1 month from Fallout 3 today!

[SUBMAN1]

Woo hoo! I need a good RPG FPS! Bioshock didn't cut it!

-S

[Rilder]

Meh its bethesda, its going to have good graphics and nothing else, probably a linear storyline and a bunch of quests and nothing else.

[Wolfehunter]

Subman don't waist your money on Fallout 3. Its only going to have graphics that is all. Everything else will suck big time.

Plus its a rippoff spoof of FO series.

The only canon is vaults, the suit and some other names. Everything else is re-invented according to Pete Hines.

Wait till some of the suckers buy it first and then see after a few weeks when you read about the good bad and the ugly.

You may regret spending the cash...:nope:

Anyhow its oblivion with guns.:down:

[SUBMAN1]

...Anyhow its oblivion with guns.:down:Perfect! That is what I wanted in Oblivion! Not to mention the entire city of WA DC is rendered and you can cruise down to the Capital at will and enter it if you chose!

-S

[Wolfehunter]

...Anyhow its oblivion with guns.:down:Perfect! That is what I wanted in Oblivion! Not to mention the entire city of WA DC is rendered and you can cruise down to the Capital at will and enter it if you chose!

-SI still say you should wait till the sucker rush and buy it.

You can learn alot from them.

I had some high expectations from GSC STALKER Clear Sky till the russian community when into a frenzy a while back. I got the game even with the uber work of the mod community and it still sucks royally. To bad because it had the potential to be a great game.

That why they fired the Product Manager and QC Administrator at GSC after the stink.

In the end its your call.

Goodluck.;)

[SUBMAN1]

...Anyhow its oblivion with guns.:down:Perfect! That is what I wanted in Oblivion! Not to mention the entire city of WA DC is rendered and you can cruise down to the Capital at will and enter it if you chose!

-SI still say you should wait till the sucker rush and buy it.

You can learn alot from them.

I had some high expectations from GSC STALKER Clear Sky till the russian community when into a frenzy a while back. I got the game even with the uber work of the mod community and it still sucks royally. To bad because it had the potential to be a great game.

That why they fired the Product Manager and QC Administrator at GSC after the stink.

In the end its your call.

Goodluck.;)I liked STALKER. What was wrong with it?

[Wolfehunter]

...Anyhow its oblivion with guns.:down:Perfect! That is what I wanted in Oblivion! Not to mention the entire city of WA DC is rendered and you can cruise down to the Capital at will and enter it if you chose!

-SI still say you should wait till the sucker rush and buy it.

You can learn alot from them.

I had some high expectations from GSC STALKER Clear Sky till the russian community when into a frenzy a while back. I got the game even with the uber work of the mod community and it still sucks royally. To bad because it had the potential to be a great game.

That why they fired the Product Manager and QC Administrator at GSC after the stink.

In the end its your call.

Goodluck.;)I liked STALKER. What was wrong with it?Clear sky? Your joking right....:-?

SHOC ok It rocks but CS ..... Hmmmm need major reparing and moding. :yep:

[OneToughHerring]

To me it seems like the type of genre of games that the original Fallouts were is dead now. It's all MMORPG's and 'huge' adventure type games like Oblivion. And sequels, FO 3 being one. Nothing wrong with sequels if they are done right, case in point SH 3.

A game has to tap into the imagination as well as be a good game and the original FO's managed to do that. No. 3 might do well financially for Bethesda but they will also make enemies out of the fans of the originals.

[SUBMAN1]

FO3 should tap the imagination if done right.

I detest slamming a game prior to release. All your comments are based on speculation. Something tells me this is the game of the year for 2008. Easy.

That is only my opinion though. We will not know till it is released.

This should wet your apetite and bring you up to my level on what it is going to be - I see a true Dues Ex (not the lame #2, but #1 - and I've been in this biz for 30 years and can smell a good thing when I see it) type sequel in my opinion - http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=486

-S

[GlobalExplorer]

I detest slamming a game prior to release. All your comments are based on speculation. Something tells me this is the game of the year for 2008. Easy.

That's you. I know enough about the game and the company to make up my mind and I will not buy it. This game is for the new generation of lulzers: graphics, stupid jokes, exploding corpses in slow motion. Where has all the story and gameplay from Fallout 1+2 gone? Or do we need no story when we can have Bloom 3.0??

You know what? I am going to reinstall Fallout2 soon and replay it. Same as I did some months ago with Arcanum and JA2, which was great. The old games were 10x better than these new ones the mainstream is currently drooling over.

Bethesda is the undertaker of Fallout, nothing else.

[Raptor1]

Not this again... :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

I detest slamming a game prior to release. All your comments are based on speculation. Something tells me this is the game of the year for 2008. Easy.
That's you. I know enough about the game and the company to make up my mind and I will not buy it. This game is for the new generation of lulzers: graphics, stupid jokes, exploding corpses in slow motion. Where has all the story and gameplay from Fallout 1+2 gone? Or do we need no story when we can have Bloom 3.0??

You know what? I am going to reinstall Fallout2 soon and replay it. Same as I did some months ago with Arcanum and JA2, which was great. The old games were 10x better than these new ones the mainstream is currently drooling over.

Bethesda is the undertaker of Fallout, nothing else.Doubt it. You cannot even comment on 'how much story' is in the game yet. From what I have seen, there is a ton of dialog.

I can see you have made up your mind already without any evidence to back it up. Bury your head in the sand then. Fine by me. You say this when the entire city of WA DC is rendered?

What I'm looking for is a good FPS RPG that can replace Deus Ex (The original) in my mind and I may just get it here.

-S

[stabiz]

Bioshock didn't cut it!

-S

:huh: How does the best FPS for ages not cut it? (Dont give me that old rant about corridors)

[Raptor1]

Bioshock didn't cut it!

-S
:huh: How does the best FPS for ages not cut it? (Dont give me that old rant about corridors)
It wasn't an RPG... (And I bet someone is gonne come and complain about BioShock at this point as well)

[Captain Vlad]

I detest slamming a game prior to release. All your comments are based on speculation.

Amen.

[Wolfehunter]

FO3 should tap the imagination if done right.

I detest slamming a game prior to release. All your comments are based on speculation. Something tells me this is the game of the year for 2008. Easy.

That is only my opinion though. We will not know till it is released.

-SIf done right I agree with you. But from what I've seen they haven't.

For the casual gamer this game will suffice. For the FO fan it will not.

Plus Beth has bad history with its fans. They don't care what we want. They only care about quantity, not quality.

Subman you may detest people who expressing there experiance with companies ripping clients off but thats your call dude.

I'm interested in a game that just give more than graphics and sound. Fewer companies meet my expectations these days.:nope:

Todays way of thinking for games differs than 10 years ago that is for sure.:-?

FO3 is a marketing gimmick nothing more.

[GlobalExplorer]

What I'm looking for is a good FPS RPG that can replace Deus Ex (The original) in my mind and I may just get it here.

-S

You already said that you are looking forward to FO3 because it will be Oblivion with Guns.

And I am fine with that.

I just don't want people to buy FO3 under the impression that it will be a continuation of Fallout 1+2. It should be judged for it's own merits as a somewhat story driven shooter with strong RPG elements but unfortunately no real focus and a over-simplified interface, but not just because they bought the license and no one will make a game like FO any more.

I can see you have made up your mind already without any evidence to back it up. Bury your head in the sand then. Fine by me. You say this when the entire city of WA DC is rendered?

As to me making up my mind up without any evidence, 1st this could be said about you as well, 2nd screenshots tell a discerning player a LOT about gameplay (and in FO3s case you can see there isnt a whole lot of options in either the dialogs or the gameplay) 3rd there are also the videos that already demonstrate what FO3 is mostly about: corpses exploding in bullet time.

I understand that some people are angry about my constant negativity but I am sick of the hype, and a lot of people are thinking like me. If you say I must not slag the game before I played it I might as well say I detest people hyping a game before release because of their hopes and expectations and the usual media wanking before any major release.

Or havent you not noticed how everyone said what a great game Oblivion was and gave it a 98% rating but now everyone says it was not such a good game after all?

[Dowly]

For focks sake! You can go on with this the next 20 pages with out a result other than the usual grammar policing and namecalling that is the last straw in internet debates when the other or both sides have ran out anything to say and only try to get the last word.

OR

You could shut up and wait for the damn game to be released before starting this darn circus.

The last I checked, everyone still have the right to their opinion. This' something that usually wont be changed, lastly on a internet forum with someone "faceless" telling you to.

Now, kiss and hug and go away, you all make me sick! :rotfl:

/Rant out, have a nice day. :up:

[GlobalExplorer]

You the "harmony" type or what?

The last I checked, everyone still have the right to their opinion. This' something that usually wont be changed, lastly on a internet forum with someone "faceless" telling you to.

No disagreement but imo this includes ALL opinions not just the easy to swallow ones.

[AJ!]

The last I checked, everyone still have the right to their opinion. This' something that usually wont be changed, lastly on a internet forum with someone "faceless" telling you to.

I totaly agree with dowly on this one. You dont know what you are arguing about or who you are arguing with. I mean for all you know dowly could infact be a Ferret wearing goggles who can type. Theres even a small chance i could be a relative of kermit ;)

[Wolfehunter]

What I'm looking for is a good FPS RPG that can replace Deus Ex (The original) in my mind and I may just get it here.

-S

You already said that you are looking forward to FO3 because it will be Oblivion with Guns.

And I am fine with that.

I just don't want people to buy FO3 under the impression that it will be a continuation of Fallout 1+2. It should be judged for it's own merits as a somewhat story driven shooter with strong RPG elements but unfortunately no real focus and a over-simplified interface, but not just because they bought the license and no one will make a game like FO any more.

I can see you have made up your mind already without any evidence to back it up. Bury your head in the sand then. Fine by me. You say this when the entire city of WA DC is rendered?

As to me making up my mind up without any evidence, 1st this could be said about you as well, 2nd screenshots tell a discerning player a LOT about gameplay (and in FO3s case you can see there isnt a whole lot of options in either the dialogs or the gameplay) 3rd there are also the videos that already demonstrate what FO3 is mostly about: corpses exploding in bullet time.

I understand that some people are angry about my constant negativity but I am sick of the hype, and a lot of people are thinking like me. If you say I must not slag the game before I played it I might as well say I detest people hyping a game before release because of their hopes and expectations and the usual media wanking before any major release.

Or havent you not noticed how everyone said what a great game Oblivion was and gave it a 98% rating but now everyone says it was not such a good game after all?

5 Also they have banned fan sites because of the outcry against Beth on Bethesda's reinvented Fallout.

6 They have paid off various reviewer to publish possitive news about Beth's new vision of FO.

I'm sure theres more but I care not to explain the details and show all the source in every forum I'm a member of. Too much work... lol

I'm happy that subman is happy about obivion with guns... Because thats what I told beth they should change the name to something other than FO3.

They told me its too late in this late day. I told them I said this to them years ago. Many other have repeated it to them also.

So reality is they don't care what you want. Why should you support something that they crap on you?

I don't get it. I don't support A-hole company. I support quality products not quanity.

Don't worry Dowly, I respect submans wishes. But others may read this and I'm helping inform them. Some will like FO3 and others won't.

That is life.

Nothing wrong in a clean verbal fight. As long as its clean and above the belt...;)

[GlobalExplorer]

I also don't get the fuss. Subman and others were ...... At the end of the day everyone will know who they want to believe. But I beg you to stop that pointing fingers at negative opinions, it has been attempted at other forums and it doesnt work, besides it is as annoying as anything else.

And btw I could quote Dowly and other posting very negative comments about other very unreleased games in other contexts, so my conscience is clear.

Now back to the game called "oversized shoulderpads ftw".

[GlobalExplorer]

And before someone asks if I have something personal with Bethesda: yes I have!

[Wolfehunter]

And before someone asks if I have something personal with Bethesda: yes I have!Me too!:shifty:

[stabiz]

I dont, I just go a bit meh from the ingame I have seen so far. Hope its good, though.

[kiwi_2005]

And before someone asks if I have something personal with Bethesda: yes I have!

Bethesda = Morrowind , Oblivion. They are great games. Even with Oblivion being more of an user friendly rpg, but still they are great games worth playing. Fallout 3 might not be 100% pro fallout like the previous games were but im sure the game wont be too disappointing.

Im just hoping my PC will run it nicely. She runs SH4 with all details on, but craps itself with Crisis. No way Fallout will have Crisis detail but still i want smooth gamplay or its another fork out for hardware!

[GlobalExplorer]

Im just hoping my PC will run it nicely. She runs SH4 with all details on, but craps itself with Crisis. No way Fallout will have Crisis detail but still i want smooth gamplay or its another fork out for hardware!

If the game's not not CPU bound, the 4850s can handle practically everything, and they're not expensive. I'm still about to understand how much of a performance jump it actually is over my previous GeForce 6800, between 5-10 times I'd say.

[NeonSamurai]

Lets ease back a bit, it's getting a wee bit too personal.

Now as for the topic, well we all seem to know pretty much what fallout 3 is going to be, oblivion set in the fallout world. This is not a remake of fallout 1 or 2, nor was it ever toted to be. The day of the original fallout games has long since past and will never return, and if it was made like the original Fallout games with 2d graphics, it probably wouldn't sell that well anyhow.

