Arcanum graphics...

Given BIS' track record (yes, I know how brief it is) on continuity of both plot and game dynamics, I'm wary of trusting them with anything more drastic of a change than the color of the CD.

I'm not too sure of that either; changing the game just to attract the 'gee-whiz' set isn't going to put any more money on the table for Interplay or BIS. Fallout was more about story and an appropriate context for a game rather than sheer eyecandy. I really doubt that, in the final analysis, they can get a new engine and a good storyline in by Q4 2002.

 

Dan,
You do make some good points, though I must disagree some. I think that in all honesty there are only so many units that can be sold to current fans. Fallout (while being utterly awesome) does not have as major brand recognition as say Quake. A lot of software sales *do* come from the gee-whiz market, particularly as a game will often be sold by what's on the box. In all honesty, the real selling points of Fallout are not visible on any box shots. It's a sad but true fact that it can be really hard to sell someone a very good game, that may not look as appetising as the one next to it. From that perspective Black Isle does need to also target the gee-whizers as well as the fans. Having said that though, if the story and features that should sell a Fallout game suffer due to effort spent on making it look nice, that would be a major crime. What I've been trying to say (Quite roundaboutly, I know) is that while the essence of Fallout, all the things we love about it should stay the same, to be a feasible product, it also needs some changes - particularly cosmetic to appeal to a wider audience. Suck them in first with neato looking graphics, before hooking them on what Fallout is all about.

 

Not for lack of trying... :wink:

This is why you have to get the word out to your friends and anyone within earshot about Fallout. Hell, I've gotten complete strangers addicted to the game.

The problem is that there's a glut of 'gee-whiz'-compliant games out there and more on the way. Everyone seems to have some sort of new gimmick that will revolutionize the gaming industry. Screw that noise. I want something that works without a patch and has continuity with a previous game. Fallout 1 to Fallout 2 was a perfect example with a good attempt to dovetail two games together; new gamers to Fallout bought FO2 on a whim or under advisement from their friends, old gamers smiled and bought it because it was good.

This is where I disagree heartily. Fallout can be a good game without the trappings of a modern (read as: circa 2000-01) game. Once you get past the glitzy eye-candy and 3D gaming experience, the core of the game seems hollow. On the other hand, if your engine is built like Fallout 1&2's engine, where the graphics were not overt or cloyingly faked, where the sprites were well designed and appropriate, it bolsters the experience. Selling someone on a game like Fallout is easy to do; loan a copy to a friend; put out a playable demo with enough of a depth to see how the game feels.

Above all, port it to other platforms like the Mac and Linux; you won't make money hand over fist, but it'll show you're for all gamers, not just the ones who own a certain type of computer.

 

Feargus eats poop....

DO YOU WANT TO PLAY A GAME BY A GUY WHO EATS POOP? IM TALKING FECAL MATTER......

POOP!!!!

AND HE KISSED HIS MOM WITH THE SAME MOUTH HE USES TO EAT POOP!

PLUS HE LIKES JOURNEY, AND HE WANTS THEM TO DO THE SOUNDTRACK

A GAME MADE BY A POOP EATER WITH A SOUND TRACK BY JOURNEY....

AND YOU WANT TO PLAY IT....

I PITY YOU

 

Hmmm, very touchy topic here I think. Excluding Vampires, I've played and pretty much liked all the above mentioned games. IWD suprised me with the story it had and for a hack-and-slash oriented game it wasn't too shabby. The story was pretty linear, but there were enough 'minor' details that you had some resonably scaled influence on to make it fun, mostly whether you were a good guy or a villain in training. Personally, even IWD had more of a story than FOT did. It felt more free-form and open to player interaction to me, less binding and tunnel vision oriented than FOT.

EI has some of the most detailed graphics I've seen in a 3D RPG, or at least what seems to try to pass as one. The detail of the in-field equipment a character carries along with the variety is particularly impressive to me. I don't remember a lot of games where the items looked half as good in the gameplay area as they did in the inventory screen. The game is decently paced for SP, and the story is tolerable, though I can't say the same for the main character's voice. At certain points I questioned his intelligence as well, though he at least has a basic grasp of reality.

