What do you want in FO3: Realistic expectations

[PsyckoSama]

Lets make a list of the factors we'd realistically accept in a FO3 that would be liked by the fanbase, both as the best case and what we could live with...

I'll start.

Best Case: 3rd Person Isometric view like the first 2 games.
Acceptable: 3rd Person Isometric Follow-cam like in NWN or to a lesser digree, KOTOR.

Best Case: Turned Based Goodness.
Acceptable: Real Time with a tactically functional pause option

[atoga]

i've never been a fan of real time with the pause option. for me, it ruins the flow of gameplay and it feels like you're cheating whenever you invoke the pause option. it's gotta be turn based or real time, not some silly in between option. to be honest, combat isn't even that big a deal for me (provided they make the game reasonably combat-optional).

i'd like some bigass dialogue trees as well. an acceptable alternative, i'd suppose, would be having lots of dialogue options for when you initially talk to someone, with each first branch of the dialogue tree leading down a linear path to a logical conclusion, or something. i don't know, i'm not totally sure how you could realistically 'dumb down' dialogue trees while still giving the player a lot of choice with them.

[johnnygothisgun]

That's the thing, having anything less than large dialogue trees is unacceptable. This is Fallout - "yes I'll help you", "no, i'm busy", and "rumors?" aren't going to cut it. For me, the lack of dialogue (ZERO DIALOGUE) along with level scaling ruined Oblivion, and I'm understandably nervous that they'll do the same thing with F3.

I agree with Psycko on his points, and I'd like to add one of my own:

No instant-travel option for returning to locations you're already familiar with. I feel like it would totally kill immersion. You know, almost as much as "LOADING" in the middle of my screen while I'm walking through the wilderness.

That's also got me thinking - there's probably not going to be a world map in the sense we're used to - it's all going to be there, and the space between zones will actually now be zones unto themselves, which has the potential to give you feeling that traveling through the wasteland is a real bitch, but is also going to force them to throw in shitty auto-travel options that will conflict with the setting (public transport laffo?) and completely eliminate any sense of scaling in the world, since everything will be the equivalent of a few hundred meters (instead of miles) apart, unless the game is going to take place in a very small environment, like a single city.

[Wolfman Walt]

I don't negotiate with terrorists, Beth will either comply with my demands or I will shock and awe their asses back into the gravel age.

[PsyckoSama]

I don't negotiate with terrorists, Beth will either comply with my demands or I will shock and awe their asses back into the gravel age.

How about you don't act like a Troll and contribute. The point here is to assemble a list that says what we actually want without looking like ranting hateful lunatics so if we do decided to hand it off to them they might actually read it.

[Wolfman Walt]

The point here is to assemble a list that says what we actually want without looking like ranting hateful lunatics

You apperently haven't been following the Fallout community for the past few years. You also don't seem to understand that any list we turn in probably doesn't matter. Bethsoft has it's own idea of how the game should be and some list by afew meager fallout fans who probably can't even agree as to what they want will only be a drop in the bucket. Besides, we already HAVE a topic for suggestions.

Besides, that's what I actually want. I want the game to be done in a method that's appropriately fallout and nothing less. So how about you stop acting like a retard and stfu.

[PsyckoSama]

The point here is to assemble a list that says what we actually want without looking like ranting hateful lunatics

You apperently haven't been following the Fallout community for the past few years. You also don't seem to understand that any list we turn in probably doesn't matter. Bethsoft has it's own idea of how the game should be and some list by afew meager fallout fans who probably can't even agree as to what they want will only be a drop in the bucket. Besides, we already HAVE a topic for suggestions.

Besides, that's what I actually want. I want the game to be done in a method that's appropriately fallout and nothing less. So how about you stop acting like a retard and stfu.

First, it can't hurt, second, I did leave for afew years and I see that its still as hard to please and hateful as ever, so kindly piss off, crawl back under your bridge, and let those of us who don't our heads up our asses think of some ideas because hey, it can't hurt and we frankly have nothing to loose.

And really what is 'a method that's appropriately Fallout'? Just rhetoric until you state what you're talking about because 'appropriately Fallout' means as many things as there are people who play the game.