I'm also looking forward to this game. I enjoyed Oblivion in spite of all its flaws and the missing things. It was not a horrible or bug ridden game, though of course it could have been better (but they always can be "better"). I'm also not sure what is with all the hate towards Bethesda, compared to the big & evil game companies *cough*EA*cough* Bethesda isn't that bad. So what if they block anti Fallout 3 sites on their site, every game company will do that. Also just because they don't listen to you (or any group you may be associating with) doesn't mean they never listen. They have their own vision for the game which is different from yours.

I also suspect most people are remembering Fallout 1 and 2 in a more positive light then they really should be. They have become sanctified in the minds of some people (memory of favorite past events/games tend to become enhanced in the mind as time goes on and distorted. We forget all the little details we didn't like, and focus on all the stuff we did, turning what was a good game into a mystically wonderful game) and glow in memory with a holy light. Then answer with moral indignation when someone dares take these holy games and borrow from them to make a new but different game. This is why you have all these people foaming at the mouth over Fallout 3. Its blinding them to any possibility the new game may have.

Anyhow like i said, I myself am looking forward to Fallout 3. It looks like it could be a lot of fun, though I don't expect it to fully live up to all the hype (If Bethesda has a real fault, its that they tend to seriously over hype their games which is not a good thing). I know its not going to be fallout 1 and 2, and I'm quite happy with that (if i want fallout 1 & 2, I would play Fallout 1 & 2).

<All views and opinions expressed in this post are solely the views and opinions of myself and do not reflect those of Subsim.com, Neal, or fellow staff members>

[GlobalExplorer]

Getting personal, only because people disagree on an issue? I don't want to step on anyones toes, but I simply can not be quite about this "phenomenon". I hope you people can tolerate somehow that I am beginning ot get a p.i.t.a.

I also suspect most people are remembering Fallout 1 and 2 in a more positive light then they really should be.

Could you please present concrete arguments why you think most people are romanticizing Fallout? I played it just some months ago and its gameplay and storywriting leave current RPGs look pretty superfluous, despite graphics of course.

If you don't know what I am talking about I contest that you have played Fallout a lot. Or have you ever gotten as far as to discover that combat in FO2 was strictly turn based, unusually well balanced and how it was requiring really intricate strategy? And how every gameplay decision made sense after you got a bit deeper into the game? That there were branching storylines with choice and consequence? Few games have ever come so close to perfection.

Or do people really buy Bethesdas lates joke that turnbased combat = bullet time with options to target head or torso?

[Wolfehunter]

See the thing about Bethesda is their DRMs are reasonable but games lately are bogus. EA have amazing games but DRMs are draconic. Both companies have problems.

Bethesda problem is the final product. Its a quick fix for a cheap drug. Your high will only last a short time before you hit your downer. There are better games out there that can continue to give a high.... with very few side effects.

What bethesda should have done was keep this game for console and spare the PC world of another over exagerated wannaby Fallout.

PC gaming world has never been big on profit. Console world has been all about big cash. If they want the greed they should stay with the other platforms.

If I want to play a PC game I expect it to be a PC game not a revamp Console game.

I'm not part of that Wii, PS3 and XBOX guru groupie cult. I'm just an old PC nerd.... And proud of it.:rock:

I'll wait till Diablo III comes out. :up:

Lets face it Pete Hines is an ******* and he has changed Bethesda just when Morrowind was being developed. For the better? Depend on how you look at it.

Why are PC dev companies being force to change? Why should the PC gamer have to accept the crap that is being put out lately because a console boy wants it so?

Good thing some new small PC dev companies are make new games not fancy stuff like EA, ID or THQ but good games for a decent price.

[NeonSamurai]

Could you please present concrete arguments why you think most people are romanticizing Fallout? I played it just some months ago and its gameplay and storywriting leave current RPGs look pretty superfluous, despite graphics of course.
Do you want studies and research papers on this psychological phenomenon? Contrary to popular conception memory is not a fixed unchanging thing. Our memories change and flow and get colored by us. Positive memories tend to be further enhanced (nostalgia) and colored as time passes, negative memories tend to also be negatively enhanced, made to be worse then it actually was. What I'm pointing out is that Fallout 1 and 2 were probably not quite as good as people remember (I'm not saying by any means it was a bad game, nor am I trying to point out any specific flaws. Personally I don't remember either game very well at all, I remember playing them but not much else.), and that this enhanced memory may be affecting our view of this new game. The venom/rabidness that one sees in discussions on the net about this game easily demonstrate that people are romanticizing the original Fallout to at least some degree.

If you don't know what I am talking about I contest that you have played Fallout a lot. Or have you ever gotten as far as to discover that combat in FO2 was strictly turn based, unusually well balanced and how it was requiring really intricate strategy? And how every gameplay decision made sense after you got a bit deeper into the game? That there were branching storylines with choice and consequence? Few games have ever come so close to perfection.
Like i said this isn't a remake. This is a new game played very differently then the original 2. So of course it wont be turn based (turn based does not go with first person very well and Bethesda wanted to go with the ability to play it as a FPS and still have some elements of turn based game play; I'm not a big fan of turn based combat, so I have no issue with their decision). As for the rest we will have to see when the game is released. You can't comment on the strategy elements, gameplay and storylines with out having played the game.

See the thing about Bethesda is their DRMs are reasonable but games lately are bogus. EA have amazing games but DRMs are draconic. Both companies have problems.
With out getting on EAs back (I could, I really could. I don't entirely agree with your statement of EA having amazing games, but given my position here I'm not going to get into that) I will dissagree with that statement. I assume your comment is mainly aimed at Oblivion, and I have to say that I liked Oblivion and I still play it, I also liked Morrowind too, but for completely different reasons. Also I'm as old school a PC gamer as you can get (I go all the way back right to the beginning of home video gaming). However I don't think that Beth is perfect either (they certainly do have their faults, over hyping and unpolished games are 2 examples).

As for Diablo 3, I'm half looking forward to it, and half worried. Blizzard isn't the same company it was since WoW, and Diablo 3 is looking to be an almost complete rehash of diablo 2.

Lastly as for the indi companies, yes some of them produce some really nice and cool games (some are even free). But they can have their flaws as well. Simple fact of the matter is you can't have it both ways, you can't have realy awsome eyepoping graphics in a game with major depth and design, to do both would be way to costly and time consuming. Sacrifices must always be made.

[Rilder]

See the thing about Bethesda is their DRMs are reasonable but games lately are bogus. EA have amazing games but DRMs are draconic. Both companies have problems.


Both game companies suck imho.

They both like to throw out shoddy linear storyline games with no freedom.

As such; Indie, open source and freeware/donationware will always be better.

I mean look at dwarf fortress, the game is bloody free and the single developer makes a game so awesome that he was able to quit his day job because of all the donations he gets. Not only that but dwarf fortress is better then 97.2% of other games.

[Wolfehunter]

See the thing about Bethesda is their DRMs are reasonable but games lately are bogus. EA have amazing games but DRMs are draconic. Both companies have problems.
With out getting on EAs back (I could, I really could. I don't entirely agree with your statement of EA having amazing games, but given my position here I'm not going to get into that) I will dissagree with that statement. I assume your comment is mainly aimed at Oblivion, and I have to say that I liked Oblivion and I still play it, I also liked Morrowind too, but for completely different reasons. Also I'm as old school a PC gamer as you can get (I go all the way back right to the beginning of home video gaming). However I don't think that Beth is perfect either (they certainly do have their faults, over hyping and unpolished games are 2 examples).

As for Diablo 3, I'm half looking forward to it, and half worried. Blizzard isn't the same company it was since WoW, and Diablo 3 is looking to be an almost complete rehash of diablo 2.

Lastly as for the indi companies, yes some of them produce some really nice and cool games (some are even free). But they can have their flaws as well. Simple fact of the matter is you can't have it both ways, you can't have realy awsome eyepoping graphics in a game with major depth and design, to do both would be way to costly and time consuming. Sacrifices must always be made.NS I'm also and old time gamer since zork and space quest 4 colour version and kings quest.

I was very brief on the detials about beth an EA etc. There are alot of factors involved. Too much to write and too much sources to quote.

I like arena and daggerfall also Morrowind. Best beth has put out. Oblivion when it was in development I was so excited with all the reviews and promises. When I got it as soon as I left the sewer I started loosing interest. I'm sorry guys Oblivion is soo freaking boring. AI is a joke. Everything is repetitive.

I can understand arena and daggerfall even morrowind. Technologies wasn't there and still their a good game for the times.

My history with beth is long. They have changed since Pete took control.

Yes I know diablo 3 isn't like it was and thats ok. Blizzard has changed also years ago like you said since wow. But their trying to please there old fan base.

Will it work? Don't know.

EA there are war with piracy and they don't care about the colateral damage to the honest clients.

THQ is similar to EA.

I used to support Stardock untill central and now Impulse is forced to use to get updates. There is no other way to get game fixes. :down:

Only company that I support now is Egosoft. They support there fanbase and work with the mod communities. I hope their lastest release TerranConflict will rock. Or That will be it for me with PC games for the uber companies.

GSC they screwed up CS big time. But some people got fired and now with new adimistration who knows...? They may redeem themselves..

Ubisoft which has and nice office near my town hehehe. So if they tick me off I know where to knock. They don't work with the mod community much.. Soo well you get the idea.

I don't care for graphics or super sound effect. For crying out loud I still play Starflight II one of my favorite games of all times aside with Fallout 1 & 2

[GlobalExplorer]

Do you want studies and research papers on this psychological phenomenon? Contrary to popular conception memory is not a fixed unchanging thing. Our memories change and flow and get colored by us. Positive memories tend to be further enhanced (nostalgia) and colored as time passes, negative memories tend to also be negatively enhanced, made to be worse then it actually was. What I'm pointing out is that Fallout 1 and 2 were probably not quite as good as people remember (I'm not saying by any means it was a bad game, nor am I trying to point out any specific flaws.

Hullooooo, I just said there are a lot of people still playing it, including myself! And these game still are the pinnacle in gameplay, especially Fallout 1 and Jagged Alliance 2. Nice try with your selective memory theory but it's a shot in the dark.

Personally I don't remember either game very well at all, I remember playing them but not much else.)

I'm not a big fan of turn based combat, so I have no issue with their decision).

Couldn't have said it better myself, you don't know Fallout a lot!

[AJ!]

Too be honist wolfehunter at the end of the day it is only a computer game. I can see you take games quite seriously and that is fine but i think one thing you forget is many people just play games for fun. Many people arnt worried if it isnt like a old game with the same name and im positive most people dont care who makes the game. Subman has said originaly that he only wants a RPG, FPS and not a game which is true to a series that most casual gamers have never heard of ;)

[Wolfehunter]

Too be honist wolfehunter at the end of the day it is only a computer game. I can see you take games quite seriously and that is fine but i think one thing you forget is many people just play games for fun. Many people arnt worried if it isnt like a old game with the same name and im positive most people dont care who makes the game. Subman has said originaly that he only wants a RPG, FPS and not a game which is true to a series that most casual gamers have never heard of ;)Your absolutely right.:yep:

I'm a hard core gamer. I know the average casual gamer don't care... Trust me I know.

I'm a minoraty. Small voice. Little fishy. :rotfl: :up:

[AJ!]

Fair play :p. i wasnt expecting such a mature response :rotfl:

[NeonSamurai]

@Wolfehunter

I understand where your coming from and in many aspects I agree, I can also be a pretty hard core gamer and I generally prefer games with depth (I play Dwarf Fortress for example). But I can also accept more casual games and still enjoy them (especially when i get done modding the heck out of them for myself. Damn near every game I play I've done either light or extensive modding to, often using other peoples mods meshed in with my own.). As for Bethesda I also go pretty far back (Terminator series anyone?). Like all companies there are good and bad things to them, some have a lot more good then bad, others have a lot more bad then good (I love Egosoft, though I wanted to hurt them for initially putting !@$% starforce on X3 Reunion)


@GlobalExplorer

Ok first off, its not a personal theory. If I really wanted to, I could write a 2000+ word paper on the dynamics of whats going on from a psychological perspective with a full bibliography and sources. However I'm not going to as A) I doubt anyone here would really want to read it, and B) I don't have the time (or real interest) to bother.

Second I'm not talking about selective memory, that is something else (though it is related). Also having recently replayed the game does not necessarily eliminate the effects I'm talking about (sometimes it can but often it doesn't), the sense of nostalgia and other emotions/memories can still cloud/influence recent perception of something to varying degrees. But again this is only a slice of the full picture.

I am commenting on observed behavior (the use of language and intent in this case not physical behavior) and possible reasons for said behavior, in particular the heightened sensitivity to this particular game from certain segments of the community. This is not the only thing going on but does explain in part why there are such extreme views and such frothing hatred for a game no one has even played yet.

Last, my knowledge and memories of the original Fallout series are utterly irrelevant. We arn't discussing those games, we are talking about Fallout 3, which is a different and new game using the Fallout world. If this was a true remake I probably would not overly interested in the game (I also don't really agree with your opinion that Fallout and JA2 were pinnacles in gaming. For me none of them were particularly noteworthy other then being fairly solid games.). I also don't need to know squat about any of those games to be able to observe the behavioral (written) dynamics or comment on them (in fact technically that makes me a much better observer since I have no vested interest in it, and so lack that bias). So no it wasn't a shot in the dark as you put it, my observation is pretty accurate, but I wasn't offering a complete picture of the situation.