For a contrast though MP is very slowly paced and relies on stealth, sneaking, and patience far more than brute force to complete a 'quest.' Aside from the slow speed, where even running is a joke for 'faster' movement, the apparently steep difficulty curve also poses a deterrent to casual gamers. For a 'normal' gamer it isn't going to impress anyone, unless you cheat perhaps, which isn't hard at all in this game. On the other hand the best and most fun parts of MP is the difficulty, triumph, and feeling of achievement when you do succeed and cheating takes away a good portion of this to me. On the whole I doubt EI's MP will be attracting a large crowd in the PC market, and even for me it is still slow and boring at times.

As far as 3D vs 2D goes I don't believe there really is a 'better' version. I don't see a marked increase in gameplay depth and features in 3D games over 2D and usually it's reversed. For me the few games I'd rate as all time hall of fame, high-quality products would include far more 2D games than 3D, and actually I can't think of a 'full' 3D game that warrants being placed up in that category. In the end I couldn't care less if Fallout 3 was 2D or 3D so long as it didn't suffer from it. For all the games I can remember playing, none have truly transcended to greatness by going the 3D route.

The SPECIAL system works, but it doesn't mean I think it's the end-all be-all. Not a lot of games get as complex and viable a system as this going for it, but I don't see it as being superior either. For Fallout 3 I don't see a real reason to change it, though I suppose someone could make a better system or do some radical changes to improve upon it. The same pretty much goes for the combat system, though when it gets to the difference between real-time and turn-based I begin to wonder.

Real-Time doesn't give the player a lot of lee-way into being able to react to fast changing conditions while still plaing in a remotely 'real-time' setting. What I mean is although it is 'real-time' with a cautious and detail oriented player in a high intensity fight would probably hit a pause function often enough and leave it on long enough to counteract the 'real-time' nature of the game. This would be a prime reason Diablo 2 seems faster than Bauldur's Gate to me, you can pause in BG and give out orders to your party unlike the solo, no pause feature D2. FOT's real time system and missions rarely gave me any reason to use more than 3 characters for the actual combat, it was too easy, simple, and was over so fast that I felt like the combat was a chore rather than a game. The lack of real complexity, or rather the need for any tactic other than the 'bust in and blow it up' strategy really got me down.

The only mission I liked in the whole game was the one where you had to save the town, or at least the mayor's daugther from the Beastlords and Deathclaws. There were limits on what you could do, but this in turn also had multiple ways you could deal with it, and more choices that did something in the story as well. When I compare it to what I could do in the Turn-Based mode though, I believe relatively little actually changed in my tactics and feelings towards the game.

As for the complexity of actions you can take in TB Vs. RT action, I think currently you can do more 'impressive' actions in TB like sniping around a corner with real success than in RT. The realism is a bit on the lower end, but still is close enough to keep it fun. Real-Time games would need to do things like take Intelligence and Reflexes into account when an enemy pops their head around a sandbag. If you aren't high enough in that area you don't see and react fast enough to catch the guy who leans around for a pot-shot, unlike in FOT which just has instant reaction based on how fast the gun animation carries through. Real Time cuts a lot of corners to make it work within a reasonable design timeframe I think to make it compete depth wise.

---------------------------------------------

- Anolis, "Gah, been a very long post, think I'll just cut it off here."

- Anolis, "Bloody errors..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anolis on 2001-05-13 22:28 ]</font>

 

I don't know if this will help, or just add more fuel to the fire at this point.

The reason we turned away from the Fallout engine in part was not just due to the engine itself, but also how the game was made. A big part of a game's success is the usability of the tools. For their day the Fallout tools, and I'm mostly talking about Mapper, were awesome (Jesse Reynolds did a good deal of the coding for it). However, they were really the first generation of game tools.

The problem is that since then we are dealing with more data, larger teams, and translating the game for the whole world - the tools need to be much better and they need to integrate seemlessly with a backend database to keep track of everything. Through the use of a lot of different technologies we've been able to build a new suite of tools/editors that actually make making games a whole lot easier. As an example, in Fallout the dialog had to be coded into the scripts for each character. It had to be translated by hand from a text file into code. For TORN, we have a dialog editor that works directly with MicroSoft Word to have a spell checked dialog imported directly into the game. What this gives us is far more efficient designers. So, we can in essence make bigger games with the same number of designers. Or at least that is the hope.

