Arcanum graphics...

SP: Well, you could also look at Fallout 3 appealing to a "lowest common denominator" and Fallout franchising in general as Interplay bringing it's unique world and setting to the unwashed masses, if you now want to spin words about :smile:

I, being the supreme being that I am, think that running fansites and being part of a community for a few years is something you do of your own accord and not something the developer can be later held accountable for. I think it's their game and if they want to franchise it out to a 3rd party and then consider the product this 3rd party creates consistent enough with the series to release, they can bloody well go do so. They aren't obliged to make a game as we like it just because we happened to like the previous games in an unusally vocal fashion.

Meh, I guess opinions are like buttocks, everyone has a couple and this was one of mine. But you can't really argue that the fans have a weightier vote on what is 'fallout' than the developers do.

 

"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. "

LOL! So says someone who just claimed to be in the minority.

LOL!

 

Can somebody explain why you hate that guy ?

 

I don't care if TORN is a good game or not. If it's bad I'll skip it, if it's good I'll pick it up, being the CRPG'er I am. But the thing is... the game has no history, so it doesn't much matter what they do with it. If it's a failure so be it. But if they start messing up the Fallout Mythos (and the experience), a world which many of us have "lived and breathed" that's a big misstake. Why not make a Fallout RTS or just replace the SPECIAL system while some bright and shiny chrome while you're at it? Are we just supposed to bend over and be thankful for being able to buy another Fallout, whatever the quality?

And oh yeah... hate is a bad thing, I don't see any use for personal flames on old Feargus.

I didn't like BG, but BG2 and IWD was pretty nice (as an adventure and a dungeon crawl) but no true RPG's according to me. Although BG2 tried to add some replayability...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Whipporowill on 2001-05-14 17:23 ]</font>

 

Xero, we're still FREE advertising. We get the word out about things.

As far as "atmosphere" goes. I really doubt it'll come close to that atmosphere with 3D. Soldier of Fortune is probably the goriest 3D game there is, and Fallout smokes it in terms of death animations. 3D may do some stuff better, but it's hard to do gritty stuff when it has to be smeared on a polygon.

Also, part of the attraction of Fallout and Fallout 2 was the tactical combat. If they're going to screw it up and make it real time, that attraction is GONE.

Even Fallout Tactics' TB combat doesn't seem as good as the old RPGs.

1.) There's no accidental friendly fire except with bursting.
2.) There's no sliding from critical hits.
3.) There's no critical missing/bad luck screw ups.

If FOT is the pinnacle of what Interplay thinks a tactical experience is, there isn't much hope for FO3's combat. Yes, J.E. Sawyer even said he hoped FO3's combat would be like FOT's.

 

Hmm, well if you want to know what the 'Fallout Fans,' or any game's fans think or want you've probably hit a brick wall right there. Odds are you won't hear from a large percentage of your consumer base even if it seems like the world itself is banging on your door. If you want to base anything off of what all the people want, you can just give and go home, it just ain't happening. Best you can do is appeal to the trademarked 'oooh shiny' part of people and hope they don't try to poke any holes in whatever facade you put up that represents your game in only the barest technical way. If you find a niche market which has few games coming out for it you can build one for them and you're practically assured to have at least some return.

Everyone has their opinion, usually they're not exactly the same. I found Fallout 2 fun personally, and even though from a 'purist' perspective it didn't fit the mold, it was close enough to satisfy me. If you want to take it from a completely pragmatic point of view, none of this matters a whit at all for asking, "what do the people want." On the other hand this post has meaning in what some people think, so through this it does have value and meaning. To say it is futile to post about this because it's purely a small scale opinion is itself pointless, and really doesn't matter in the end.

To finish up what I forgot earlier, I'm reserving opinion on TORN until it actually comes out. A MP dialouge system where not everyone has to listen, yet also have a chance to barge in sounds intriguing, but in and of itself minor. The character of the world shown so far is cliched, and donkey ear halflings just seems strantge to me, but it isn't doomed because of this. Just to wrap this up quick-like, TORN isn't necessarily going to be bad because of a few possibly misplaced words, but I don't hold much faith in it either.

---------------------------------------------
- Anolis, "TORN and Fallout 3 will be what the people who make it want it to be, that doesn't mean everyone else doesn't matter, if you want to show a profit you have to sell it to someone."