Anyhow all that said, I will again state that everyone here is entitled to their own opinions, and are free to express them provided they do so in a respectful and appropriate manner here. Flaming, baiting and personal attacks will not be tolerated, so keep that in mind (this isn't aimed at anyone in particular btw).

[GlobalExplorer]

A really interesting subject, it really is. Maybe we should continue that in the GF. However, must insist my personal account is an absolute antidote to your theory. I played Fallout 1 the first time in 2003, and that was a long time after I played (and enjoyed) Morrowind. Played straight through in a week, first time I did finish a game in years. I cannot be romanticizing because me playing the game at that time was already considered a freakish incident, when I showed it to friends the first time they were incredulous, but in spite of them being mostly hopeless graphic whores they were later on admitting that the difference in gameplay was noticeable.

Btw, good sport, but that lighthearted comment you made about JA2 would make you look quite an idiot at other places, just wanted to tell ya. One should not make such comments about one of the greatest games of all times without something big on one's sleeve. Bit like saying chess is a stupid game if you don't know the rules. The comparison to chess is not arbitrary but actually very fitting, that's the key to understanding JA2 and, to a lesser extent, the combat in Fallout.

Anyway, if we now all agree that Fallout 3 is not related to Fallout except the license and those ideas that Beth could fit into the Oblivion formula, I can let it rest. Feel I have said too much here already anyway.

[Wolfehunter]

@Wolfehunter

I understand where your coming from and in many aspects I agree, I can also be a pretty hard core gamer and I generally prefer games with depth (I play Dwarf Fortress for example). But I can also accept more casual games and still enjoy them (especially when i get done modding the heck out of them for myself. Damn near every game I play I've done either light or extensive modding to, often using other peoples mods meshed in with my own.). As for Bethesda I also go pretty far back (Terminator series anyone?). Like all companies there are good and bad things to them, some have a lot more good then bad, others have a lot more bad then good (I love Egosoft, though I wanted to hurt them for initially putting !@$% starforce on X3 Reunion)

Yes I remember Terminator. My cousin showed it to me first before I bought it years ago. Was cool for its time.:D

X3 Reunion with the last few patches removed Starforce ages ago.:up:

Its a big patch because they have added many extra content that was created by the mod community.

[NeonSamurai]

There is a loose relationship between fallout 1&2 and fallout 3, same world so to speak, and there is a fair amount borrowed from it, but other wise it's different game.

JA2 I'm not going to get into much. I didn't care for it a whole lot, but then I'm generally not a huge fan of turn based games. It wasn't a horrible game, but it certainly was not the pinnacle of gaming either and had its share of faults. If people want to think me an "idiot" for feeling that way then so be it, I honestly could care less (people who go around labeling others idiots for thinking differently are often the idiots themselves). You think its one of the greatest games of all times, that's your opinion and that's fine. I don't think that way as I'm sure do other people, and that's also fine.

Thinking that I can't play a game = I don't like the game is also false. I beat JA2, I've beat Fallout 1&2 when they came out too. I can play those sort of games just fine, I simply don't care for the genre.

As for you yourself romanticizing (not the word I would choose) the original Fallout games, you still may well be to a certain degree. I'm not spinning theory out of thin air here. Even if you actually are not, it still does not disprove what I am saying in general. Your previous memories and experiences are clouding your decisions on this game causing you to make absolute judgments on the game because it is not a cloned version of Fallout 1 and 2 with new graphics, its something else. But that's your prerogative.

Anyhow I've had enough debating this.

@Wolfehunter

Yep I knew about that patch, X3 Reunion is installed right now and I'm still playing it (i also modded the heck out of it).

[GlobalExplorer]

Everyone can go to their local gameshop and check what's the oldest game they have. Chances are high that it will be JA2, even CAOTD has slowly dissapeared but JA2 is still sold, after 10 years.

And as practically every argument has been presented by both camps, in the end why not check yourselves by playing Fallout and JA2? These games run fine on XP, cost next to nothing, and chances are you will be in for a surprise. You quickly adapt to the outdated graphics, it takes only a couple of hours and you won't notice any more.

[Wolfehunter]

I can't ever seem to enjoy a good flight similator because of the crapy joysticks... I've bought so many of them from so many companies and they never properly align or just go wacky. I hate that. I'm about to shoot a dude and If I get an area on the stick that is funky it all goes to hell.

Even with X3 Reunion I have trouble with it. I don't want any of that force feed back nonsense. Just a stable joystick that works perfectly....

Any suggestions.:hmm:

Don't say logitech... I've about all their main uber models in the last few years and there geting better but still get worse after a few flights.

Yes I re align them again before each game. Just encase.

[CaptHawkeye]

I love how people think you shouldn't buy Fallout 3 because it isn't "Fallout" enough. Ya know, no more things like sprites, top-down cameras, turn based combat, and other relics from the 90s that should stay dead. :)

[NeonSamurai]

Though I am looking forward to Fallout 3, and I generally don't much care for turn based combat (there are a few exceptions for me such as steel panthers and other similar tactical/strategic simulations). I can understand where people are coming from. Fallout 3 is a radical departure from Fallout 1&2 and there are those who aren't happy about it as they want effectively a remake of the originals (though I would bet most would be in the end unhappy even if it was a remake, remakes very rarely capture the feel and emotional quality of the original game).

I also don't think turn based combat is dead, in fact I think for larger scale operations it is the only way to effectively model combat, when your dealing with utterly brain dead units that can't even tie their own laces with out direct orders (sometimes in triplicate) from the player; this is one of those things that drives me crazy about most RTS games, the utter lack of anything but the most primitive form of unit AI. I will say though that turn based combat for me does not mesh well with RPG games. Also I will mention that turn based combat also has odd mechanics that don't exactly work in reality (like who ever acts first invariably suffers the most).


As for joysticks, well I am quite happy with my X-52 (non pro) for the price its a pretty darn good HOTAS stick so far (had it about 4 months now) its silky smooth on all axises and very precise. However Saitek sometimes has quality control problems and releases batches of defective sticks, so check it carefully before the return date expires. Also it can be very finicky about the USB power output of your system as the stick is on the upper limits of what USB can deliver power wise. If the X-52 is out of your price range, the Saitek cyborg is also very well rated (though harder to find now) but not quite as good of course as the X-52. I wouldn't recommend the aviator as its cheaper and flimsy.

[Rilder]

I love how people think you shouldn't buy Fallout 3 because it isn't "Fallout" enough. Ya know, no more things like sprites, top-down cameras, turn based combat, and other relics from the 90s that should stay dead. :)

Whats wrong with any of that?


I for one care nothing about graphics (Navy field and Dwarf fortress fan here)

Turn based combat can be fun, personally I think RTS gameplay is too fast paced and doesn't allow me to think effectively so I just end up spamming orders and crap without actually enjoying the game.

[GlobalExplorer]

I amuses me how people think turnbased is a thing of the past and associate it with cheap indy productions that can "just" affort turnbased whereas only the premium games can have realtime.

I guess you heard of chess and you realize that a lot more people would be able to play if there were a realtime version? No more complex boring rulesets ya know? Realtime chess!

[CaptHawkeye]

Or maybe, some guys just think turn-based is a stupid arbitrary rule set of stupid arbitrary number crunching consisting entirely of pre-set numbers. Your choices are to rule your opponent, or get ruled yourself! Amazing decisions to be made!

I guess you heard of chess and you realize that a lot more people would be able to play if there were a realtime version? No more complex boring rulesets ya know? Realtime chess!

So this logic would still apply if Chess was created in 2006, right? Clearly video games, despite the awesome power of computer tech available to them, should do everything in their power to be dice-tossing board games!

I like how you also associate "turn based" with "complex". You mean potion/health pack spam and stat padding are complex? Do tell. :lol:

[Rilder]

Or maybe, some guys just think turn-based is a stupid arbitrary rule set of stupid arbitrary number crunching consisting entirely of pre-set numbers. Your choices are to rule your opponent, or get ruled yourself! Amazing decisions to be made!

I guess you heard of chess and you realize that a lot more people would be able to play if there were a realtime version? No more complex boring rulesets ya know? Realtime chess!

So this logic would still apply if Chess was created in 2006, right? Clearly video games, despite the awesome power of computer tech available to them, should do everything in their power to be dice-tossing board games!

I like how you also associate "turn based" with "complex". You mean potion/health pack spam and stat padding are complex? Do tell. :lol:

I like how your generalising turn based games into a single game type were you can potion spam and stat pad.

Given some good ideas and todays technology, some awesome stuff could be done with turn based combat.

Of course if everyone is like you then turn based games can only be a certain way, Right?

[Captain Vlad]

I can't ever seem to enjoy a good flight similator because of the crapy joysticks... I've bought so many of them from so many companies and they never properly align or just go wacky. I hate that. I'm about to shoot a dude and If I get an area on the stick that is funky it all goes to hell.

Lemme guess: big hands?

[d@rk51d3]

I amuses me how people think turnbased is a thing of the past and associate it with cheap indy productions that can "just" affort turnbased whereas only the premium games can have realtime.

I guess you heard of chess and you realize that a lot more people would be able to play if there were a realtime version? No more complex boring rulesets ya know? Realtime chess!


Archon (1). One of my all time favourites. Both turn based and realtime. :rock:

[GlobalExplorer]

CaptHawkeye, I am not sure if you really understand what I was talking about, and I would like to ask you these two questions:

a) Do you play Chess enough to consider yourself a chess players?
b) Do you play any turn based computer games on a competent level?

If the answer to both these questions is NO, I think you are out of your depth with badmouthing turn based games, and will probably have a great time with Fallout 3. No pun.

If the answers are a: YES b: NO I would strongly advise you to play Jagged Alliance 2 asap, and you should later on turn to other turnbased games like Fallout. You will be infinitely thankful to me.

If the answer is b: YES you are lying because then you wouldnt have said what you said.

I like how you also associate "turn based" with "complex". You mean potion/health pack spam and stat padding are complex? Do tell. :lol:

I am not associating "turn based = complex" nor "turn based = rocks" nor "realtime = sucks". What I am saying is that no realtime game ever can offer the strategic depth of a turnbased one, hence the resorting to a methaphore: realtime chess.

What I am saying, however, is "Fallout = turnbased combat".

So this logic would still apply if Chess was created in 2006, right? Clearly video games, despite the awesome power of computer tech available to them, should do everything in their power to be dice-tossing board games!

I guess we're getting to the real issues here. Imagine this thread was " 1 month from Chess 3 ", developed by Bethesda Softworks. Imagine, what would Chess 3 look like, and what would the chess players say?


P.S. I said I am easing off but am now back with a vengeance because the topic is now: "are turn based games becoming superfluous since we now have NexGen consoles and Bethesda Softworks", and I definitely can't stand still with that!

[Raptor1]

What I am saying is that no realtime game ever can offer the strategic depth of a turnbased one, hence the resorting to a methaphore: realtime chess.

I'm sorry, but have you ever played Paradox's Victoria or Hearts of Iron (2)?

[GlobalExplorer]

I have played the latter, good point though. But I always paused to give orders and then let it run for a while, and then paused again. Never understood the reasons behind making the game realtime, would work better if turnbased imo.

[CaptHawkeye]

I am not associating "turn based = complex" nor "turn based = rocks" nor "realtime = sucks". What I am saying is that no realtime game ever can offer the strategic depth of a turnbased one, hence the resorting to a methaphore: realtime chess.

See, in order to make this claim, first you need to make the critical assumption that turn based games are strategic in the first place. Then you need to PROVE that clear-set number stats are somehow more "strategic" than realtime combat, which relies more on perception of the conditions you're in. At least when it isn't lame and stupid like linear corridor-em-ups like Crysis and Halo.


I guess we're getting to the real issues here. Imagine this thread was " 1 month from Chess 3 ", developed by Bethesda Softworks. Imagine, what would Chess 3 look like, and what would the chess players say?

I imagine they'd be pretty angry that Bethesda basically just hadn't repackeged Chess 1 for them. That's pretty much the whole gist of the "Fallout 3 isn't Fallout 1 enough" argument. :lol:


I like how your generalising turn based games into a single game type were you can potion spam and stat pad.

:lol: Find me a game using typical turn-based sluging that CAN'T be brought down to simple number-spam list fights.

Given some good ideas and todays technology, some awesome stuff could be done with turn based combat.

So basically, you admit they've been putting zero effort into advancing turn based combat in any meaningful way? Fancy that! That's only the whole damn crux of my argument!


Of course if everyone is like you then turn based games can only be a certain way, Right?

:lol: Or they could be like you, and wank ceaselessly to the "promise" of a new evolution in turn based fighting that NEVER seems to matieralize for some strange reason.

[GlobalExplorer]

Am I correct to assume, as you did not answer my 2 questions, that you don't know jack about turn based tactics?

Raptor1 gave a very good counter example to my claims but with you I get the impression that you dislike turn based mechanics just because you don't understand them.

