Arcanum graphics...

Did feargus run away with tail between legs? Where is he!?

 

I want FO3 to be in 3D. Take a look at some of the Neverwinter Nights Screenshots, it can be done very well. I don't think it will be un-Fallout is just because its in 3D.

Hey I don't mind real time combat either as long as it is done in the same style as BG's, Torments and IWD's. I don't have a problem with that.

For me it wasn't the artwork or the turn based that made Fallout, fallout. It was the setting, the atmosphere. It was the open-endedness. It was the dialog and choices, not the graphics or how the combat was handled. Last time I checked story, dialog and moral choices have absolutely nothing to do with how combat is handled or graphics.

What sold me on F3 is the Chris Avelone Lead Designer of Tormet (prolly the most interesting RPG's in years) is the lead. I'm buying it. Maybe some of you guys should play PS:T .

 

I concur with several points made so far:
1)You CANNOT compare 3d rendered sprites to real time 3d rendered graphics at this current point in technology. The detail difference is immense, there's no way in hell that you're going to make rt 3d look that good without bumping the system requirements up to the bleeding edge - alienating a massive chunk of the potential market.

2)Fallout isn't fallout without an "M" rating. Without bodies ripping apart, grotesque ghouls, disturbing and horrifying character interaction, all you're left with is a long story with no flare.

3)Why did games make the move to 3d in the first place? Before it became an industry buzzword? Simply because it was a better way to immerse players in their environments - which explains why the first games to feature it were Flight and Tank Simulators (Battlezone anyone?) What possible addition to the experience would be made having fallout move to 3d? How is this going to further immerse me into the experience? It better damn well be 3rd person still.

4)Where are those fallout editing utilities?

5)Please fix those missing endings in Fallout 2!

6)And how did all of us Fallout players end up on this board?

You have to remember, we gamers owe interplay NOTHING. We paid for the games, we wrote their paychecks. On the same token, interplay owe us gamers NOTHING. But, they are trying to sell us a product.

-Dan
PS-Although I may have been a bit harsh in this post and early posts, I must make it absolutely clear: all my praise goes out to the Fallout 1 and 2 teams, you did a damn fine job.

 

I think someone mentioned what makes a game great way near the beginning of this whole debate, where Half-Life and Jedi Knight were mentioned. I felt I should add my take on this aspect as well, since I would like to think (and hope) that BIS' aim is to make FO3 a great Role-Playing Game. Feel free to not agree with what I say below, but if you must, please flame in an intelligent manner. :smile:

What I personally felt were well designed and presented games (with RPG elements or wholly RPGs) include the following:

- Jedi Knight, as mentioned earlier
- Thief series, particularly T:TDP
- Deus Ex
- Fallout series
- Planescape:Torment
- Baldur's Gate series
- Chrono Trigger and Zelda series (for console's sake, great game design isn't limited to PCs)

I'd like to point out that none of the above games share the same graphical interface/presentation (i.e. 2D/3D, POV, etc.) None of them share the same combat system. Heck, some of them aren't even "categorized" as RPGs.

What I felt made them great role-playing experiences were:

- the design of the story/plot
- how the story unfolded
- how it interacted with gameplay
- and how it affected the player
- the design and incorporation of the setting
- how the background information is presented
- how it elaborates upon and expands the world where the main plot takes place
- how believable it is, not necessarily in real-life terms since the fantasy/sci-fi settings themselves are fiction, more like "If I lived in the game world, is what happened in the game reasonable or would I have to check my brains out at the retail counter."

Think about that, and look through the list of games again (hopefully if you haven't played some of them at least you've heard something about 'em). The great design in story and setting is the aspect that they all share. Some of them borrow from established fantasy/sci-fi settings like Star Wars and D&D while others from real world institutions (like in Deus Ex). In these cases, a solid background was already present and the designers had to innovate with new ideas and work within a given set of rules.

Conversely, games like Fallout, Thief, and CT established their own settings and made them believable. Their designers gave them credible plots on top of that, adding to the role-playing experience.

Anyway, I think I've spent too much time on this already, and you probably get the point by now. I don't claim to know anything about game design, all I'm saying is that in the midst of "strategic marketing," trend analysis, and what have you, that BIS doesn't miss out on making a great role-playing game. Someone mentioned screenshots for new BIS games not featuring dialogue, hopefully they aren't indicative of the situation with FO3.


