dylan barry on 5/6/2007 at 13:41
This could be it then!! i cant get on the site either
Thirith on 5/6/2007 at 13:45
Quote Posted by BR796164
It seems that only RPG crowd is somehow sensitive to their canons. You don't see as many people complaining about Tiberium Wars not being enough C&C. Althouth they've been fed with other branches of that trademark, so the technological jump is not so shocking.
Although lots of people tend to shout that Generals wasn't a real C&C.
Jeshibu on 5/6/2007 at 13:46
BR#: I don't care, they can make it some sort of FALLOUT: [subtitle] like the other spinoffs. Point is, a first-person action rpg is not what Fallout is (or should be, but that's subjective apparently). At least not the main series.
A wide-open map to slog through in first person wouldn't work that well either, what with the journeys often taking days across uneventful desert. They'd have to put everything a lot closer together, which would seem contrived - like the world was built for you, instead of you exploring the world that was already there. I could also do without a hundred identi-kit dungeons vaults strewn around the land with no real reward in them. Morrowind at least made most of them interesting in some way.
What I'd like to see is an isometric RPG with combat similar to the previous Fallout games, or failing that, like Silent Storm's. Good dialogs and choices are a must too.
Oh, and they may not have complained about Tiberium Wars, but they sure as hell did about Generals.
Rogue Keeper on 5/6/2007 at 13:59
With C&C I meant original Tiberium series, my bad that I'm ignorant about everything else under C&C trademark (though I liked first Red Alert).
dylan barry on 5/6/2007 at 14:12
Quote Posted by Jeshibu
BR#: I don't care, they can make it some sort of FALLOUT: [subtitle] like the other spinoffs. Point is, a first-person action rpg is not what Fallout is (or should be, but that's subjective apparently). At least not the main series.
A wide-open map to slog through in first person wouldn't work that well either, what with the journeys often taking days across uneventful desert.
If they had the technology at the timei think it might have been first person, i do think its a better looking game than people give it credit for, it kicks the shit out of baldurs gate in my books.
No matter how many lighting effects they use they will have a hard job getting that same feel to the enviroments (maybe quakewars:ET engine could get that dirty pre rendered look, and mega pixel for the landscape )
I dont think the Van Buren got that same feel, or tactics.. they didnt look dirty/lived in enough.
Inline Image:
http://img.search.com/thumb/8/8a/Dirrty.jpg/200px-Dirrty.jpgchristina had the right idea
Id have no problem walking across a desert for days, id rather that than break the immersion with fast travel
Thirith on 5/6/2007 at 14:16
Quote Posted by Jeshibu
Point is, a first-person action rpg is not what Fallout is (or should be, but that's subjective apparently).
I think that last point is what so many of the NMA crowd don't see. Much of what makes a 'real' Fallout is subjective, or at the very least it should be up for discussion - yet the die-hard rabid fans tend to think that their opinion on the issue is gospel. In addition, they're not willing to accept any sort of compromise.
Personally, I'd prefer Fallout 3 to be turn-based in its combat system. I expect it won't be. I'll accept that, as long as the feel of the world is close to the first two games. I'll accept it, as long as there's an interesting skill system that allows you to tackle problems in different ways. As long as the dialogues are like Fallout and not like Morrowind or Oblivion. As long as your actions in the game help shape the world, in small and in big ways.
If the diehard fans can't allow for compromise, that's their choice. If they think their opinions are facts, so be it. I just wish they weren't as self-righteous and pompous and, in the end, as petulantly childish, about it.
Uncia on 5/6/2007 at 14:30
Quote Posted by dylan barry
No matter how many lighting effects they use they will have a hard job getting that same feel to the enviroments
I think you're overestimating how hard it is to make a game look ugly.
Tip: not nearly as hard as it is to make it look
good.
Malygris on 5/6/2007 at 14:36
Quote Posted by dylan barry
If they had the technology at the timei think it might have been first person, i do think its a better looking game than people give it credit for, it kicks the shit out of baldurs gate in my books.
Your books are written in scrawled crayon, aren't they?
Everyone might as well get it out of their heads that we're going to get a direct Fallout -> FO2 -> FO3 sequel transition. If nothing else, it's been a frikkin' decade since Fallout 2, and you don't go ten years between games without some significant changes taking place. Maybe we'll get a first-person Oblivion-style game; maybe we'll get a dialogue-heavy isometric RPG with turn-based combat. In either case, maybe it'll suck and maybe it won't, but the basic style of the game design isn't going to make that determination.
But I think the most important point is, Fallout: Tactics is not a bad game at all.
Also, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that the Fallout franchise is "massively popular," based primarily on the fact that it's taken ten years to resuscitate the series. I think it's more accurate to say that the fan base is enthusiastic and vocal enough to make it appear a lot bigger than it actually is.
Scrubking on 5/6/2007 at 15:36
My prediction is that this game will get dumbed down, streamlined or whatever else they call it these days JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER old, poor selling PC franchise that tries to get resurrected these days.
There will be no children or animals to kill, no drugs, no sex, only one city, the fighting will be real time action and there will be a focus on online gaming so you have something to do after you beat the game in 5 hours.
Prove me wrong Bethesda. I dare you!
Matthew on 5/6/2007 at 15:37
Suuuure.