 

So, what's changed now? Development time has increased for many games - namely because the developers aspire to create wonderful and amazing graphics, but Fallout doesn't need a new engine. And no, I'm not advocating the use of the original engine, but instead licensing a tried and tested one. After that's done the cost and development time should be relatively the same. So, what you're left with for risks is whether or not it will sell enough copies to make back what was spent, and then some. Well, the original buyers of Fallout can be counted on to dish out their cash, IF the game adheres to what made Fallout grand. Further purchases will come from those gamers brought into the RPG fold by the infinity engine games, I'm sure there are plenty who are seeking something with a unique (read: non-fantasy) story line and non-mindless tactics.

No, we hope we have a hell of a time, and return it if we don't.

Do you think Joe Gamer really cares about Daikatana, or who made what game (beyond the huge names such as Blizzard, id, and EA)? The only people who even remember Daikatana are the reviewers, developers, and hardcore gamers. Remember, entertainment consumers think on a case by case basis, not on brand names.

No, we don't represent the entire gaming public, but we do represent those who have played A LOT of games, and have disected the game at hand to a point where we know exactly what made it fun, and what made us buy it. Not listening to us is absurd - of course, taking our comments as truth is absurd as well.

And it all started with Myst. :sad:

There are NO hardcore games (except maybe certain wargames), only hardcore gamers.

Thank you for stating what the problem truly is: Black Isle is attempting to attract NEW gamers. There is a fan base large enough to support a new game, and if the game is good enough, it will attract new gamers on its own merits, there is no need to pump out Yet Another Generic Game (YAGG).
Also, I think you missed the point: we're trying to stop sweeping changes, not cause them. :smile:

Anyways, I truly hope that Black Isle's next game is original, fresh, and a NEW FRANCHISE. Every game they've made so far has been a blast (though, I don't know about Planescape and Icewind Dale, I haven't played them yet), and they genuinely do harbor some great talent. So, please don't let it go to waste.

-Dan

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dan on 2001-05-14 17:33 ]</font>

 

To clarify a bit on the 2D/3D debate, there are a few things to consider.

Saint is indeed correct by saying that the pre-rendered sprites of FOT have about 100,000 polys in them. They also end up about 72 pixels high in the end. Most low-poly games have a poly limit of about a thousand. It's one of those nice magic numbers, but in truth it depends more on the type of game, perspective etc.
Take for instance "Vampire: The Masquerade: Redemption: A Point-and-Click RPG" which had very reasonable character models, with fingers, facial expressions, capes and the like. The models look very nice and would weigh in between about 1500-2000. Now if you don't look at the logic here, that is about 50 times lower quality than a FOT sprite. Put some thought into it, and you will realise a few things.
The characters can be viewed from any angle or perspective, can receive real time lighting, real time deformation, take up far less room on CDs, HDs, RAM and even zip up better for warez versions if you are so inclined. You could even integrate talking heads for a few extra polygons, and be able to find those elusive items hidden behind walls.
Now on the other side of things, you could argue that FOT's graphics were top-notch (32-bit, pre-rendered, anti-aliased sprites) along with a tile based engine featuring real time lighting, and you have a very nice looking game. Much much nicer than Diablo 2 and it's 640x480 w/o anti-aliasing. But more importantly, one of Fallout's hooks was the amount of detail in each sprite and tile in the game. It would be easy to recreate a segment of the wastes in 3D, but what about a vault interior? Or one of the many towns?
There is also the issue of population in inhabited areas...in order to get in all the people that should be there, you need to start cutting poly-limits down, unless you want something that runs like Unreal or "Ultima" IX.
And just to turn the argument around _again_ take into account that by them time FO3 hits the shelves, most people will have a 1+ GHz processor, something in the realm of a GeForce2 and about 128mb+ of RAM. And that's a modest system. Moore's Law tells us that the optimum system would be pretty special. And then marketing unsheathes it's gnarled phallus and says "In order to market this for as many consumers as possible, we must aim for the lowest spec machine we can." Polygon limits are cut, and the developer with grandiose plans is left _TORN_ by the almighty marketing division (who has also decided all-caps will help sell the product) and once again, critical decisions have been taken out of the hands of the people best qualified to make them. That's consumerism for ya.

Well, enough food for thought from me, I hope at least some of that made sense, I haven't had my morning caffiene fix yet...