P.S. As for FOT, and bugs aside, what can I say? They wanted to go tactical, but see JA2/X-Com (squad interaction/atmosphere)and Homeworld (did I say story enough yet? "Tight" integration) for lessons in great tactical game design.

 

"As for Fallout 3. You guys don't need to worry, it's going to be cool."

Oh, I think we need to worry. I've been worrying since I had a similar "discussion" with J.E. Sawyer a while back.

"It's not going to be the same game that the original Fallouts were, but I think that is a good thing."

LOL! I think you're in the minority, there.

"We've learned a lot about making games in the past few years, and we are going to apply that to the Fallout series."

So you're going to try and make the game mass-market, then? I don't know what you've learned, but IMO the Fallouts are still *easily* the best games you've published/developed.

"Is it going to be a little more faster paced in combat - of course, it has to be because we can't make a solely turn based game anymore."

Why? Why turn your back on such a popular system? The Fallout games sold magnificently, from what I heard. Have you been blinded by the success of Baldur's Gate? Fallout isn't D&D, and has never been a giant hype machine.

IS that so you can shove in Multiplayer?

"Companions instead of Party Members, and a combat system that is more complex than Diablo."

LOL! Have you played Fallout and Diablo? "More" complex?!?! They're NOTHING alike. Hell, the action Point aspect of Fallout gave the combat system more depth than Diablo and any of the Infinity Engine games combined.

As for the "Companion" thing...I think you have not listened very hard. I go to many boards and have been involved in many discussions about Fallout...and the #1 complaint has ALWAYS been about the lack of "companion" control. That was the most daft thing about Fallout, by far. I can't believe you guys are using that in TORN, as well.

That is also, BTW, the #1 complained I've heard about TORN, as well.

You may have heard some complaints about Fallout's combat system...dig a little deaper, and you'll likely find (as I have) that the "companion" system that we all supposibly like so much is at the middle of it. Cut that out, and a lot more people will be happy about an already popular system.

As for 3D. I think it will be good to see Isometric 3D games. The benefits of 3D are going to be big. Right now 3D is crappy, but already RPGs are making use of some of the unique things that you can do with 3D (sadly TORN isn't one of them, though).

Remember guys, Fallout 3 isn't even in production yet. If they started today, 3D would have advanced enough to make backgrounds look as good as 2D backgrounds, and be more interactive.

Fallout Tactics is a perfect example of why party based Isometric RT combat and guns DO NOT mix and why just shoving in a TB mode won't cut it.

Anyway. The what I hear about the way the Fallout series is going and just the way BIS is headed in general, I think it may be best to put the Fallout series to rest.

Wish I knew about this discussion earlier. Why is it on THIS board of all places?

 

The idea that we owe Feargus anything for FO1 and FO2 is rediculous. He sold the game, we bought it. What else do we owe him? And if you want to look at it as parties "owing" eachother anything, how about $30 out of my $50 back, then we can call it even on the FOT count.

 

Decado> because it is the house of lords?

Actually it might have something to do with many over here talking in bad terms about TORN. Perhaps Fergus found it becuase i posted a link to TA over at the TORN boards(i quoted saint proverbius from page two in this thread, and thus used a link)? who knows, or perhaps feargus just loves TA

anyway i hope that TORN gets good(for me), but for the moment i doubt it. I also doubt that FO3 will get as good as FO1, but hell, i can always hope, can't I? *g*



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: monkeypunch on 2001-05-14 15:12 ]</font>

 

Hey, I've got a question. Feargus, what the heck are you doing posting on this forum? I'm pretty sure that Troika would wipe their hard drives in unison rather than have anything to do with BIS, so what's your involvement here?

Here's a novel idea; post about Arcanum in the Arcanum forum and about F3 and ripped (slashed, torn, whatever) in a BIS forum.

 

Lord Dunsany i agree to some point, but at the same time he didn't start it off. as everybody else he has his right(rights made by us i'm guessing, but anyway)to post on the thread.

and i know more about TORN, and new info(for me anyway)have been given about FO3, so i'm pretty pleased(not by the information though, but to know, and not stand clueless, not completly anyway).

personally i don't like the IWD part in the game, or the upcoming hack'n slash mayhem it will bring.


and Decado i loved the paty in fallout! don't ask me to trade in marcus, dogmeat, vic etc hehe, i loved those guys

even if someone would force me to reload once or twice(darn it, just give your followers burst free weapons

 

Monkey:

"Decado> because it is the house of lords? :smile:"

LOL!