[Raptor1]

I don't think HoI2 would've been better turn-based, you couldn't do stuff like quickly divert forces from one battle to another or encircle enemy forces properly

Overall, turn-based games have their merits, but I think a well made real-time game can have just as much strategic depth as a turn-based one

[Rilder]

:lol: Or they could be like you, and wank ceaselessly to the "promise" of a new evolution in turn based fighting that NEVER seems to matieralize for some strange reason.

If I could make games I'd at least try.

Find me a game using typical turn-based sluging that CAN'T be brought down to simple number-spam list fights.


What the hell are you talking about?

Also Like I said earlier, most RTSes like CoH are so bloody fast paced that you can't enjoy the game, you just end up spamming orders to the best of your ability, theres no room to think, plan, strategise.

HOI2 is one of the few RTSes that I like, but thats because you can pause and still play.

[CaptHawkeye]

Am I correct to assume, as you did not answer my 2 questions, that you don't know jack about turn based tactics?

Nah, I just don't like bull "pre conditions" and loaded questions. It turns out the armchair psychiatrist routine is just a blatently stupid diversion tactic.

I'm amused you think "leet skillz" are even the slighest relevance to the discussion though. Especially because never once in this argument did it occur to you that the reason I hate turn based games is because I think they're stupid easy.
Hence my complaints about the predictable mechanics and "stat padding"? That really didn't occur to you? The whole time? :lol:

Raptor1 gave a very good counter example to my claims but with you I get the impression that you dislike turn based mechanics just because you don't understand them.

So I hear "objectivity" is limited by the pwning powa of the player right? Funny how the dictionary definition doesn't support that. But hey, to you, if I hate a type of gameplay it must be because I suck at it. :lol:

Oh, actually address my arguments next time. Your posts are nothing but thinly veiled character attacks at this point.

[CaptHawkeye]

If I could make games I'd at least try.

Why bother? Anything you could do in turn based you could do in real time better and it wouldn't even take as much effort and time to program.

Luckily for the Fallout Jihadists, Bethesda is actually doing that with VATS. Which I think is them being too nice really, since VATS will inevitably be full of pandering nonsense like "stat bonuses" for the fanboys.


What the hell are you talking about?

Old turn based games like Fallout. Turn based combat stemmed from the limitations of the technology, not because it was "more strategic" than real-time. The only argument anyone can ever formulate in its defense is basically one motivated by nostalgia and nothing more.

Also Like I said earlier, most RTSes like CoH are so bloody fast paced that you can't enjoy the game, you just end up spamming orders to the best of your ability, theres no room to think, plan, strategise.

Actually, I hate Company of Heroes because it's a tech-menu simulator like a lot of RTS games. The only challenge is figuring how to time your mouse clicks and voila, map = over.

HOI2 is one of the few RTSes that I like, but thats because you can pause and still play.

Now if only Paradox could make a user interface that wasn't broken by huge menus of irrelevant microing. :)

[Wolfehunter]

As for joysticks, well I am quite happy with my X-52 (non pro) for the price its a pretty darn good HOTAS stick so far (had it about 4 months now) its silky smooth on all axises and very precise. However Saitek sometimes has quality control problems and releases batches of defective sticks, so check it carefully before the return date expires. Also it can be very finicky about the USB power output of your system as the stick is on the upper limits of what USB can deliver power wise. If the X-52 is out of your price range, the Saitek cyborg is also very well rated (though harder to find now) but not quite as good of course as the X-52. I wouldn't recommend the aviator as its cheaper and flimsy.Thanks for the heads up.

I'm going to look into this joystick X-52 sounds cool..:up:

[Wolfehunter]

Luckily for the Fallout Jihadists, Bethesda is actually doing that with VATS. Which I think is them being too nice really, since VATS will inevitably be full of pandering nonsense like "stat bonuses" for the fanboys.

FYI Fallout 3 isn't designed for the Jihadists but new blood. Pete Hines has already mentioned it in many interviews that most hardcore Jihadist won't like this game. His intent was for the casual gamer. Fallout series was base on gurps a table top game system. Fallout was intended for that type of fan base. Not a shooter groupie cult.
Anyhow there is enough shooter games out there.

So your statement isn't correct.

Sorry Mr. Hawk.

[Raptor1]

Now if only Paradox could make a user interface that wasn't broken by huge menus of irrelevant microing. :)

Play Victoria, it has a huge sidebar full of irrelevant microing

[Dr. Britain]

Ya know, no more things like sprites, top-down cameras, turn based combat, and other relics from the 90s that should stay dead.Turn based combat stemmed from the limitations of the technology
Bull****. And how exactly is turn-based considered a relic of the past that should stay dead and real time isn't? In case you didn't know, some of the oldest games made were real-time, I'm talking games made during the late 70's and during the 80's. Games weren't made turn-based becaue of technical limitations, to say and believe so is foolish.

Same goes for top-down camera. It's just as old as the first-person camera. They've both been part of gaming since the beginning, and are still used in many games made today. Same also goes for 2D graphics. None are relics meant to be forgotten.

Anything you could do in turn based you could do in real time better and it wouldn't even take as much effort and time to program.
To say one could do better than the other is just plain dumb, since both gameplay styles offer different types of strategy play that the other cannot do.

[GlobalExplorer]

Old turn based games like Fallout. Turn based combat stemmed from the limitations of the technology, not because it was "more strategic" than real-time. The only argument anyone can ever formulate in its defense is basically one motivated by nostalgia and nothing more.

Look, this is simply not true.

But in order to prove the superiority of turn based principle one would need to demonstrate that they allow for the better tactics and/or strategies. I am convinced this is the case from empiric evidence (~ 20 years gaming), but I cannot convince other people who did not play the same games (PG, FO, JA2), or have a differing opinion of them.

For me the essence of the turnbased game is modelling a real world problem, in a ruleset that is a simple as possible, allowing strategies as complex as possible (CHESS!). Compare that to your average realtime game. You order someone do to something and see what happens. If this is done well (the early Total War) it feels more realistic and unpredictable, but wouldn't it always become more strategic if it was turn based?

I thought I could get way with just pointing out that realtime games are not as strategically deep but then Raptor brought up Paradox games, which I don't like but respect, and he brought up a good argument. Personally I never saw the advantage of a strategy game being realtime except creating time pressure (like let's say multiplayer battles in a Total War game). This is nullified as most people will use pause to give orders anyway, so I think they already work in kind of turnbased mode.

What remains is the unpredictability, the real time principle is better in taking away the causal link between action and consequence, and in this way more like real life.

But may I add real life is not "strategically deep". There are advantages and disadvantages.

[NeonSamurai]

That though brings up one of the bigger flaws of turn based games when trying to model reality. Turn based games lack pressure, you can spend a minute or a year planning out your next "turn" of 10 seconds of game combat. It also doesn't really offer any advanced layers strategy either. All it gives you is more time to plot out your moves to the Nth level and consider all the possibilities. It also lets you get around the poor unit AI of most strat games by being able to order around each unit in detail.

At this point I should point out that I'm not a fan of the gather resources and mob the enemy type of RTS (warcraft, starcraft, C&C, etc). I think those ones are pretty shallow in nature and lack a lot tactically (there are a few exceptions). I'm talking games like Total War (especialy shogun). Those games are very deep on the strategic and tactical level of combat, and you have to do things in real time as a real general would. I play with out pausing as well, which forces me to think and react quickly to what the enemy is doing.

As for chess, well its all well and good, but on the real battlefield (past or modern) it doesn't teach a whole lot about warfare or how to be a good general or commander. Doesn't even teach strategy or tactics. About the only main thing chess teaches, is not to fight in the present sense, but in the future. That doesn't make chess a bad game at all, chess is a very good game, but it has little basis in reality.

[BlackDeath5150]

Fallout 3! I can't wait. Fallout is my favorite RPG. I also loved Wasteland for DOS. I can remember the critacisim of Fallout 2, but I loved the game and so do may others. I wonder if people had this debate about Fallout 1 versus it's spiritual origin Wasteland. Both different games but they are both good. Those two games used new tech for their time. This new arguement of Fallout 3 is very similar. New tech new company (albeit a very good one) new day. If you've ever played oblivion and you know of Bethesda's mod community support than fallout 3 really has potential to be as good as the community has effort for. The mods for oblivion are second in scope and quality only to SH 4 and 3. I read somewhere here that most of the game is reinvented, but I know just as much as anyone can or does about the game and didn't see that or get that impression at all. I havent heard a mention of the brotherhood of steel Fallout Tactics. I have it and it really kinda sucks. It used the same engine was made by interplay. So I think like many have said this arguement is absolutley opinionated and irrelavent. Let people like me get the game and I'll be sure to tell you how it is. I mean saying you know enough about the company and the designers to tell how good the game will be, seems silly, not to mention way judgemental. Let Bethesda do their jobs so we can do ours (play games). This is maybe my third post here, I just really like Fallout and post apoctoliptic games alike.:yep:

[BlackDeath5150]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye
Old turn based games like Fallout. Turn based combat stemmed from the limitations of the technology, not because it was "more strategic" than real-time. The only argument anyone can ever formulate in its defense is basically one motivated by nostalgia and nothing more.


I don't see how people can't see this is at least part way true. Look at early pc games (wargames and pen and paper adaptations IE fallout wasteland D&D) all use turn base because they are adaptations of board games that use turn based combat systems. And games like wasteland, D&D, Bard's Tale, These are very early and set a precedence for games like JA 1 and 2 or 101st invasion of Normandy. Newer games like Totalwar series (which I love and have loved for ten years) Use real time combat system and is the best strategic and tactical representation of ancient combat to date. Also a unknown game called Combat Mission uses a form of turn based/realtime to depict WWII combat that works amazing. I think there is more historical evidence to prove turnbased gaming was created due to technology and a mindset carried over from board or tabletop gaming of the pre computer age. Don't get me wrong however I play ALL games, computer and board games. I love turn Based but I think there have been more realistic engines created to depicte combat of sort. (for another great medeval RPG that uses realtime combat Look at the Game Mount and Blade. I have it and it's the best I have played maybe ever as far as the realtime combat is concerned)

[BlackDeath5150]

Why do people keep refering to Early total war? All the games have been great! I'm playing medieval total war 2 right now!

[Rilder]

Medieval2:total war was a big failure in my opinion.

Europa Barbarorum however was the best thing to ever happen to the total war series. :p

[N1]

That though brings up one of the bigger flaws of turn based games when trying to model reality. Turn based games lack pressure, you can spend a minute or a year planning out your next "turn" of 10 seconds of game combat. It also doesn't really offer any advanced layers strategy either. All it gives you is more time to plot out your moves to the Nth level and consider all the possibilities. It also lets you get around the poor unit AI of most strat games by being able to order around each unit in detail.

At this point I should point out that I'm not a fan of the gather resources and mob the enemy type of RTS (warcraft, starcraft, C&C, etc). I think those ones are pretty shallow in nature and lack a lot tactically (there are a few exceptions). I'm talking games like Total War (especialy shogun). Those games are very deep on the strategic and tactical level of combat, and you have to do things in real time as a real general would. I play with out pausing as well, which forces me to think and react quickly to what the enemy is doing.

As for chess, well its all well and good, but on the real battlefield (past or modern) it doesn't teach a whole lot about warfare or how to be a good general or commander. Doesn't even teach strategy or tactics. About the only main thing chess teaches, is not to fight in the present sense, but in the future. That doesn't make chess a bad game at all, chess is a very good game, but it has little basis in reality.
TB is as much a simulation of reality as RT. Both leave out or add different aspects of/to reality to be able to simulate it properly.

RT, while representing a realistic time flow, can't simulate the amount of information we perceive and choices we make in given situations. The computer simulation doesn't match up to the speed of our cognitive and decision-making functions - if we were there, we'd perceive more and faster, we'd come quicker to conclusions and we'd be able to act in an instant. Add to that our ability to effectively multi-task, and you have to reduce complexity in order to make a playable game. Hence the simplicity linked to RT.

In contrast to that, TB, while being unable to realistically implement time flow, makes it possible for the developers to present all the information we'd gather in a given situation, while giving us all the options to act accordingly in a realistic manner. You have to add options, otherwise you can go with RT. Hence the associated complexity.

To add half the options you can have in TB games to RT games, you need to add a pause function, which effectively makes it quasi phase based - which is one form of TB (the turns are played out simultaneously). That's TB minus the tension when you've got to watch how everything plays out (one of the reasons why I hate RTwP - you neither have the time pressure from RT games, nor the tension and helplessness you experience in TB games when the turn is played out, making it, in comparison, quite a bland experience).

Apart from that, no TB or RT game is realistic - especially if we're talking about strategy/tactical games. A general doesn't have eyes everywhere and he can't issue commands to anybody anytime. In reality he doesn't need to most of the time, because he's got self-thinking soldiers of different ranks beneath him who act out in detail his general commands (or don't). Both, TB and RT strategy/tactical games, simulate those aspects of reality and somehow, nobody complains.

