Arcanum graphics...

Liberal Media = A Myth...

 

Actually No, its not a myth

Why do you think the media was all partisan to clinton but not Bush? Explain why Titanic got aired but Bush's speach wasn't? They wouldn't have dared if clinton was president

 

Well, actually both of those moves seem to favor Bush.

1) The media GRILLED clinton on the whole whitewater, monica lewinsky thing. Hell they even reported about his staffers stealing white out from the offices. But Bush's drunk driving was immediately called a ploy by the democrat party reported for a few days then dropped? Funny.

2) The simple reason they didn't show Bush's speech is because Bush isn't articulate. I don't know if he's smart or not but the man cannot speak. So really, it's better if you leave him off the air that way everyone doesn't see what kind of person we have representing us in foreign relations. Would you like some oil with that?

Rupert Murdoch loves you!

But this is off topic... If you want real liberal media go read http://www.motherjones.com/. Let's leave it at that and keep on grilling Feargie! :smile:

 

I concur killian with the grilling feargus statement :grin:

 

Might as well contribute (hi guys!).

2D vs 3D is not an issue for me. I'm perfectly happy for a 3D isometric Fallout 3 and Torn.

But *only* if I can't tell the difference between the two. If I can tell that an isometric game is 3D simply by looking at it, then it's not ready yet.

Likewise, I have no complaints with a movable camera. Just let me lock it into place when I want to (which would be any time except when I'm on the other side of a wall).

Real-time vs Turn-based? Depends on the situation. Give me both, like Arcanum has done. If I'm in an easy situation, I can go straight through it with RT. If I want to think about combat, I want TB. And RT should *always* have a pause option ...

However, beyond everything else, the game world must be immersive. I want it that I can look up after 10 hours and still think it's only a few minutes. Give me dialog. Give me choices. Allow me to play an evil bastard ... a selfish bastard ... a do-godder ... a warrior ... a thief ... etc. Give me more dialog. Make the world react to me - by that, I don't necessarily mean make the world revolve around me. But make how the world treats me dependent on my (public) actions.

Oh - and an important one for a turn-based combat system. Don't make me wait around for everyone to finish their moves. Have everyone except me move at the same time. After all, if I'm only controlling one character, I don't need TB for everyone else

 

No offence, Skorpios, but looks like some clarifying of my "Fallout Clone" term is required.

Actually it's going to be rather short and obvious. I don't know the game as deep as Fallout and featuring all those nifty sides which Fallout had, that was released BEFORE Fallout. If there was such a game, then Fallout could be called the "clone of that game". There is always this ethical moment, when noone can say for sure - if the creators of the game were using their own ideas, or they have "borrowed" the best ones from the lucky products of the past.

C&C was also not very much alike WC2, but have you heard all this crowd of gamers shouting the word - "clone" ? I did! the same situation is here and my opinion is rather straightforward.

Arcanum uses VERY similar character creation and evolving system and has pretty similar combat. Moreover, it's a role-playing game, which makes it even more similar to Fallout. Finally, it's being created by the authors of Fallout.

So, understanding and respecting all the new features and the enhanced deep gameplay, I kinda insist on the fact that Arcanum will be the CLONE of Fallout, in the classical understanding of this term. If there wouldn't be any talks about this "3D Fallout 3", I would have said that Arcanum is a SEQUELL to Fallout, where the player is only brought into another world and the actual difference between Fallout and Arcanum is almost the same as the difference between Warcraft 2 and StarCraft. Remember those games? :smile:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solid Snake on 2001-05-14 09:12 ]</font>

 

I see it more as a brother to FO/FO2 .... not a clone. In the same blood line but a little different. I think to call it a clone kind of depreciates it a bit. We should be so lucky to have more RPGs with this kind of depth. Hell, the demo alone has more depth than Diablo.

 

hehe. it does, doesnt it?

 

Whoa.

First off I don't owe Feargus jack. Yes, he gave me Fallout2 and know what? I sure want to give it back. I took personal delight in blowing the ghoul with his name to bloody little bits, then reloading, then doing it again. Several times. What a way to piss away a quality title! I guess I wouldn't be so dissapointed in the joke that was Fallout2 except for the fact that you can see the fingerprints of brilliance in the first part of the game left by Cain and others who left for a far better place shortly thereafter. Fallout2 started great, don't get me wrong. I ponied up my HARD earned dough for Fallout2 because Fallout1 was such a trip. I ENJOYED the first part of Fallout2 because it was well-designed. But about halfway (maybe 2/3rds depending on my mood) it just fell apart. Right around the time I imagine Black Isle had to come up with their own ideas and not just mooch off of the dearly departed. Feargus, you hear me? Bring me the one who was responsible for San Francisco! The main city I mean. I have a red hot poker for that person and their bottom of the barrel design ethic. *poke!*poke!*poke!*poke!*

 

real time blows, 3d blows. the fallout games are some of the best games ever made. you guys made a big mistake when you decided to make fo3 3d. bg1 is one of the best games ever. bg2 is a piece of crap. fot in real time is a joke. fot in turn based is a pretty cool game, but it is too easy and the ai sucks. if fo3 doesnt have a turn based mode, it wont be fallout at all. diablo1 and 2 are some of the best multiplayer games ever. the black isle games online suck. they always crash and everyone cheats. arcanum is one of the only games i think will be decent. if you want nice looking 3d gfx, look at neverwinter nights. thats how torn should look.