"Actually it might have something to do with many over here talking in bad terms about TORN."

I dunno. Why the topic of Fallout 3, then?

"anyway i hope that TORN gets good(for me), but for the moment i doubt it."

I'm pretty much in the same boat. BIS has lost "instant buy" statis for me. I'll probably end up playing it. But it could end up being from the bargin bin or as a rental.

"I also doubt that FO3 will get as good as FO1, but hell, i can always hope, can't I? *g*"

I dunno. That is what I am thinking right now, too...and why I am not so keen on seeing BIS make a FO3.

Other guy:

"Hey, I've got a question. Feargus, what the heck are you doing posting on this forum? I'm pretty sure that Troika would wipe their..."

Don't be a dickhead. Or if you're going to be a dickhead, be a dickhead about Fallout (like the rest of us :grin, personal attacks are unecessary.

Personally, I think it is about time something interesting came up. I've been itching to see this topic going since I last argued with BIS over it roughly a year ago+.

Monkey:

"personally i don't like the IWD part in the game, or the upcoming hack'n slash mayhem it will bring."

I just don't understand it. He seems to be constantly contradicting himself. Was anyone hear able to confirm it IS Feargus?

"and Decado i loved the paty in fallout! don't ask me to trade in marcus, dogmeat, vic etc hehe, i loved those guys :wink:"

I'm not saying get rid of the party, the complaints are about not being able to control them during combat.

Frankly, a lot of people found it frustrating. Personally, I just found it boring.

 

This is almost off-topic now, but I wanted to speak to those who criticize Black Isle for thinking of business "instead" of creating a memorable game.

I work for one of Interplay's competitors now, but I have been involved in the industry for four years now, either in retail or in journalism. I don't claim to be an expert, but I think I have some idea how the industry works.

Making games is a business. It has been for a long time. Sometimes you take risks, like Fallout and Baldur's Gate. Remember what was going on back then. PC gaming was in a rut when Fallout came out. RTSs were multiplying. We didn't have Tribes clans everywhere. RPGs were a very niche thing, dominated by tactical geniuses and math geeks. Fallout came along and introduced character development and a new world to the masses. It was a risk, but then there wasn't quite as much to lose then, and when it kicked ass, it really kicked ass. Fallout 2 sold because of name recognition and word of mouth... There was little to no risk in Fallout 2, from what I could see.

Baldur's Gate was risky, but it was also very, very good, and Interplay could see that. Easily enough.

Now, while for us gamers the important thing is the game itself, for the developers things are a little different. To us, a game is a game. If we don't like it, we don't buy it. If we do, we drop $30-60 on it and have a hell of a time.

For Feargus, I'd imagine, a game is an investment of time and energy, but also of personal care and future "face." Look at Ion Storm. They put out Daikatana and Deus Ex. Now, if you heard John Romero was coming out with another game, wouldn't you think of the horrid flop that was Daikatana first, and wouldn't that color your impressions? Black Aisle has proven time and again that they THINK before they act, and they haven't put out a stinker yet. The thing is, Each game represents a huge investment for them, and so it's in their best interest to sell to as many people as possible. Contrary to what most gamers seem to believe, developers aren't in this business to lose money.

Hardcore gamers and bbpost communities are very vocal, but they're also the minority. Keep in mind that Feargus stated that his games need to sell ~200k copies to break even. Now look at how many people post regularly to this board. D'you think 200k different people read this board every day? Not only that, but honestly, the desires of the hardcore gamers are often contrary to what makes games sell.

Look at the top sellers' list. You'll find Barbie games and LEGO games up there with The Sims and Black & White. These games are NOT hardcore games. They're games that reached for the mainstream market and grabbed it. I'm not saying that FO3 or TORN will do that, just that that's what puts a game high on the charts. FO fans should be very pleased that Black Isle hasn't announced a monster-collecting mode or internal card-collecting game. Be thankful that Feargus hasn't mentioned a mini-game in which you raise Dogmeat from a puppy into a powerful sidekick. Hell, if they wanted to sell a million copies, they could have a section in which you can style the Vault Dweller's hair and design printable clothing. OR a Create-A-Wrestler type mode.