What I'm trying to point out is that both TB and RT are merely simulations, through and through. Claiming one is less realistic than the other in order to proof that it's less fun is simply a baseless argument in a useless debate. Different game mechanics cater for different tastes - and none of both are relics of the past, even though RT is older than TB. They have been fun then, representing different play styles, so there's no reason they can't be fun now - other than the obvious fact that today there are more people enjoying one certain type of gameplay. Unfortunately they are the more vocal crowd and what's even more unfortunate, somehow they feel the need to transform all types of other gameplay into what they think is the only one providing fun. Imagine converting all music genres into pop. Publishers took the lead, gratefully, because the more streamlined the business gets, the easier it is for them.

What shall I say. I don't like FP and RT in my RPGs - with a couple of exceptions. You like what you like. Just keep the **** out of my territory and let the games I enjoy exist.

[CaptHawkeye]

FYI Fallout 3 isn't designed for the Jihadists but new blood.
.

Yeah and SO WHAT? Can you find a reasonable explanation for its existence that DOESN'T boil down to "for the old fanboys"? Nobody has even BOTHERED to give me anything OTHER than that. So clearly the best thing to do is throw character attacks at me and whine about my "skillz" not being leet or something when I bring it up. :lol:

Bull****. And how exactly is turn-based considered a relic of the past that should stay dead and real time isn't?

:lol: That's too good. So you mean to say with this logic developers have been making nothing but board games with pretty textures that play THEMSELVES? Even when they've had working real-time for years? Think what you will of me man, i'm not the one who's been getting scammed for DECADES. :lol;

In case you didn't know, some of the oldest games made were real-time, I'm talking games made during the late 70's and during the 80's. Games weren't made turn-based becaue of technical limitations, to say and believe so is foolish.

So then why don't you provide a reason to SHOW why your claim is true? If turn based didn't come about because of technological limitations, then just why DOES it exist? To please the pen and paper RPG crowd is the only other REMOTELY concievable reason! *Gasp*, such reason is ALSO motivated by stupid nostalgia! :lol:


Same also goes for 2D graphics. None are relics meant to be forgotten.

Yes, they are meant to be forgotten. Do you know how many old fanhards have tried to tell me that "2D graphics aren't obsolete"? The only responce to a claim like that is to stare blankly at them and acknowledge their sheer un-negotiable lunacy.


I am convinced this is the case from empiric evidence (~ 20 years gaming), but I cannot convince other people who did not play the same games (PG, FO, JA2), or have a differing opinion of them.

Uh, like I said. I *did* play all those games, they were balling for their time. That's just the thing, their time is over. If we want to live in the past then while we're at it, why don't we bring back 2D graphics and sprites? Oh wait, some people actually DO want those back. :lol:

Coincidentally, I played Great Naval Battles recently and thought it was terrible. I imagine it would have been the **** back in the 90s, but unfortunantly, it's a 2D click-box game now. Even broken and unplayable SH4 is more fun, because even at its worst, SH4 is at least 3D.

BlackDeath, you're absolutely right. Turn-based came from old technology limits and old die hard habits from the tabletop RPG crowd. I don't think a turn-based game can't be fun, but the question, "how much better could it have been in real time?" is always persistent.

[GlobalExplorer]

If turn based didn't come about because of technological limitations, then just why DOES it exist?

Why does Chess exists? Because it allows for a level of gameplay that you will never know.

[CaptHawkeye]

If turn based didn't come about because of technological limitations, then just why DOES it exist?

Why does Chess exists? Because it allows for a level of gameplay that you will never know.

Yeah yeah, more posturing. Man you play chess, you're soooo leet. Hey, just so you know, I play and enjoy chess too. I just also happen to think that when you've got a computer and technology, you use it. But nah, to you, an older game will always be better than a new one basically because you feel "superior" or something to all us sub-humans playing modern games. This begs the question, if you like those games so much, then why don't you go and play them again? Don't stand here and whine that Fallout 3 isn't Fallout enough because it doesn't have your precious turn based combat. That's just you, forcing a laughably subjective opinion on OTHER people. Go re-install Fallout 2 again and play that, maybe you can even scribble a "3" over the 2 and voila, their's the sequel you wanted. :lol:

[GlobalExplorer]

I was just answering your question, no reason to be so fiery mate.

[BlackDeath5150]

As far as realisim life happens in real time. Therefore real time HAS to be more realistic. As far as TB games being fun. I know I never said they weren't. Jagged alliance civilization fallout and combat mission are all TB and I love them. It is irrefutable history that turn base stems from board game mechanics. All games stated in this reply and in the post all have origins in board games. Civilization Combat mission and fallout are direct board game adaptaions. Civ is a board game, Combat mission is a version of squad leader (an avalon hill wargame) which uses board wargame mechanics in use decades before pc gaming (line of sight fatigue suppresion morale armor penetration). Fallout as stated in this thread is based on the pen and paper game GURPS. Also all RPGs originate form the table top game. That being said jagged is a game that uses wargame mechanics (line of sight, fatigue, suppresion, morale, armor penetration) and RPG mechanics ( character creation, Attributes, Levels, and skills).I would like those that dispute the board game origin to look at most TB games and research their mechanics and origins. You WILL find that it all stems from the RPG The wargame or some other pre pc Ideas. most games we play now beside mainly Simulations still owe their roots to pre pc gaming.

As far as reality of games go I want to touch on Jagged Alliance which many of us are familiar with and many other games emulate. JA bases many of the differant character actions based on attribute levels and skill levels respectivley. Dice rolls and base to hit numbers effect out come of the game. THIS is not and CAN NOT be reality. It is pure GAME mechanics that are derived from the RPG. That is it end of discussion. It has TOO much historical evidence to argue, there for the rest is opinion on what YOU like to play better.

Oh and PS chess should not be in this discussion you guys sound dumb for bringing it up. Chess Is chess is chess is chess. So F*&^% what. It's the TB based game that may have started it all. but thats as far as it can ever go.

[N1]

:lol: That's too good. So you mean to say with this logic developers have been making nothing but board games with pretty textures that play THEMSELVES? Even when they've had working real-time for years? Think what you will of me man, i'm not the one who's been getting scammed for DECADES. :lol;
Working for you doesn't mean working for anybody. Most RT RPGs don't work for me unless they have something exceptionally good going for them (see Bloodlines).


So then why don't you provide a reason to SHOW why your claim is true? If turn based didn't come about because of technological limitations, then just why DOES it exist? To please the pen and paper RPG crowd is the only other REMOTELY concievable reason! *Gasp*, such reason is ALSO motivated by stupid nostalgia! :lol:
I've never played a PnP RPG and I'm too young to blame my passion for TB games on nostalgia - how's that possible? Some mean nazi PnP crowd propaganda? Brainwashing? Some chemicals in my tapwater? Help me, Mr. :lol:, I want to be a cool, next gen, real time lover like you.


Yes, they are meant to be forgotten. Do you know how many old fanhards have tried to tell me that "2D graphics aren't obsolete"? The only responce to a claim like that is to stare blankly at them and acknowledge their sheer un-negotiable lunacy.
The same stare I'm giving you right now, honey.



Uh, like I said. I *did* play all those games, they were balling for their time. That's just the thing, their time is over.
Sorta the reason why most recently released AAA titles are ****.

Coincidentally, I played Great Naval Battles recently and thought it was terrible. I imagine it would have been the **** back in the 90s, but unfortunantly, it's a 2D click-box game now. Even broken and unplayable SH4 is more fun, because even at its worst, SH4 is at least 3D.
Coincidentally, I played most post 2000 games and thought they are terrible. I imagine they would have been the **** if they were not some generic and unimaginative, boring twitchy clickfests for the ADD crowd. But at least I can get the good games mostly for free nowadays.

BlackDeath, you're absolutely right. Turn-based came from old technology limits and old die hard habits from the tabletop RPG crowd. I don't think a turn-based game can't be fun, but the question, "how much better could it have been in real time?" is always persistent.
I had one question in my mind playing NWN 2: "how much better could it have been if it was turn based"?

[BlackDeath5150]

I had one question in my mind playing NWN 2: "how much better could it have been if it was turn based"

That's a matter of opinion but as far as REAL is concerned. That can be measured. SH3 or 4 is not turn based. Nor are many simulations. I beleive simulation strives for reality. So what about that stand point?

Coincidentally, I played most post 2000 games and thought they are terrible. I imagine they would have been the **** if they were not some generic and unimaginative, boring twitchy clickfests for the ADD crowd. But at least I can get the good games mostly for free nowadays.

Who honestly beleives this crap? This statement is totally opinion stated as a fact.

CaptainHawkeye most of your statements are pure opinion also. Other than the Question of realism. That is measurable.

[Wolfehunter]

FYI Fallout 3 isn't designed for the Jihadists but new blood.
.

Yeah and SO WHAT? Can you find a reasonable explanation for its existence that DOESN'T boil down to "for the old fanboys"? Nobody has even BOTHERED to give me anything OTHER than that. So clearly the best thing to do is throw character attacks at me and whine about my "skillz" not being leet or something when I bring it up. :lol:

It boils down to Bethesda is using the game name to sell its product and make money nothing more nothing less. Just money. They don't care what we think. Only if its going to sell and it will sell very well. :up:

But I won't buy their lies. That is my choice and it comes to principles. I care for what Fallout was. I like the way it was. And yes that is history and should have stayed history.

More so that they have removed alot of original content that made fallout great, unique.

Anyhow in a year or two some mods groups will be out and fix the game to resemble the original series. Then maybe I get it at a bargin bin or some such. ;)

[BlackDeath5150]

It boils down to Bethesda is using the game name to sell its product and make money nothing more nothing less. Just money. They don't care what we think. Only if its going to sell and it will sell very well. :up:

This is also bullcrap. Show me evidence of this? Why use Fallout to make $$? It is a cult Classic. What has bethesda done to get that bad of a rap. I KNOW morrowind was good. Oblivion was state of the art in 2005. The story line was very fitting for the concept. What is the problem. Do people need to speculate and argue that bad?

What fallout content do you KNOW was removed??? tell me maybe then you can change someones mind?

[N1]

As far as realisim life happens in real time. Therefore real time HAS to be more realistic. As far as TB games being fun. I know I never said they weren't. Jagged alliance civilization fallout and combat mission are all TB and I love them. It is irrefutable history that turn base stems from board game mechanics. All games stated in this reply and in the post all have origins in board games. Civilization Combat mission and fallout are direct board game adaptaions. Civ is a board game, Combat mission is a version of squad leader (an avalon hill wargame) which uses board wargame mechanics in use decades before pc gaming (line of sight fatigue suppresion morale armor penetration). Fallout as stated in this thread is based on the pen and paper game GURPS. Also all RPGs originate form the table top game. That being said jagged is a game that uses wargame mechanics (line of sight, fatigue, suppresion, morale, armor penetration) and RPG mechanics ( character creation, Attributes, Levels, and skills).I would like those that dispute the board game origin to look at most TB games and research their mechanics and origins. You WILL find that it all stems from the RPG The wargame or some other pre pc Ideas. most games we play now beside mainly Simulations still owe their roots to pre pc gaming.
So what's your point? RPGs stem from boardgames, which simulated reality, therefore they can't, if they are TB, simulate reality better than an RPG that's RT, which made that huge evolutionary step to...simulate reality. Yeah, right.


As far as reality of games go I want to touch on Jagged Alliance which many of us are familiar with and many other games emulate. JA bases many of the differant character actions based on attribute levels and skill levels respectivley. Dice rolls and base to hit numbers effect out come of the game. THIS is not and CAN NOT be reality. It is pure GAME mechanics that are derived from the RPG. That is it end of discussion. It has TOO much historical evidence to argue, there for the rest is opinion on what YOU like to play better.

Wtf. Those stats and attributes and skills represent reality, it's one type of simulation. You don't roll a dice when you hit somebody in the face, but there are factors that have an effect on the outcome and those factors are taken into account when simulating that incidence in-game. It's closer to real life than FPSs which don't track most of those factors. Btw, having a healthbar, carrying loads of guns, being able to take huge numbers of bullets without dying, recovering from wounds by taking healthpack, not being able to dodge in a way that's depending on the situation, ... - all that isn't realistic at all. And all that can be simulated in a realistic way through stats and attributes.


Edit:

That's a matter of opinion but as far as REAL is concerned. That can be measured. SH3 or 4 is not turn based. Nor are many simulations. I beleive simulation strives for reality. So what about that stand point?
Strive and be are different things. There are a lot of options lacking that had to be cut to make it playable. Those options could be added when making those simulations TB - but then, would they still be fun? I can play chess in rt if I wanted to, but why the hell should I do so?


Who honestly beleives this crap? This statement is totally opinion stated as a fact.

It's opinion stated, and that was the point.

[Raptor1]

It boils down to Bethesda is using the game name to sell its product and make money nothing more nothing less. Just money. They don't care what we think. Only if its going to sell and it will sell very well. :up:

This is also bullcrap. Show me evidence of this? Why use Fallout to make $$? It is a cult Classic. What has bethesda done to get that bad of a rap. I KNOW morrowind was good. Oblivion was state of the art in 2005. The story line was very fitting for the concept. What is the problem. Do people need to speculate and argue that bad?

What fallout content do you KNOW was removed??? tell me maybe then you can change someones mind?

Ah, it comes back to Oblivion, like it was...3 pages ago...