 

My question is for Feargus:

What brought you over to this forum anyway?

Calis:
I also find this amusing that Feargus and some of the FO community are having this discussion on this forum, one set up for Arcanum.

Maybe this is a neutral enough forum?

 

I don't think the time is right at all for a real time 3d CRPG. The detail level of the graphics being produced by today's (and probably tomorrow's) graphic cards do not even come close to the graphical detail of pre-rendered art. And having a Fallout game without turn based combat? Pft! Might as well just end the Fallout franchise there, as they'll only ruin it completely...

 

Well, regardless of my earlier comments, if the guy behind Torment will be head boss-dude behind an upcoming Fallout 3, then fall to your knees heathens! For you have been delivered!
*LOL*

 

The_Sheik is 100% right on this subject. All these changes are just going to alienate the die hard fans of the series. That's pretty much what most everyone here is saying, Feargus.

Let's see, you're only gone to control one character, right? Combat is going to be real time. Tell me, Feargus.. How is this NOT going to be like Diablo? The fact there's guns? Even FOT's Real Time mode had a pretty high twitch factor to it.

As for loving Feargus because he gave us Fallout 2? Fuck that. Feargus also finalized the patch for Fallout 2 leaving a plethora of bugs and scripting errors in the game. The obvious example, you'll never see a happy ending for both Gecko and Vault City, or Broken Hills, or Vault 13.. GO QUALITY!

How about that utility that converted the old Fallout 2 save games to 1.02D that Feargus said was "Done, but needed some interface polishing"? Well, that turned out to be a big fat lie, didn't it?

I trust Feargus about as far as I can toss the fat bastard.

Now, on to 3D pre-rendering like Diablo and other games have. The big difference between a sprite and a 3D model is DETAIL. The sprites in Fallout Tactics had about 100,000 polygons each. The average 3D model in most games is 500-1000 polygons. There's a huge and very visible difference between the two.

Say, Mr. Vault Dweller, that's a nice set of triangular creases in your head, there. Yup, that's what I want.

As far as customizing how your player looks, there's GOBS of ways of doing it in 2D. You can make layered sprites, so that each limb is a different graphics model. That's how Diablo 2 did it, and the effect is pretty nice. You can see what helm you're wearing, what armor, shields, etc.

Anything else?


_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saint_Proverbius on 2001-05-14 14:14 ]</font>

 

Yeah.

You forgot to tell that prick that said we should shut up to go hang himself.

 

Forgive me, but i don't have the time to read all of the previous posts(i made it to page 4, thats 2 pages to read, and some pretty lengthy posts it was even)

anyway, My opinion is this.

If I am to buy TORN, I need more then...
a. hack'n slash combat, this is something I do not like in any game. Before I could take it, but playing through D, D2, IWD, BG, BG2 have worn down my tolerance, the bucket is now filled.
b. graphics that doesn't look very well, perhaps ok, but i always get this empty feeling with 3d graphics in an non concrete enviroment(darn, those textures looks flat! and the stone slab is not really anything else then a perfectly flat floor with a stonepainted carpet(also perfectly flat)placed over it!!! darn).
c. a half does IWD, it was an ok game, but i'm through with it.
d. half fallout(i need more then half, or as good or better)

on the other hand, i wont stop BIS making TORN, all i'm saying is that if i don't find it intresting, i wont buy it.

 

Hmm. Where to begin?

You seem to like expressing your opinions with chop logic and saying "Feargus is God", so thank you but leave the community opinons to those like Prov and Krix and others who can say they speak for a large majority.

Your opinion of 3d gaming leaves out one major point. INTERPLAY WILL NOT MAKE THE STORY THE SAME.

Case in point, FOT. Now, don't get me wrong. I liked FOT, or I wouldn't run a website about the game. But they hacked the story to pieces trying to make a new, BETTER, interface. They'll do the same thing here.

Flash doesn't interest me. And neither does bland 'It'll be good' statements from someone who has...prevaricated before.

Feargus is good, but I'm not about to say that he should just do whatever the hell he wants without me saying something about it.

Immersiveness in the game world is something that is very important... but we return to the 3d thing again. Fallout has never been about graphics. They're nice but not not over the top. If the focus turns to graphics, the storyline will suffer.

And don't say it won't happen, because it already did with FOT.