It's a balancing act. How do you keep your hardcore audience while attracting today's new glitz-puppy mainstream audience? I doubt Black Isle will make sweeping design changes simply because 26 people on the message boards think the combat should be turn-based. I'm not saying that that's not a valid opinion (I personally dig turn-based... I wanna new Xcom!), just that we all oughtta sit back and let the professionals, those with proven track records like Black Isle, do the jobs that made them famous. Let's sit back and enjoy the games they make for us, and if we don't like it... don't buy it. Simple as that. :smile:

Thanks for letting me rant in my first post. :smile:

Tar

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tar Markvar on 2001-05-14 16:11 ]</font>

 

Umm.. What was risky about Baldur's Gate?

They take a bread and butter license, like AD, and make a linear RPG out of it with real time, twitch combat.

There's nothing risky at all there. It's practically a no brainer.

Actually, I take that back. Interplay did do something risky with BG. They slapped in a really low, arbitary level cap so they could sell an expansion pack.
_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saint_Proverbius on 2001-05-14 16:22 ]</font>

 

I believe pretty much all I want to say has already been said by Saint Proverbius and others already in other areas, but I'll give a shot anyway and you can tell me when I infringe on others' original thoughts.

For me it seems that the part of the Fallout community that is most outspoken about the bad changes that have been happening since Fallout 2 is mostly concerned with the character of the world. I forget what word I was going to use, but in a sense it's the way the world sticks to it's reality, how 'in character' it is. It also doesn't seem to be so much the 'gore and violence' part of the M+ rating as it is the gritty portrayal of the game. In a spoof kind of way it ridicules the 60s, if I've got the right era, and the perfect picture they implemented. Instead of being another game that overlooks the ugly side of a post-nuclear world, Fallout kept in step with that, and though filled with humor and cliches, by staying within reasonable bounds of the world. When you stepped out of the Vault you had your ugly side of the coin and when you flipped it over you had the other ugly side.

Fallout is 'fanciful' at points, and while I laughed at the cliche of a two-headed cow, it wasn't out of character for what the world was supposed to be. The gripe with San Francisco would be the pandering to the 'munchkin' crowds with a wide array of high-tech weapons and armor easily available for little effort. Suddenly in the broken wastelands a veritable utopia appears. Personally it never made me hate the game, but the difficulty of the game up to reaching that point, and in reaching that point was not lost on me. As for those who didn't like Bauldur's Gate, this too is the character of the world, and your experiences with it. If you're normally the center of attention and have huge magical weapons, having Elminster walk up to you and engage in polite conversation less than and hour into the game isn't a great shock. For others having such a powerful, well known, and nigh deity character show up at all is like a form of blasphemy. Too close to the experience of games where small minds and large +5 Bastard Swords of Vampiric Vorpal Slaying run around.

Another well liked aspect was the way in which you could interact with the world in the manner you wanted to. The sheer variety of options and real possibilities, at that time, was almost unimaginable. The current trend of games didn't make such an occurance a likely possibility as I saw it. The game having not gone the quick and easy route to success and instead giving gamers who wanted more precisely what they wanted was a pandering of its own that obviously worked well.

The talks about 3D, 2D, the SPECIAL system and so on doesn't matter that much to me, and is related only in the sense of who you're pandering to, and how. In my opinion '2D' versus '3D' generally has an upper hand in the appearance of the art in the game. On the other hand who really cares about how the game looks more than how it plays. So long as the system isn't as simple as a pully and lever system, and isn't as incomprehensible as Cthulhu it's probably okay. The ability to create variety and some in depth complexity is a nice plus though.

---------------------------------------------
- Anolis, "Once again I did some 'quick' research to satisfy an impulse to check something and lost my steam, so I'll end here. As if anyone reads this other than me though, lol."

 

I agree that BG2 wasn`t a big risk.It was set to be popular anyway: big D&D license,BG1 was a success,big market (rpgs are very popular at the mo)..Arcanum however,has to face a lot in order to overcome the horde.

And as for F, I love BlackIsle,you guys make some choice games,but give Troika their due.