If we had tried to keep on retrofitting the Fallout engine to support new tools and technologies it would have become a coding Vietnam. Code bases only last for so long, because people remember less and less about how things work in the engine and the engine becomes more and more like magic. People are afraid to touch it, and we can change it less and less.

I guess lastly, my hope is that we create a true Fallout game. The Lead Designer, most likely, will be Chris Avellone, who was the Lead Designer on Torment and the twisted mind behind New Reno in Fallout 2. If there is anyone outside of Chris Taylor who understand the Fallout universe it is him. He certainly isn't going to let us make an unFallout game. I was just reading a fifty page document today about the Fallout world timeline, and his thoughts on keeping the world continuum going.

Hmmm... I blathered on a little too much in this post. Sorry bout that. :smile:

_________________
Feargus Urquhart
President
Black Isle Studios

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Feargus Urquhart on 2001-05-13 22:38 ]</font>

 

Feargus -

How do you plan on keeping the look of Fallout? The same way FOT kept the look of Fallout? The *concept* of FOT wasn't a bad idea at all, but you essentially let these people do whatever they wanted, continuity and feel be damned. Do you think Lucasfilm deals with their properties in the same way?

You're essentially destroying the franchise, desperately putting out crappy products in an attempt to get out of the red. This damages the franchise, and yes, you can put a money value on the damage. It never worked for anyone before, and I doubt it'll work now. Didn't Fallout and Fallout 2 make enough money for you guys? Even if they didn't, mixing all your popular software together in an attempt to create some mass-market drivel like TORN, and now maybe even FO3, won't work, because you'll alienate all your hardcore fans, and believe me, plenty of reviewers are fans too.

Making FO3 a real-time game is utter crap. You're merely trying to ride the latest trends, rather than creating games with their own distinctive style (like Fallout). This will totally destroy and demoralize your fanbase, and FOT has done enough damage as it is. Example: Think about how many people are playing X-Com Enforcer right now. I bet a whole lot more would have been interested in seeing a *true* X-Com sequel.
It'd simply be a sound economical decision to make Fallout 3 "oldskool".

P.S. If you make Fallout 3 a real-time game, I will never, ever buy another Interplay product as long as I live.

 

Feargus

Would it be a coding beach party vietnam?

I'm up for some napalmed hotdogs if your up for some surfing with the viet cong....

_________________
AND HE LOOKED ON TO ME AND IN ONE SENTACE HE PASSED ON ALL HIS KNOWLEGE TO ME..."EAT ME YOU CROTCH GOBLIN"- JESUS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TheDotard on 2001-05-13 22:52 ]</font>

 

Chris Taylor...
The same person who gave us FOT...

Great that you'd use him as an example of someone who would stick to the universe, that probobly confirms alot of people's fears. Well, perhaps he understands the universe well, but that certainly didn't keep him from working on a game that didn't stick to it.

Nobody's asking (I don't think) that you use the *exact* same engine for FO3, I think they mean the overall system and feel rather than codebase. There's no reason you can't write a new, more advanced codebase that's even easier to design for, supports more resolutions, etc. and still keep the same look and feel of the old games.

New engine does not have to mean realtime, the logic just isn't there.

 

ok i was thinking (a very rare event indeed) but i say that feargus should push on towards Fo3! but forget character creation, blah. The game should be based on a little guy named Nu Cleair (pronounced nuclear) and he should go around and catch all the weird types of animals in the Fallout world and put them in little balls... Then he would go to these gyms and uses the creatures to fight the leader of the gym a "Gym Leader" if you will... and he gains more Creatures like call them "Nuke`mons".. ant the "Nuke`mons" gain levels and do battle with other "Nuke`mons".... sorry if this a bit hard to follow im making it up as i go but hell it worked for Fo Tactics...

and finaly we will take this game incorperate the SPECIAL system into the Nuke'mon leveling and then slap the Fallout title on to the box cause lets face it, the kids are dumb they want Fallout they will buy any Fallout game we throw at them... stupid economist....

Fallout<buy it>Nuke`mon: A post<buy it>poke`mon nuclear<buy it>warfare game<BUY IT!>

 

Chris Taylor said I'm a fruitcake.. he hurt my poor wittle feelings.. but I forgive him, because he still wants to have some manbabies with me

And if the guy behind Torment and New Reno is working on FO3.. well it won't be entirely horrible. At least the part that involves Torment and New Reno.

