsetting amount of gory bits (using definition of pen and paper D&D games or planescape: torment). And both sides will be quite correct (at least in their minds) while being absolutely incorrect to the other side...

Although I would personally say that Planescape:Torment is a(nother) fine example of a true CRPG (notice the 'C'), I would hardly call FO3 a "shallow ripoff of fallout 1/2"... in fact I'd argue that it is a deep, original and sophisticated action/RPG game (which has nothing to do with whether it's a 'proper' sequel or not). Which is exactly why it puzzles me so much why people are so passionately argue that it's a true RPG - (and even more so since it seems to me that many/some of these people don't really have any true love for pure RPGs - considering them mostly outdated and inadequate) ... it's like saying that it has to be an RPG to be good! - which makes no sense to me- instead of explaining why Fallout benefits from being more action heavy than it used to - which is what I'd be interested to know.
Nevertheless this old argument does seem to be a bit out place in this thread.