 

Hmm, I dunno about the tactical complexity really. Like I said in the earlier post, you can do things in TB that just seem unrealistic in 'real life.' This in itself I suppose could be an appeal, being able to sneak out for a headshot then whip back behind the wall as stated earlier. Strictly speaking I don't think TB or RT can really give you a 'realistic' experience when you take it apart, speaking from precedents anyway. For the bad luck and crits in FOT, I think that's mostly from the normally high point cost games and the fact that being able to boost your main weapon's attack skill to high levels early on and for a cheap cost that nullifies this aspect. No need for any skill other than combat oriented ones, therefore total dedication to tagged combat skill(s).

As for the 'accidental Friendly Fire' goes, that is a scalable thing in FOT, except perhaps in SP where I haven't checked. In all cases NPCs had a horrible, and still have a horrible, tendency to burst fire while friendlies are in the line of fire. In fact it was one of the most hated parts of Fallout 1 as I remember, what's-his-face with his SMG madness that could crack your back at the most inopportune time. The only differnce for FOT is that if you play TB, unless you have overwatch on your recruits won't auto-fire with you, or another teammate in the way. As for real-time, with Aggresive on you can depend on them to fire at any enemy that pops their head out no matter who is in the path of incoming lead.

Depending on whether you play FOT in CTB or TB, it isn't incredibly better or worse tactically or strategically than the other Fallouts in my opinion. It just ends up being more combat, with a total combat orientation system. The situations under which the combat takes place aren't as...I can't find a better word than 'deep' right now, as in the previous Fallouts though. Far less attachment and there aren't many instances where you can do things like get a Presidential Key to turn the Enclave's entrance defence system against Frank Horrigan when you get to him. Most of it is striaght up combat, without a twist, neither shaken nor stirred.

BTW, what do you mean exactly by 'sliding from critical hits?'

---------------------------------------------
- Anolis, "From what I can remember of the 'total' series so far."

 

Anolis, Sliding is when you were sent back because of a VERY powerful critical hit

 

"The characters can be viewed from any angle or perspective,"

And that is a good thing? I've yet to play a 3rd person or Isometric 3D game that didn't have seriously annoying camera issues. I want to play the game, not play with the camera.

"can receive real time lighting, real time deformation, take up far less room on CDs, HDs, RAM and even zip up better for warez versions if you are so inclined."

Yeah. There is no question that 3D is the future. But is that future now? Judging from what I've seen from TORN, I'd say "No". But then other games make me think it is close.

"Now on the other side of things, you could argue that FOT's graphics were top-notch"

I despise the game, but I have to admit the graphics were increadible. Even w/o AA it looked good.

"And just to turn the argument around _again_ take into account that by them time FO3 hits the shelves, most people will have a 1+ GHz processor, something in the realm of a GeForce2 and about 128mb+ of RAM."

Hehe. That's what I said (sort of), so I agree. But right now there are too many 8 and 16 MB video cards around.

PErsonally, think the move to 3D has come too soon for BIS (referring to TORN). What they're doing seems to recall all the cons of 3D and very few of the pros. Not a good combo, IMO.

 

Wow, people have sure gotten worked up here. And so, of course, I feel compelled to add my opinion. :wink:

Basically, I haven't played Fallout, but I do own Fallout 2 and have played it many times. That being my background, I agree with many people that the atmosphere and choices made Fallout (well, Fallout 2 as the case may be) great for me. Many people feel that 3D graphics would make Fallout 3 a horrible game. I personally think it's all in the execution. If you lose the atmosphere, then you've lost something. I must say, I played the Fallout Tactics demo, and while enjoyable, it did seem to be missing some of the Fallout atmosphere. I think it was that it wasn't gritty enough. However, 3D graphics would allow a bunch of features that I think are pretty cool. The simplest idea that comes to mind (done somewhat in Fallout Tactics) is the ability to have multistory buildings and elevation features. I think that the addition would be welcome. That being said, any new features don't matter if you lose the atmosphere. I don't think that switching to 3D graphics would automattically mean the atmosphere of the first Fallouts are lost.

On to real-time vs. turn-based combat. I personally only like turn-based combat, yet I can understand the desire of some for a faster pace. I think perhaps Arcanum (I've played the demo) has done the best towards a compromise, offering real-time, continuous turn-based, and turn-based combat. If this form of in game compromise can be effected, I believe it would be the best choice.

Honestly, I think people need to realize that everything must evolve. I think as long as the developers stay comitted to Fallout's style (exploration, customization, thoughtfulness, moral choice), I will be happy, regardless of whether it is 2D, 3D, real time, or turn based.

 

No, it only happens with the burst weapons in Fallout Tactics. In Fallout, it happenned with EVERY gun. It was quite common to be fighting raiders in a random encounter and see:

"Oops! Raider hit Raider instead of Vic!"