Oh, and Feargus, I'll be seeing you at E3. MWAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHA...
hahaa...
oh boy... I need a nap

bye

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nate on 2001-05-13 23:40 ]</font>

 

We could make Nukie-mon a game like that wacky card game in the Might and Magic series.

I'm thinking my favorite Nukie-mon character would have to be Dogmeat-a-chu.

 

HAHAHAHAHA....

FEARGUS YOU MAKE ME VERY HAPPY YOU TAKE WHAT I SAID LIKE A PAT ON THE BACK... I WONT LISTEN TO V13 GUYS ANY MORE <they're calling you beezlebub over there>

YOUR A GOOD GUY IN MY BOOK ILL BE GLAD TO DOWNLOAD TORN OFF SOME WAREZ SITE....thats a joke....


FEEGUSS! FEEGUSS! FEEGUSS!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TheDotard on 2001-05-13 23:06 ]</font>

 

I agree with Dr. Teeth. A game engine doesn't make a game. When my brother brought home Fallout, so many years ago, I scoffed with a friend at how silly the graphics were, over a very short period of time, I ate my words very quicky as the *story* got a hold of me.

If dropping an old engine, albiet, an engine that we would all recognize, and already be familiar with (ie. the familiar), and bring in a new engine to encourage newer, younger, and a wider auidence to also appreciate (ie. the unfamiliar) what, you and I enjoy about Fallout. So be it.

Are the sensibilties of people so delicate, that the thought of Fallout, in some other graphical content or context so abbhorant, that the mere mention of a change brings bile to your throats?

Fallout Tactics, as much injustice it does to what a roleplayer thinks made Fallout great, no one complains about it *not* looking like Fallout. I think graphically Tactics is a beautifully done game, it looks like its in the Fallout Universe, and graphically it *does* do Fallout justice. Its just everything except what it looks like it, that makes it seem so NOT Fallout (and those circus freak Supermutants, other than some *artistic* choices made, for a company not responsible for the first two games, making everything from scratch, excellent job)

I think real-time combat shown in FOT was good. I enjoyed it, turn based or not turn based has nothing to do with my Fallout experience. I thought it was an excellent job done on a delicate matter. Granted, you couldn't do any real clever tricks in real-time, but that could be worked on. What is so RP about sniping 2 people in the eyes from 40 paces, as you quickly duck back behind cover, because its your turn?

I think a change to 3D, that still retains an isometric 3rd person (and gives users the freedom to change screen sizes and levels of detail) is a perfectly natural way for a game to progress. I don't want to see Fallout with some Lara Croft view, but if it an overhead-view, that could rotate around the character (Syndciate Wars or Dungeon Keeper2), would be nice.

Like my prior message, I think Fallout was a combination of atmosphere and story, but more importantly the story and character development. Choices the player gets to make, and the outcomes of those choices are really important.

If the lead designer from Torment is in charge, I'm greatly contented! If Fallout changes a bit graphically, no matter, if Chris Avellone, can keep the feel and story going in a third incarnation I greatly look forward to it.

Feargus, now that we have your ear of *the fans*, is there something productive, or worthwhile, we *the fans* can offer the team, in what we want to see in a FO3 release? Ranting about we don't want to see, is easy, but, can we help too?

 

And here is where the preverbial shit hits the fan. No longer is this completely about making an experience that will stay with us the rest of our lives, it's become a "business." Well, if you want to sell those copies, why not pull out all the stops and design the game as a cheap $20 knock-off along the lines of "Bubba's Brahmin Hunting Simulator." I'm sure you could earn back your development costs then.

Seriously though, watch your step Feargus. Thinking about your creation as an "income stream" for some twisted business model has been the death knell for many companies in the business. The minute you start sacrificing those parts of a game that make it unique, whether it be aimed shots only implementable in a turn-based system (arguable), or the ability to beat a game WITHOUT USE OF VIOLENCE in favour of catering to a larger, less focused audience, you lose the main selling point of the game (or in business speak, "the product"): ITS UNIQUENESS.
Dumbing down the combat in Fallout would be like removing the customizability and multiplayer out of the quake engine games, you lose your selling point. It's doubtful that quake would have sold so many copies if it relied only on its great, well thought out single player. Fallout was all about careful planning, strategy, and diplomacy, turning it into some bastard child of the infinity engine games would only remove these factors.