The point is, now they're gonne say Oblivion sucked (which I personally think it didn't), and the whole thing will start all over again

[BlackDeath5150]

So what's your point? RPGs stem from boardgames, which simulated reality, therefore they can't, if they are TB, simulate reality better than an RPG that's RT, which made that huge evolutionary step to...simulate reality. Yeah, right.

Wtf. Those stats and attributes and skills represent reality, it's one type of simulation. You don't roll a dice when you hit somebody in the face, but there are factors that have an effect on the outcome and those factors are taken into account when simulating that incidence in-game. It's closer to real life than a FPS which don't track most of those factors. Btw, having a healthbar, carrying loads of guns, being able to take huge numbers of bullets without dying, recovering from wounds by taking healthpack, not being able to dodge in a way that's depending on the situation, ... - all that isn't realistic at all. And all that can be simulated in a realistic way though stats and attributes.

What ever the representation it is just that. Would you say a board jame of sub combat represents it better than a 3d simulation? Why dosent the NAVY use a board game to train their pilots.Games now can simulate PHYSICS. PHYSIC ARE REAL LIFE. The simulation of physics with current tech MORE acuratly represents reality than an absrtact dated mechanic of the past can (IE representing character success level based on number modifiers at a board or roleplaying game level.) That is not opinion dude.

[BlackDeath5150]

Ah, it comes back to Oblivion, like it was...3 pages ago...

The point is, now they're gonne say Oblivion sucked (which I personally think it didn't), and the whole thing will start all over again


That is unfortunate because whether people like it or not is OPINION it has no validity. Oblivion WAS groundbreaking in many aspects. That can't be denied. It gives evidence that bethesda does not produce poor products. They put in the work to show it.

[N1]

What ever the representation it is just that. Would you say a board jame of sub combat represents it better than a 3d simulation?
Nope. But the latter has far more stats than the former.

Why dosent the NAVY use a board game to train their pilots.
Afaik, because they've got access to better technology, which is better at training the pilot the necessary skills he got to learn.

Games now can simulate PHYSICS. PHYSIC ARE REAL LIFE. The simulation of physics with current tech MORE acuratly represents reality than an absrtact dated mechanic of the past can (IE representing character success level based on number modifiers at a board or roleplaying game level.) That is not opinion dude.
Ok. Game => ... => Physics!!! You forgot there's stats in between, a ****load of maths, comparable to, IE, "representing character success level based on number modifiers at a board or roleplaying game level", just a little bit more sophisticated, out of necessity.

Edit:

Oblivion WAS groundbreaking in many aspects. That can't be denied.
Just out of interest, *what* was groundbreaking in Oblivion? Because apart from the million dollar marketing campaign, I sorta missed out on the rest. All that's been in Oblivion was groundbreaking, like, 10 years ago.

[BlackDeath5150]

Afaik, because they've got access to better technology, which is better at training the pilot the necessary skills he got to learn.

Thank You for affirming my position on what is more realistic.:up:


Ok. Game => ... => Physics!!! You forgot there's stats in between, a ****load of maths, comparable to, IE, "representing character success level based on number modifiers at a board or roleplaying game level", just a little bit more sophisticated, out of necessity
Call em stats or what ever, math is correct. It's how the math is used. With new tech like you said they can make new systems that compute information about the character and game physics in game differantly and more acurately. the games taht are breaking new ground have characters using skills in a real time formate. Where the atributes are physically made in the game and not just statistical represnetations. You would be lame to say the games that use this new physical representation is the same as older rpgs. Take morrrowind for example the actual mass and physical streength on the character are not modeled just the stats. Those stats sre compared to the opponents and it is mathmatically computed. Newer games let physics IE weapon mass player attributes modeled in REAL TIME to effect the out come. No more number crunching turn based Bull. You hit a guy the physics take care of the rest. And let me say MATH is not the same as the stats your talking about. The universe revolves around math. Math will be in all systems. Our motions and world is defined by it and as games advance the math that runs those games will be more like real world mathmatical physics.

Just out of interest, *what* was groundbreaking in Oblivion? Because apart from the million dollar marketing campaign, I sorta missed out on the rest. All that's been in Oblivion was groundbreaking, like, 10 years ago.
I know that it has set the graphical bar for all games to follow. Is this not true?? Million dollar marketing??? I got it because morrowind was awsome. Before that I didn't even know about Elder Scrolls. Now I own all them. I mean all. Even if it is not Ground Breaking in story it follows the games concept. What more could you want. YOU sound like a kid that probably hasent played ARENA and even if you are more my age group your argument is unfounded dude? Bethesda was able to keep their stroyline entertaining and consistent in their Elder scrolls series. Why can't they do it with Fallout? heres a tid bit. Bethesda pioneered realtime RPG so there! In 1990 or 91.

[GlobalExplorer]

With new tech like you said they can make new systems that compute information about the character and game physics in game differantly and more acurately. the games taht are breaking new ground have characters using skills in a real time formate. Where the atributes are physically made in the game and not just statistical represnetations. You would be lame to say the games that use this new physical representation is the same as older rpgs. Take morrrowind for example the actual mass and physical streength on the character are not modeled just the stats. Those stats sre compared to the opponents and it is mathmatically computed. Newer games let physics IE weapon mass player attributes modeled in REAL TIME to effect the out come. No more number crunching turn based Bull. You hit a guy the physics take care of the rest.
I think I am beginning to get it, you believed that RadiantAI and soil erosion crap? Hey, once you look through it it is a very ordinary game, but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder!!

And let me say MATH is not the same as the stats your talking about. The universe revolves around math. Math will be in all systems. Our motions and world is defined by it and as games advance the math that runs those games will be more like real world mathmatical physics.
Everything is math - I like that from a philosophical standpoint - problem is just that the math that models complex behaviour and that you're obviouslky talking about hasn't been invented yet, hence the need for abstracted models and simulation. Sure Bethesda tells you their games have all that and then some, but ever occured to you that they were lying all the time?

I know that it has set the graphical bar for all games to follow. Is this not true??

Not for me, but I expected you'd say as much. What else?

P.S. I liked Morrowind, despite all its flaws, because it was a unique experience, the first open world, sandbox type RPGs I ever played, but from then on it all went downhill. What was better in Oblivion in direct comparison to Morrowind?

[BlackDeath5150]

Everything is math - I like that from a philosophical standpoint - problem is just that the math that models complex behaviour and that you're obviouslky talking about hasn't been invented yet, hence the need for abstracted models and simulation. Sure Bethesda tells you their games have all that and then some, but ever occured to you that they were lying all the time?
Uhh, I wasnt talking about Olivion specifically. And 3d models are less abstract than non. what the hell is YOUR point? Math used to model complex behaviours do not exist yet?? WTF are you talking about. tell that to Issac Newton or Einstein perhaps. Or the guy that first created a PC game:damn:. Bethesda didn't tell me anything.

No, but I expected you'd say as much. What else?
Which game or games did. I KNOW Oblivion was state of the art and the engine is capable of much more. (More than some of the fastest PC's of 2008 can handle with full hi res texture modding and full land objsct visibility, which can use as much as 1 gig of video ram) I think if you offer a counter statement its the posters responsability to provide contrary information NOT speculations.


Not for me, but I expected you'd say as much. What else?
Thank you for the qualification. That is an opinion.

What was better in Oblivion in direct comparison to Morrowind?
Graphics? Are you for real man? Voice acting?RagDoll physics? I'm sure there are more from a technical standpoint but I don't claim to be a game designer. I'm a game player.

[GlobalExplorer]

Everything is math - I like that from a philosophical standpoint - problem is just that the math that models complex behaviour and that you're obviouslky talking about hasn't been invented yet, hence the need for abstracted models and simulation. Sure Bethesda tells you their games have all that and then some, but ever occured to you that they were lying all the time?
Uhh, I wasnt talking about Olivion specifically. And 3d models are less abstract than non. what the hell is YOUR point? Math used to model complex behaviours do not exist yet?? WTF are you talking about. tell that to Issac Newton or Einstein perhaps. Or the guy that first created a PC game:damn:. Bethesda didn't tell me anything.
Don't try to get smart on me. How do you simulate a characters responses to the player, based on the latters personality and behaviour? One way is to do this based on stats, formulas and dialog trees. What kind of mathematics do you suspect behind the kind of real time simulation in NexGen games, which you were talking about in your other post? The kind of groundbreaking stuff that makes new RPGs not like old RPGs anymore.

No, but I expected you'd say as much. What else?
Which game or games did. I KNOW Oblivion was state of the art and the engine is capable of much more. (More than some of the fastest PC's of 2008 can handle with full hi res texture modding and full land objsct visibility, which can use as much as 1 gig of video ram) I think if you offer a counter statement its the posters responsability to provide contrary information NOT speculations.
You said Oblivion was a groundbreaking game, N1 and me asked you why. You have to provide some arguments. So far we got:

1. graphics
2. ?

Neither did you answer my question what was better in Oblivion than in Morrowind.

I'll tell you what was worse:

- the user interface
- the level scaling
- the balancing in general was fubar
- alchemy
- the art (huge shoulderpads)

[BlackDeath5150]

Don't try to get smart on me. How do you simulate a characters responses to the player, based on the latters personality and behaviour? One way is to do this based on stats, formulas and dialog trees. What kind of mathematics do you suspect behind the kind of real time simulation in NexGen games, which you were talking about in your other post? The kind of groundbreaking stuff that makes new RPGs not like old RPGs anymore.
Ok some of your stuff makes no sense. But Since we are into so much speculation I would say a more modern approach to representing your Player Character in a game opposed to Sats would be physical modeling of those stats into the character. I already said that. I beleive that is the approach some designers and theorists are taking. As far as getting smart with you some one needs to start getting smart in this topic. The arguments have been rather stupid.

You said Oblivion was a groundbreaking game, N1 and me asked you why. You have to provide some arguments. So far we got:

1. graphics
2. ?

Neither did you answer my question what was better in Oblivion than in Morrowind.

I'll tell you what was worse:

- the user interface
- the level scaling
- the balancing in general was fubar
- alchemy
- the art (huge shoulderpads)
I did say which elements were better in oblivion opposed to morrowind re-read my posts. Why cant the graphical element of oblivion be ground breaking??? It was. It is one of the first next Gen. The first time I saw bloom or hdr graphics. Tell me the others. I know oblivion was one. does any one agree? Oh and as for as the flaws bethesda left the game open to player modding. They released as is. A game is at this point still art that's how they chose to do it. but the fact they let us mod it proves they care about the players and our vision of the game.

[SUBMAN1]

Ah, it comes back to Oblivion, like it was...3 pages ago...

The point is, now they're gonne say Oblivion sucked (which I personally think it didn't), and the whole thing will start all over again

That is unfortunate because whether people like it or not is OPINION it has no validity. Oblivion WAS groundbreaking in many aspects. That can't be denied. It gives evidence that bethesda does not produce poor products. They put in the work to show it.I love Oblivion. Not as much as I loved Daggerfall, and I think Morrowind was slightly better in many aspects, but Oblivion was good nonetheless.

-S

[Captain Vlad]

P.S. I said I am easing off but am now back with a vengeance because the topic is now: "are turn based games becoming superfluous since we now have NexGen consoles and Bethesda Softworks", and I definitely can't stand still with that!

Turn based games will be around so long as there are games that designers feels are best served by a turn based system, or enough game players that prefer such a system that it's possible to make such games and turn a profit.

I, personally, feel that for some types of games, turn-based is the way to go. Usually these are grand-strategy war or economic development games where each turn is micromanaged and subtle strategies that develop over a long period of turns are necessary.

There have, obviously, been plenty of very deep, very good RPGs that utilized turn-based systems. But is turn-based combat the way to go in an RPG? That, to me, is questionable. RPGs, at their best, put you in the shoes of a person in some different universe facing fantastic situations, and we get to apply our own ideas when it comes to how that character reacts to this world. Turn-based combat systems can certainly be detailed enough to give the character plenty of options...but on the other hand, they really force the player to step out of the world they're enjoying and focus on a slow-moving battle that is, under the surface, mostly mathematics.

First or third-person real time systems, on the other hand, provide a much more visceral, you are there, thisishappeningsofastidon'tknowwhattodo kind of experience, which is, from a role-playing standpoint, far more realistic than thinking 'Well, I have a 55% chance of hitting that super-mutant in the eye...he won't be able to reach me next round, so I can chance it'.

It's the difference between watching a slow-motion video of a car crash and actually being in one, in my experience.

All that said, some people don't like the kinetic pace of real or simulated high-pressure situations, and find turn-based games to be more enjoyable because of it. Some people don't really 'immerse' themselves in RPGs, and view things more as a puzzle to be solved. They also might prefer a turn-based system.

The biggest question, then, is what are you trying to do with the game? Who are you trying to make it appeal to? People who enjoy the 'role-playing' part of 'RPGs' more than other aspects and want an environment that feels real? Casual gamers who are shy of anything 'twitchy'? Armchair strategists who want to micro-manage every skirmish as if they were playing The Operational Art of War...or chess? Concentrating on any of these groups, you'll end up with different games.

Me? I want to feel like I'm there, and while I enjoy turn-based games, they're simply inferior, immersion wise, to a first or third-person, real-time perspective. This even crosses over into race games...I want raindrops on my windshield and visible hands on the wheel.