:razz:

 

Personaly, I see Fergus as a victim of Marketing. But I also feel that both TORN and any Fallout Sequal will be a good game, reguardless of the Marketing spin.

3d or 2d? I don't care. As long as I am not fighting the interface too much.

Turn Base or Real time? This depends on the interface and how much control is there. Real time needs to be done in such a way that it does not require a high degree of reflexive skill by the player.

Story. This is the main thing for me. Currently there is very little out about the TORN universe or story. Also, there needs to be "choice" in play styles.

TORN and Fallout 3 are realy in early development. Let these guys build a game before everyone says it is bad. Let the game fail and let them learn from mistakes. It will be better in the long run.

-gustavef

 

:uts on his asbestos suit and hunkers in his bunker::

Er... ok. This goes on for a while. Skip it if you're alergic to long posts. :wink:

Now, in my opinion 3D graphics are just fine. In fact, I think the real debate shouldn't be over if they're 3D or not, but if they're isometric. In my opinon RPGs should be first person. Watching my character from overhead like some sort of omnipotent god really breaks immersion for me. It makes me feel like I'm /controling/ my character, not /being/ my character.

Thus I'd love to see Fallout III in first person. I'd jump up and down and giggle like a drunk baby. I'm quite intrigued by TORN, but was very disapointed to hear they were using a 3D engine and making it isometric.

Now before everyone jumps all over the `bad polygon graphics' of first-person games, head over to http://www.elderscrolls.com and take a look at Morrowind. Those character models and environments are vastly better, imersive, and more detailed looking then any pre-rendered game I've ever seen.

Imagine seeing New Reno, or Tarant or Sigil with graphics like Morrowind. I truly belive there is not better way to connect a player with his character then putting them behind their eyes.

Nor does first-person mean action-hybrid like Deus Ex or shoot-em-ups like Quake. Anyone here ever play the old classic Ultima Underworld?

That being said, I'm sure Fallout III won't be first person, or Arcanum II for that matter. It would break with the tradition and upset lots of folks (despite the fact I'd love it). That's why I had a lot of hope for TORN when I heard it was using the LithTech engine, and was so disapointed when I found it still had a 3rd person POV.

I'd rather see TORN be much closer to Torment then IWD, as I'm /not/ a fan of hack-em-slash-em dungeon crawls. But I understand the need to sell games in order to keep making them, I just hope TORN, and by extention FO3 don't get /too/ action orriented. I'd still like to see the option to get through as much of the game as possible without fighting if your character so chooses.

As for the turn based/real time contraversy, then as long as we're stuck with the isometric view, I prefer turn-based. I like to think about what I'm doing. On the other hand, I realize that despite the fan base for TBC, a modern game almost certainly /won't/ sell well without the option to play in real time.
As far as real-time engines go, I was not overwhelmingly impressed by the Infinity Engine combat, it felt too distant, as if I had very little control.

Thus I think the best option would be to go the Arcanum route and allow the player to choose between real-time and turn-based. It might be too resource intensive to do this though.

MY solution for Fallout III and even TORN, would be to have the game be real-time--- ::dodges incoming rocks:: WAIT! WAIT! Real-time with a /twist/.

A speed control.

In addition to pausing the game, give us the ability to change the speed. Six settings changed with the +/- keys... say: Paused, Slowest, Slow, Normal, Fast, Ultra Fast. Actually, I suppose if 'slowest' was slow enough you could even dispose of the `pause' function.

A speed control would let us have more time to make choices, and I think choices are important. In the Infinity Engine games I felt I had little control. Combat consisted of clicking on an enemy and watching my avatar swing away. With the Fallouts though I had more choices. I could see my chances of hitting various enemies, more around more strategicaly and think about what was going on. Combat rarely disolved into the knot of frantically flailing figures that it always seemed to do in the Baldur's Gate games and Torment.

Running at high speeds it's hard to have any real control over your character. But at slow speeds you could change all sorts of things (type of swing, called shots, target, stance etc etc) without getting overwhelmed. Folks who didn't like this stuff could let the AI take charge of the nitty-gritty stuff, crank the speed up and click away Diablo style. Other folks could run at a medium speed and do a little of both.

Anyway, that's my two er... fifty cents. :smile:

Joe

 

I gotta go with Monkey here:
"on the other hand, i wont stop BIS making TORN, all i'm saying is that if i don't find it intresting, i wont buy it."

Shouldn't that always be the bottom line?

I'm not really put off by the 3D; eventually somebody's gonna get it right, if only because the market demands it. Maybe they will. It's possible.

And I'm not put off by the combat intensity; I didn't like the Diablo series at all- bored the hell out of me. But the stoyline in Diablo was weak, and NPC interaction was...ummm...absent? Fix those and it would've been a very different game. IWD was better than I expected, given the limited level of interaction.

Just seems too early to get worked up over.