In short: IF you make Fallout 3 in such a way that I can't beat it without killing masses of people, and combat becomes the trivial click-and-run previously mentioned, and available for your gaming pleasure in the infinity engine games, you will have destroyed what is the Fallout experience.

-Dan

PS-I'm partial towards 2D graphics as well. Remember: BEFORE IMPLEMENTING A NEW FEATURE, ask yourself, is this necessary, will it enhance the gameplay in any discernable way, or will it infact hinder and alienate the player?

 

In that case, I'm buying it.

By the way, does anyone else think it's funny that a bunch of Fallout fans are discussion TORN with Feargus Urqheart on an Arcanum board? :smile:

 

There is not much to say, that hasn`t already been said.
So I`ll just state that I agree...to some :razz:

To sum it up:

-Quit making 3d rpg

-Torn sounds like Dungeon Siege to me, thus excluding any chanses of a good rpg.

-Fo3 should follow the formulae of it`s ancestors. If it`s not broken, don`t fix it!!
The ones who`ll buy Fo3 is the faithful fans of the series, and we want the game to be Fo3, and not som funkey smelling new "Postal" game...in 3d

- Zen


Arcanum will save us!

 

Wow, it's like a turnbased #vault13 in here :smile: I know I am a bit late jumping in on this one, but I think that the fact that turn-based is even considered for the chopping block is a sign that the lowest common denominator is indeed dropping faster than the entertainment industry can dumb down. Don't forget the sole reason FOT introduced CTB. MULTIPLAYER! Most players don't have the patience to wait for other people to have their turns, but in a single player game, try to remember that the player is playing at their own pace, and doesn't feel like they are suffering a pause at the whim of another player.

I think the most important thing for you guys to remember is that you are game developers, and you should behave like game developers, not like f***ing corporate d***-sucking metallica wannabes gorging yourself on the seed spilled by the Tommy Mottolas of the world.

Well, that's enough ranting for the time being, I apologise if this sounds like an attack, but it is a topic I feel quite passionate about.

 

Of course, the forecast for Black Isle is clear:
Take a look at the screenshots of all the games present on their front page what do you notice? Not a single screenshot shows dialogue or character screens. I don't think there was even one that didn't have some violent aspect to it. Now, Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape weren't your run of the mill action RPG, a large chunk of gameplay was character interaction. Why is this not showcased? Why is Black Isle failing to advertise this?

Just thought I'd point that out, in order to keep from turning this into a troll, I'll leave it up to you to decide exactly what we can expect from TORN and Dark Alliance.

-Dan

 

Gee, notice how many of us signed up today?

I have to second the notion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm a little curious just who thinks that trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator will make it sell. It's a bit like the politicians who try to be all things to all people and just wind up being not much to everyone. They have the benefit of only having a very few competitors, also, which you do not. Voters are also forced to either choose one or choose none, and even if only one person votes, someone is going to win. If one person in the world buys a video game, no one wins. If you're afraid that you won't sell units because some people think it's "too slow" just what makes you think those same people won't be twiddling their thumbs during the dialogue that you plan on including screaming, "Hurry up! Hurry up! I wants to kill me some mutants! Bleh, what a bore." Anyone who's that worried about fast-paced action and just likes fragfests isn't going to give you the time of day, anyway, so who cares what they think? They'll see the words RPG without the word Diablo and just walk away. On the other hand, while appealing to this phantom market, you might end up lessening or even ruining the game for your established market, who are probably more leery of snapping up a game just because of the name Fallout after playing FOT. It seems to me that few people here, who are your base, care about real-time action. Yes, you could make it real-time with pause, but what's the point, then. It's neither real-time, nor fast. It's just a clumsily implemented turn-based system. To make it a challenge for the pause happy turn-based fans, you'd probably have to wind up making it much tougher for the real-timers, basically forcing everyone to use pause to fight most effectively.

To anyone who thinks you could make targeted shots and such for more than one person in the middle of combat without pausing or making them target the same area all the time efficiently, I'd like to hear how.