So, the choice Bethesda made in regard to first person/real time was certainly the right one from my perspective.

[BlackDeath5150]

Turn based games will be around so long as there are games that designers feels are best served by a turn based system, or enough game players that prefer such a system that it's possible to make such games and turn a profit.

I, personally, feel that for some types of games, turn-based is the way to go. Usually these are grand-strategy war or economic development games where each turn is micromanaged and subtle strategies that develop over a long period of turns are necessary.

There have, obviously, been plenty of very deep, very good RPGs that utilized turn-based systems. But is turn-based combat the way to go in an RPG? That, to me, is questionable. RPGs, at their best, put you in the shoes of a person in some different universe facing fantastic situations, and we get to apply our own ideas when it comes to how that character reacts to this world. Turn-based combat systems can certainly be detailed enough to give the character plenty of options...but on the other hand, they really force the player to step out of the world they're enjoying and focus on a slow-moving battle that is, under the surface, mostly mathematics.

First or third-person real time systems, on the other hand, provide a much more visceral, you are there, thisishappeningsofastidon'tknowwhattodo kind of experience, which is, from a role-playing standpoint, far more realistic than thinking 'Well, I have a 55% chance of hitting that super-mutant in the eye...he won't be able to reach me next round, so I can chance it'.

It's the difference between watching a slow-motion video of a car crash and actually being in one, in my experience.

All that said, some people don't like the kinetic pace of real or simulated high-pressure situations, and find turn-based games to be more enjoyable because of it. Some people don't really 'immerse' themselves in RPGs, and view things more as a puzzle to be solved. They also might prefer a turn-based system.

The biggest question, then, is what are you trying to do with the game? Who are you trying to make it appeal to? People who enjoy the 'role-playing' part of 'RPGs' more than other aspects and want an environment that feels real? Casual gamers who are shy of anything 'twitchy'? Armchair strategists who want to micro-manage every skirmish as if they were playing The Operational Art of War...or chess? Concentrating on any of these groups, you'll end up with different games.

Me? I want to feel like I'm there, and while I enjoy turn-based games, they're simply inferior, immersion wise, to a first or third-person, real-time perspective. This even crosses over into race games...I want raindrops on my windshield and visible hands on the wheel.

So, the choice Bethesda made in regard to first person/real time was certainly the right one from my perspective.

Well stated.:up:

[Wolfehunter]

It boils down to Bethesda is using the game name to sell its product and make money nothing more nothing less. Just money. They don't care what we think. Only if its going to sell and it will sell very well. :up:

This is also bullcrap. Show me evidence of this? Why use Fallout to make $$? It is a cult Classic. What has bethesda done to get that bad of a rap. I KNOW morrowind was good. Oblivion was state of the art in 2005. The story line was very fitting for the concept. What is the problem. Do people need to speculate and argue that bad?

What fallout content do you KNOW was removed??? tell me maybe then you can change someones mind?Not bullcrap dude.

But look in these two site and draw your own conclusion. I'm not going to show you all the sources you will have to use the search engine like everyone else does.

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showforum=33

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/index.php

There are years of topics on it and plenty of sources to argue with.

Good Hunting BD5150:up:

[Rilder]

Same also goes for 2D graphics. None are relics meant to be forgotten.

Yes, they are meant to be forgotten. Do you know how many old fanhards have tried to tell me that "2D graphics aren't obsolete"? The only responce to a claim like that is to stare blankly at them and acknowledge their sheer un-negotiable lunacy.


Have you played dwarf fortress?

Dwarf fortress is hands down one of my top favorite games (and their are few).

AND IT HAS ASCII GRAPHICS.

And before you say anything. No it would not be made anybetter by 3d graphics, infact it'd be made worse.

[BlackDeath5150]

Not bullcrap dude.

But look in these two site and draw your own conclusion. I'm not going to show you all the sources you will have to use the search engine like everyone else does.

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/in...p?showforum=33 (http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showforum=33)

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/index.php

There are years of topics on it and plenty of sources to argue with.

Good Hunting BD5150:up:


I know there are plenty of sources and I know there are too many that would argue. That's all opinion. I shouldn't have to search if it's part of your arguement. With out any evidence of Bethesda leaving out the aspects that make the game what it is I will have to call it bull crap here is my evidence that the game looks like it adheres to the fallout atmosphere. It is from the game companys own trailers.

http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/downloads/videos.html

http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/links/fallout3-awards.php

[BlackDeath5150]

Why does everyone take this as an attack on their favorite game?? Why does the discussion of new fallout bring up the debate between old games versus new. I play all of the old and new Pc games even all the console games since nes. The only argument between old and new was the realism factor I thought? What gives with some of you guys on that topic.

The reall argument was whether Fallout 3 will be as good as it's predeccesors with all the changes.

[Wolfehunter]

Not bullcrap dude.

But look in these two site and draw your own conclusion. I'm not going to show you all the sources you will have to use the search engine like everyone else does.

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/in...p?showforum=33 (http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showforum=33)

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/index.php

There are years of topics on it and plenty of sources to argue with.

Good Hunting BD5150:up:


I know there are plenty of sources and I know there are too many that would argue. That's all opinion. I shouldn't have to search if it's part of your arguement. With out any evidence of Bethesda leaving out the aspects that make the game what it is I will have to call it bull crap here is my evidence that the game looks like it adheres to the fallout atmosphere. It is from the game companys own trailers.

http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/downloads/videos.html

http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/links/fallout3-awards.php (http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/links/fallout3-awards.php)


There are acticle in the post showing the source of the arguments. No Mutants allowed shows plenty of pros and cons article found by many members.

These articles are written from magazines, gamer sites and any other person in contact with Bethseda's tours around the world to show off FO3.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/

My only regret is when I got fedup with Oblivion and found out what Beth was planning to do with FO3 years ago I left instead of staying and fighting. But now its too late. :damn:

[Wolfehunter]

Why does everyone take this as an attack on their favorite game?? Why does the discussion of new fallout bring up the debate between old games versus new. I play all of the old and new Pc games even all the console games since nes. The only argument between old and new was the realism factor I thought? What gives with some of you guys on that topic.

The reall argument was whether Fallout 3 will be as good as it's predeccesors with all the changes.I like changes as long as they try to keep most of its original content. They could improve the graphic similar to Diablo III. A world totally detailed and a interactive enviroment similar to Starwars Force Unleased for PS3. By the way I have that game too.

The only thing I stress at Bethseda was to change the name from FO3 to FO whatever. Because it isn't a sequel. It is a fallout game yes but different from FO and FO2

[BlackDeath5150]

There are acticle in the post showing the source of the arguments. No Mutants allowed shows plenty of pros and cons article found by many members.

These articles are written from magazines, gamer sites and any other person in contact with Bethseda's tours around the world to show off FO3.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/

My only regret is when I got fedup with Oblivion and found out what Beth was planning to do with FO3 years ago I left instead of staying and fighting. But now its too late. :damn:

Like I said If you can't site the article I don't care. I found the trailers I did and it's pretty concrete on what it portrays. How can you still argue in the fashion you do? It is really kinda pointless.

[Wolfehunter]

There are acticle in the post showing the source of the arguments. No Mutants allowed shows plenty of pros and cons article found by many members.

These articles are written from magazines, gamer sites and any other person in contact with Bethseda's tours around the world to show off FO3.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/

My only regret is when I got fedup with Oblivion and found out what Beth was planning to do with FO3 years ago I left instead of staying and fighting. But now its too late. :damn:

Like I said If you can't site the article I don't care. I found the trailers I did and it's pretty concrete on what it portrays. How can you still argue in the fashion you do? It is really kinda pointless.Trailer alone shows its not a sequel.. Look a the jump suit... What number is it?

There is enough to see just in the trailer alone. But thats just me..;)

[BlackDeath5150]

I like changes as long as they try to keep most of its original content. They could improve the graphic similar to Diablo III. A world totally detailed and a interactive enviroment similar to Starwars Force Unleased for PS3. By the way I have that game too.

The only thing I stress at Bethseda was to change the name from FO3 to FO whatever. Because it isn't a sequel. It is a fallout game yes but different from FO and FO2 __________________


So you think that the graphic prespective makes the game what it is or was?? I think that content deals with more than that. also if a game does not grow through time it will not be? if mario was just like mario on the NES I wouldn't play it. But I like the imaginative change and use of new tech in mario galaxy. I can remember saying that fallout would be cool in a 3d interactive world back in 98 even before Grand Theft Auto III was out , another game series that has changed graphic style but kept the content that made it good.

[BlackDeath5150]

Trailer alone shows its not a sequel.. Look a the jump suit... What number is it?
?????? What are you talking about, what the hell does that have to do with if it's a sequel or not???

[Wolfehunter]

I like changes as long as they try to keep most of its original content. They could improve the graphic similar to Diablo III. A world totally detailed and a interactive enviroment similar to Starwars Force Unleased for PS3. By the way I have that game too.

The only thing I stress at Bethseda was to change the name from FO3 to FO whatever. Because it isn't a sequel. It is a fallout game yes but different from FO and FO2 __________________


So you think that the graphic prespective makes the game what it is or was?? I think that content deals with more than that. also if a game does not grow through time it will not be? if mario was just like mario on the NES I wouldn't play it. But I like the imaginative change and use of new tech in mario galaxy. I can remember saying that fallout would be cool in a 3d interactive world back in 98 even before Grand Theft Auto III was out , another game series that has changed graphic style but kept the content that made it good.I think they could have taken the tech demo and improved it bigtime. But they choose to keep there own people do what they already knew how to do using the oblivion engine and not need to hire the old crew from interplay and fire bethesda people. Its also cheaper for them to use what they already know how to do and have already setup.

It was a business decision not a fan base choice of what we want. Its about money. To maximizes profits.

Other note for something to consider FO3 is mainly a console platform game. FO1&2 was a PC platform game.. Both aren't the same. The whole interface is different from the UI to the Keyboard mouse and consoles. Yet their trying to merge the worlds...

[Wolfehunter]

Trailer alone shows its not a sequel.. Look a the jump suit... What number is it?
?????? What are you talking about, what the hell does that have to do with if it's a sequel or not???Vault jump suit for Fallout 1 and 2 was 13. Has to do with canon.

[BlackDeath5150]

I think they could have taken the tech demo and improved it bigtime. But they choose to keep there own people do what they already knew how to do using the oblivion engine and not need to hire the old crew from interplay and fire bethesda people. Its also cheaper for them to use what they already know how to do and have already setup.

It was a business decision not a fan base choice of what we want. Its about money. To maximizes profits.

Other note for something to consider FO3 is mainly a console platform game. FO1&2 was a PC platform game.. Both aren't the same. The whole interface is different from the UI to the Keyboard mouse and consoles. Yet their trying to merge the worlds...
As far as fanbase is concerned I'm a huge fan and I want 3d for the realism. I own a PS3 but I'm going to purchase the game for PC. Consoles are as powerful (and big) as a computer. Consoles are computers. The lines between console and computer are dissappearing and will ultimatley dissappear in the future. What system the game is on has little to do with whether it is a sequel or not that is fact.

Vault jump suit for Fallout 1 and 2 was 13. Has to do with canon

How do you know the suit is not in the game somewhere for CANON? If it's not it still can't change that it's irrelevant to the status of sequel.

[Wolfehunter]

I think they could have taken the tech demo and improved it bigtime. But they choose to keep there own people do what they already knew how to do using the oblivion engine and not need to hire the old crew from interplay and fire bethesda people. Its also cheaper for them to use what they already know how to do and have already setup.

It was a business decision not a fan base choice of what we want. Its about money. To maximizes profits.

Other note for something to consider FO3 is mainly a console platform game. FO1&2 was a PC platform game.. Both aren't the same. The whole interface is different from the UI to the Keyboard mouse and consoles. Yet their trying to merge the worlds...
As far as fanbase is concerned I'm a huge fan and I want 3d for the realism. I own a PS3 but I'm going to purchase the game for PC. Consoles are as powerful (and big) as a computer. Consoles are computers. The lines between console and computer are dissappearing and will ultimatley dissappear in the future. What system the game is on has little to do with whether it is a sequel or not that is fact.

Vault jump suit for Fallout 1 and 2 was 13. Has to do with canon

How do you know the suit is not in the game somewhere for CANON? If it's not it still can't change that it's irrelevant to the status of sequel.At the moment I don't have that answer. But if your in a sequel you have to continue within the main story line. Or its another book with another title.

[BlackDeath5150]

At the moment I don't have that answer. But if your in a sequel you have to continue within the main story line. Or its another book with another title.


That is simply not true. Also the game I do beleive is still in the main story line of fallout universe living in the universe already produced by the first two games. Is this not true. I mean the trailer shows a world set in the fallout stroy line and universe. Unless the trailer is the only part that is set in it. However that seems very unlikley.

[Wolfehunter]

At the moment I don't have that answer. But if your in a sequel you have to continue within the main story line. Or its another book with another title.