 

*chuckle,* poor Feargus. Comes to an Arcanum forum to explain on some points made on the subjects of Torn and Fallout 3, only to be invaded by Vault13 forumites and beaten to a bloody virtual pulp. Now, I'm going to keep my input on this thread relatively short, if only to go against the majority :smile:

Quite a few of you have made the point that you don't owe Black Isle and Feargus anything and that they, in turn, don't owe you anything. Among the things that they don't owe you is agreeing with your percieved notions of how a fallout game should be. Sure, a large part of the dev. team might've changed but it's still their bleeding game.

We can offer personal opinions, sure, but all this talk of 'the fans' wanting this particular engine, 'the fans' thinking a falloutish atmosphere has to be that particular way and so on is just childish. It's their game, and they don't owe you anything. For example, they don't owe you a game of the type you want to be a fan of.

 

Something that bothers me is... why use Fallout if you plan on going (more or less) mainstream? Why waste the good heritage of something if you don't plan on using it too the full extent? If it's not Fallout you're making... just don't call it fallout.

I agree that a game has to make money, but why take the most serious RPG and turn it into a realtime gorefest? It's just plain wrong!

 

Actually, I think they DO owe the community something. Interplay's been dumping on Fallout since Fallout 2 was released. The fact there still are Fallout fans out there, who devote their time and talents to running sites even after Fallout 2 was never finished says something.

Hell, Fallout Tactics pretty much devastated a lot of the community. We've been hearing about Fallout 3 since Fallout 2, and what did we get this spring? Fallout Tactics! Basically, a sacrificial title in which the name "Fallout" was it's only selling point.

There's nothing like a 12 month dev time spin off that has about as much depth as your average hollywood Starlet to say, "Thanks for sticking by us, Fallout fans!"

If they take Fallout 3 and make it in to a game that appeals to the lowest denominator rather than a true sequel, well.. That's not a good thing.

You're basicalling saying to the people who love the game enough to spend years dwelling in it, "Sorry, you're not worth it. We like our customer pool dumb. The kind who have the attention span of a parrot and are equally as attracted to shiny objects. Thanks for buying Fallout and Fallout 2 though."

 

HI to everyone from all the other forums :smile:

BG was a risk. Anyone remember decsent to undermountain? Blood and Honour ? Birthright? There were a lot of turkey AD&D games before Baldurs Gate.

Just because a game has an AD&D logo dos'nt make it a sure thing.

When it's your investment money in the project you can make demands. Until that point your only entitled to make suggestions.

By all means if the game dosnt meet your high standards don't buy it.

 

LOL! I doubt it will be anything like a "gorefest", why with BIS brandspanking new (OK, maybe not new) "T" rating scheme.

As for business decisions...that is what I don't get. Fallout sold extremely well. It has garnered an even larger following with all the bargin bin pricing and bundling.

Why screw up an assured big money maker? The Fallout games appeal to the hardcore gamer...I don't think BIS is going to be able to change that and be successful.

It seems to me changing the Fallout game style and combat system is the risky part, not making a FO3 along the lines of the previous Fallouts.

As mentioned, all we can do is talk. Franky, if the time comes and Fallout 3 is released, my biggest statement will be leaving the cash in my wallet.

 

Quite frankly, only a vocal minority complains about the problems they had with Fallout. I know half a dozen friends, all of which think Fallout is a great game, who wouldn't give a goddam what we are posting here, or what we think about it, point is, they see a new Fallout game, they'll probably pick up.

In fact, I imagine, my half a dozen friends, and all of your half a dozen friends, are the majority, people who heard about a great game from you (or me), and bought it, on your recommendation, and enjoyed it.

In fact, for every one hardcore fan, lets just say their are 6 regular fans. If these 6 regular fans see Fallout 3, and it happens to use a 3D engine, but still reminds of them of the old Fallout, they'd be happy to buy it.

I don't think the majority, the 6 for every one of us, is going to give a good goddam if the game is 3d or 2d, or turn-based or non-turn based or both.

Fallout is about the atmosphere, story and character development. I would say everything that made Fallout great, had nothing to do with its apperance. The lovely 50s architecture, the "talking heads", the guns, the ammo, the bodies being ripped in half, were all wonderful icing on an already great cake. Its the components of great story telling, with the window dressing that made Fallout fun, for me.