Even if the Raider who fired was only packing a pistol.

If you're surrounded, and a raider shoots at you and misses, he can hit someone either near you or behind you in Fallout. That's not in Fallout Tactics.



_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saint_Proverbius on 2001-05-14 19:40 ]</font>

 

Really? I'm shocked. (I haven't purchased FOT yet - lack of funds). So all those bullets flying around and you never hit a friend, unless it's in burst mode? So what then, is the point of luck? (Aside from random encounters, and one or two skills). Not that friendly fire was a big part of Fallout - but come on people, FOT is about pure tactical combat - are you saying that I can line up all of my team mates between myself and my target and miss them all? Every time? Very dissapointing...

I guess it's just another step to making the game "simpler, and more action orientated." More like easier, and a smaller learning curve and thus more sales.

-Dan

 

Rock on, Gareth

 

Ah, I remember that now, I'd forgotten about the sliding from the hard hits. I don't believe I got that often since I was a head shot sniper man with NPCs set to run/backup at minimal risk to themselves. As for the FF with single shot weapons, I'd completely forgotten about that. It never does happen with Single Shot mode in FOT even with full FF on, but I do remember such an instance in my own Fallout 2 games, heh. That did add to the complexity of the battles, and the sliding reduced your APs in the next round I believe.

---------------------------------------------
- Anolis, "I still go by previous statement on bad luck and crits though. Even near the start and in 1k games you can make a superb sniper thanks to the total combat focus that practically nullifies bad shots."

 

Oh man, this is one humongus thread!

I wonder why Monkey hasn't locked it!

LOL

 

Well in FOT you had taken basic training so you learned to shoot straight :grin:

Now It's patched FOT is quite entertaining but it suffers from lack of a deeper level of strategy like the Xcom games, or JA:2.
The world is static it dosnt matter if you sit in the BOS base for a year the menace from the west never comes knocking on your door.
Still fun though but the having to clear the battle field afterwards bored me to tears.

I am a very moderate gamer. As long as FO3 keeps the same open structure and has the multiple plot threads I really don't care if its not the same timeline,if it's 2d or 3d or if It's real time or turn based.
What I do care about is that I dont have to fight the controls or that I find simple tasks like moving a chore.
I dropped Arcanum because moving about was a pain and I didnt like the letter box view.
Made the game a chore to play and wasnt helped by the poor visuals.
(full explanation over at the Arcanum Inn)
Technical features like that are more likely to put me off a game than any other design elements because I play all sorts of games (exception being RTS which I went off for some reason and never got back into).

 

I don't care about the 2D/3D thing.

But if FO3 has RT combat I won't pay full price. I can't stand ranged weapon based games in RT. FOT merely reminded me how much I hate it.

While I almost always consider TB combat to be better when controling multiple characters, I do not mind it in some situations.

Obviously a lot depends on how they keep the parts of Fallout I like alive.

 

Where has all the Fallout Gone.

Oh you get me ready in your 50's Hunter
Why don't we go wander round the wastes
Take shelter inside my vault
The dandy lion sun scorching,
Like a nuclear explosion
I will buy your game if you give us the FO feel

CHORUS:
Where is my Tim Cain
Where is my gore
Where is my 2d Engine
Where has all the fallout gone?

Why don't you listen to us
Instead of watching the TV
And I'll try to convince you that your wrong
Oh I know your head hurts from arguing with us
How do you take your money BIS
I will find the bugs if you promise to fix them

CHORUS:
Where is my Tim Cain
Where is my gore
Where is my 2d engine
Where has all the fallout gone

Fallout is wearing your new engine tonight
But you don't, but you don't even notice we
Don't want it that way
Don't want it that way
Don't want it that way

We finally sold the Hunter
When we made a new fallout
And you took the Wal Mart rating
You made friends with the watchdog groups
And you joined them at their meetings
Almost every single day of the week

CHORUS:
Where is my Tim Cain
Where is my gore
Where is my 2d Engine
Where has all the fallout gone

I will wade through the crap while you make lots of money
Where is my Pip boy
Where is his mini-gun
Where is my turn based combat
Where has all the fallout gone
Yippee aw, yippee yea (3 times)

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

FO3 had better go back to its roots and what made FO and FO2 good games, not what makes BG2 a good game, but what made FO and FO2 good games.

Sigh...this is so depressing.

_________________
Oh no!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aegeri on 2001-05-15 01:02 ]</font>