That is simply not true. Also the game I do beleive is still in the main story line of fallout universe living in the universe already produced by the first two games. Is this not true. I mean the trailer shows a world set in the fallout stroy line and universe. Unless the trailer is the only part that is set in it. However that seems very unlikley.I said it was a fallout universe or world but not a fallout sequel. Bethesda should have started a new chapter, which they did in a sense but choose to call it a sequel which it is not. Jump suit is one example. There are other and you have the resourses to do the research if you like. :rock:

Good Hunting BD5150

[BlackDeath5150]

In conclusion I am thankful that Bethesda has revived my favorite game series and for producing my second favorite game series. I am very excited to play the game then subsequently downloading all the mods for it for years to come. I am also thankful it's 2008 and I can now enjoy the post-nuclear world in more realistic more immersive 3D environment. Others are beating a dead horse was what then was then whats now is now. I'll let you all know if I enjoyed my experience. I'm playing fallout 2 as we speak and am going crazy with anticipation. Good topic bad arguments but I did enjoy it. Time to download some sub mods.:up:

[Captain Vlad]

I don't have that answer. But if your in a sequel you have to continue within the main story line. Or its another book with another title.

Well if that's the case, we won't know whether or not it's a sequel until we get more information on the game's main plotline. The game may very well advance some part of the stories started in Fallout 1 and 2 without you being a descendant of the original Vault Dweller or having a suit with '13' on the back.

[GlobalExplorer]

@Wolfehunter: this could be something for you (http://www.irontowerstudio.com/)

In conclusion I am thankful that Bethesda has revived my favorite game series and for producing my second favorite game series.
Like a lot of people I do not only care if Bethesda is striving for a sequel to Fallout, but what they will actually deliver. There were umpteen so called sequels to "Jaws" or "From Dusk Til Dawn"? Do I like them? No.

I am also thankful it's 2008 and I can now enjoy the post-nuclear world in more realistic more immersive 3D environment. Others are beating a dead horse was what then was then whats now is now.
No one said games must be third person. Fantastic first person rpgs like System Shock or Thief or VtMB or Ultima Underworld come to mind. I am sure you know these games. How do you think Oblivion is compared with these games, as you say it was realistic and immersive, was it more or less of that compared to these classic games made by Looking Glass, Origin, Troika?

I'm playing fallout 2 as we speak and am going crazy with anticipation.

What do you like most about Fallout 2? And did you also play Fallout 1 it's shorter but I think is a better game, especially at the beginning of the story.

[Wolfehunter]

I don't have that answer. But if your in a sequel you have to continue within the main story line. Or its another book with another title.

Well if that's the case, we won't know whether or not it's a sequel until we get more information on the game's main plotline. The game may very well advance some part of the stories started in Fallout 1 and 2 without you being a descendant of the original Vault Dweller or having a suit with '13' on the back.Again the jump suit is one example. There are plenty of others to view from various source to make a judgment. It doesn't take rocket science to figure things out. Also it does take some perception to understand the questions being answer by Pete Hines and associates when in interviews. Like polititians they use words to manipulate their vision of grandeur about Fallout.

Sometimes there ego slips up and you can make out what there real goals are. In my view its not a sequel.


In the end for myself Bethseda has failed its fan base many times since hines has taken control.

EA fails its fan base because its relentless loosing battle against pirates

THQ fails its fanbase because it puts out beta software.

Blizzard well we know what they did to the fan base with WOW. Maybe they have learnt from there mistakes and give us a good sequel to Diablo? Hardly.

Stardock failed its fan base by using central and now its revamped version called Impulse to release unfinished games and force you to use it to get the latest downloads.

Relic intrusive DRMs but atleast they give the fans good games and support the mod communities.

GSC has failed its fan base because they never are able to finish game without the mod community fixing it for them.

So-on

What? Am I the customer paying for these games just suppose to shutup and take the crap? Sorry dudes no. I will pay for what I want. If I don't like what I want their not going to get a cent from me.

Thats just me a hard core PC gamer who wants good PC games like the way they used to make them before Console vs PC wars, Government censorship, Politically correctness and poor QC with a touch of Corperate Greed.:down:

I'm not going to take it anymore... right.:rock:

[Dr. Britain]

:lol: That's too good. So you mean to say with this logic developers have been making nothing but board games with pretty textures that play THEMSELVES? Even when they've had working real-time for years? Think what you will of me man, i'm not the one who's been getting scammed for DECADES. :lol;
Your idiocy. It...It knows no bounds.

If turn based didn't come about because of technological limitations, then just why DOES it exist?
Does one need to point out the obvious for you to understand? I answered this question in my first post. Real-time and turn-based are both capable of offering gameplay that the other can't. Do you get it now, or will I need to dumb down all of my posts and point out the obvious for you every time?

Anyways, real-time video games have been around since the beginning. If a developer wanted to make a real-time game he could have since the tech to do so has been around since video games began. If a developer made a game turn-based it wasn't because of technical limitations, that much is obvious.

Take Fallout for example. Bethsoft used this same weak argument, saying the developers only made it turn-based because of limitations...yet Daggerfall had been made years before that. If they had wanted Fallout real-time then they would have made it that way, but they instead chose turn-based because of the gameplay it can bring to the table.

Your argument that games were only turn-based because of technical limitations was brittle and now broken.
Yes, they are meant to be forgotten. Do you know how many old fanhards have tried to tell me that "2D graphics aren't obsolete"? The only responce to a claim like that is to stare blankly at them and acknowledge their sheer un-negotiable lunacy.
Ah, I see. You're a 3D graphics whore. I pity you, being unable to enjoy what could be a good game just because you're unable to look past its graphics, be they outdated 3D or 2D sprites and backgrounds.

[CaptHawkeye]

My idiocy. It...It knows no bounds.


Anyways, real-time video games have been around since the beginning. If a developer wanted to make a real-time game he could have since the tech to do so has been around since video games began. If a developer made a game turn-based it wasn't because of technical limitations, that much is obvious.

I asked you provide a REASON why they would. But you can't, because like all the broken old fanboys desperately clinging to the past, their is none.

Take Fallout for example. Bethsoft used this same weak argument, saying the developers only made it turn-based because of limitations...yet Daggerfall had been made years before that. If they had wanted Fallout real-time then they would have made it that way, but they instead chose turn-based because of the gameplay it can bring to the table.

Like WHAT? "Spam +10 roll on attack until lower HP dude = dead?" You STILL missed the entire crux of my argument.

Ah, I see. You're a 3D graphics whore. I pity you, being unable to enjoy what could be a good game just because you're unable to look past its graphics, be they outdated 3D or 2D sprites and backgrounds.

:lol: Still grasping at those character attacks.

[CaptHawkeye]

Death, don't even BOTHER. They take EVERY criticism of their fanatical devotion to an age old series as a deep personal assault. I mean, christ, Explorer and Britain accused me of having no leet skillz when I said that turn-based games are just stat-lists. That's like your opponent claiming the Earth is round, and you come back at him with "well you wear glasses." :lol:

[wetwarev7]

WOOOOOOOOOO.....let me look at my crystal ball.......woooOOOOooooo....

I predict someone will buy Fallout 3 and hate it....woooOOOoooo

I also predict some who would have enjoyed it will not buy it because of a preconceived notion.......wooooOOOooo

I predict that yet others will buy it and play it and some will like it and some will not and we will all still be sitting here arguing over whether or not "Microsoft Flight Simulator 12: Bill Gates Flies a Kite" is gonna suck or not.......

I have spoken......please insert 25 cents and I will also guess your weight....

[GlobalExplorer]

No need for a crystal ball. Excerpt from Swedish PC Gamer, who gave FO3 a 83%:

And everything would be wonderful but that feeling that the game is missing something. I cant quite define it, Call it a feeling, call it whatever you want, but when the gates of vault 101 lies far behind me, the eyes have adapted to the light and 15 hours have passed i start to think. About hopes that have fallen short.
Because in fallout 3 i get most things served on a silver plate right away. Bethesda has tried to fit as much content as possible on a little area. One second im running into a pack of Radscorpions while 30 meters further ahead theres a little settler town. Around the corner i meet some slavers with their captured slaves and beyond the hill some raiders have set up camp. A few minutes of running brings me to some ruins swarming with lethal deathclaws that wants to eat me. Its compressed, maximized and anonymous all at once. It feels like a huge orgy where no ones want to actually “do it”. A lot of bumping and grinding but no friction and no excitement. Many parts but they don’t paint a whole picture.
http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=577758

The something he is missing, and desperately trying to define, is called inspiration.

I am actually curious for the reviews this time. Will the gaming media repeat the shameless bj competition as with Oblivion? Or will they stay honest and save what credibility they have left ..

83% is honest. A decent game (never argued about that), but far from great.

[flux_c]

I think one of the main differences between Fallout 3 and the original two has to do with the fundamental design philosophies. Many people (including Bethesda) seem to fail to understand that the whole point of Fallout 1/2 was to try and emulate a PnP-like experience as closely as possible. That's why they were turn-based. That's why 'old-school' stats were used. Without following similar ideals, any game really shouldn't be a part of the series.


If turn based didn't come about because of technological limitations, then just why DOES it exist?
Some of the first computer games, like 'Spacewar!' and 'Tennis for Two' came out in the '50s and '60, and were real-time. Turn-based has little to do with technology.

Turn-based games were probably established because many people like that sort of gameplay. Why do you think so many people still play board games? Why do you think the casual computer game market, which is full of turn-based games, is booming? The potential consumer base for those willing to play turn-based games is probably much, much larger than those who want to play real-time ones. Its just that those who play real-time ones are willing to pay more for each game, buy many more games, and spend much more time playing games. However, the casual market is quickly expanding, so this may change in the future.


Yes, they are meant to be forgotten. Do you know how many old fanhards have tried to tell me that "2D graphics aren't obsolete"? The only responce to a claim like that is to stare blankly at them and acknowledge their sheer un-negotiable lunacy.
Quite frankly, this doesn't even make sense. Again, the casual market is full of games with what you would consider '2D graphics', and its doing quite well.

Second, there isn't a game in existence that doesn't use at least some 2D graphics. Particle effects are just a large group of sprites. Bump-mapping is used on a 2D object in order to simulate the presence of more polygons than are actually there. These are two techniques that are used considerably in games. A lot of 3D graphics is about cheating, by using so-called 2D graphics and 2D graphic techniques.

I get the feeling that the bleeding edge game market is going to start cutting back soon. With the ever growing cost of video games (mostly due to assets) vs their return, games will need to be priced higher. Fewer people are going to be willing to pay the current prices, let alone higher ones, given the current state of the economy.

[Wolfehunter]

Welcome aboard Flux_c :up: Interesting first post.:yep:

[Rilder]

Fewer people are going to be willing to pay the current prices, let alone higher ones, given the current state of the economy.

And the declining quality of sold games.

Not to mention the piles and piles of ****ty copy protection thats just giving pirates a challenge, not stopping them.

[stabiz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BOyS163zGA

[Rilder]

http://www.videogamer.com/news/09-10-2008-9606.html

[Raptor1]

http://www.videogamer.com/news/09-10-2008-9606.html

Can't say I'm surprised

[Wolfehunter]

:rotfl: :arrgh!: :rock:

Too much.:lol: Wow I wonder who leaked it?

A New Fan or and Old Fan to Fallout..:hmm:

[Raptor1]

:rotfl: :arrgh!: :rock:

Too much.:lol: Wow I wonder who leaked it?

A New Fan or and Old Fan to Fallout..:hmm:

Neither, probably the same guys that leaked Assassin's Creed for the PC a month before it was released

[Syxx_Killer]

I know Fallout 3 is hotly contested between those who played the originals and those who look forward to this one as to how good it is, but I definitely look forward to it. I never played the originals so I don't have an opinion on that debate. I watched the 5 gameplay demo videos and it looks great. The nuke at the end of the 5th video was sweet! I was kind of surprised to hear the Oblivion voices. They just sound so out of place! :lol:

[GlobalExplorer]

I was kind of surprised to hear the Oblivion voices. They just sound so out of place! :lol:

:roll:

[Syxx_Killer]

I realize it's "Oblivion with guns" and made by the same developer, but that still doesn't change my opinion that they sound out of place. :lol: When I hear the Imperial voice I expect an Imperial, not some shady looking dude that wants you to detonate a nuke. :lol:

[wetwarev7]

I just wanted to say that I got the game this weekend, and I really really like it! :up:

I played Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, and honestly, I just don't remember that much about them, except that I had a lot of fun playing them, so I couldn't really tell you if Fallout 3 stays totally true to the series or not, but I can tell you it's a lot of fun.

I've spent waaaay too many hours playing Oblivion, and I do see it's engine pop up from time to time, but I certainly don't feel like I'm playing Oblivion with guns. It feels like I'm playing an original game, and it is immersive, and addictive, and just a joy to play.

I've had a lot of misgivings about various games when they first come out, such as Morrowind and Oblivion cause they weren't like Daggerfall, but I think I'm starting to view games from a different perspective.

If it's a fun game, who cares about all the other stuff? :up:

[fatty]

This game is like crack. I must have stayed up until 2 AM two nights ago playing it. I'm only level 5 and have mostly been doing quests around Megaton. Dogmeat disappeared on me which made me a little sad, and I didn't keep an older save. I found him to be a little bit of a liability anyways - always giving away my stealthy approaches and getting in the way of grenades and what not. I hope there were no quests associated with him.