[Wolfman Walt]

People have their heads up their asses for realizing the reality of things? What sort of bizzaro land are you from? There's a difference between being close minded and being a realist.

so kindly piss off, crawl back under your bridge, and let those of us

No, go fuck yourself. A. You need to learn how to take a joke OVAR DER INTERNETS and B. Just because my message didn't match up to what you wanted, doesn't mean it's any less credible. A lot of people feel the same way I do and the fact of the matter is, they don't WANT to compromise.

And really what is 'a method that's appropriately Fallout'?

It's exactly what it says dick shit; they still teach reading comprehension right? It means something closely aligned with what the original fallouts were. Isometric view, turn based combat, dialogues, sand box, etc. It'd take too much time for me to list everything so my suggestion is to go play the game. Infact - what I want is pretty much what these guys are making and I think Beth could learn a valuable lesson by asking for their advice and or help.

[PsyckoSama]

That's the thing, having anything less than large dialogue trees is unacceptable. This is Fallout - "yes I'll help you", "no, i'm busy", and "rumors?" aren't going to cut it. For me, the lack of dialogue (ZERO DIALOGUE) along with level scaling ruined Oblivion, and I'm understandably nervous that they'll do the same thing with F3.

Oh yeah. If it wasn't for the total lack of diolague trees, tactics might have even been useful as a Fallout Toolkit.

No instant-travel option for returning to locations you're already familiar with. I feel like it would totally kill immersion. You know, almost as much as "LOADING" in the middle of my screen while I'm walking through the wilderness.

Heh. Yeah, thats reasonable... they overkilled that a bit.

That's also got me thinking - there's probably not going to be a world map in the sense we're used to - it's all going to be there, and the space between zones will actually now be zones unto themselves, which has the potential to give you feeling that traveling through the wasteland is a real bitch, but is also going to force them to throw in shitty auto-travel options that will conflict with the setting (public transport laffo?) and completely eliminate any sense of scaling in the world, since everything will be the equivalent of a few hundred meters (instead of miles) apart, unless the game is going to take place in a very small environment, like a single city.

Agreed. They need eather a world map or an arcanum like set up where you have area maps then repeating "wilds" for hundreads of in game miles.

[St. Toxic]

Besides, that's what I actually want. I want the game to be done in a method that's appropriately fallout and nothing less.

It's in all likelyhood what we all want. But if I had to give shit up, I'd give up the BOS.

Best case scenario: No Bos.
Acceptable: One guy from the BOS who dies from radiation poisoning as you approach.

EDIT: As far as realistic expectations go, we'll get tons of BOS and everyone will be in the BOS ( wearing metal-cybertech thongs ) and it'll be Norway 67' all over again.

[PsyckoSama]

EDIT: As far as realistic expectations go, we'll get tons of BOS and everyone will be in the BOS ( wearing metal-cybertech thongs ) and it'll be Norway 67' all over again.

We already had that, it tanked and everybody went "What the fuck, Chuck?". :p

[hoochimama]

Lets make a list of the factors we'd realistically accept in a FO3 that would be liked by the fanbase, both as the best case and what we could live with...

I'll start.

Best Case: 3rd Person Isometric view like the first 2 games.
Acceptable: 3rd Person Isometric Follow-cam like in NWN or to a lesser digree, KOTOR.

Best Case: Turned Based Goodness.
Acceptable: Real Time with a tactically functional pause option

I'd call those unrealistic expectations, hasn't a beth guy already stated that they weren't gonna stop doing that which they're "best" at, ie first/over the shoulder cam, actiony real combat, big open gameworld and the shiniest graphics possible with the netimmerse engine.

What I might realistically expect is at least some 30% of side quests having alternate paths and two different ways to go about the main story arch.

[Locke]

for me it goes like this:

Best Case: 3rd Person Isometric view like the first 2 games.
Acceptable: 3rd Person Isometric view like the first 2 games.

Best Case: Turned Based Goodness.
Acceptable: Turned Based Goodness.

et cetera.

[jetbaby]

I endorse Walt and Toxic's interpretations.

[box]

Yeah, a FO3 that looked like NWN wouldn't be so patently offensive to me as a FO3 that lacked, yes, sprawling and sophisticated dialog trees. I mean, all that stuff about iso/turn based is true and to me 100% valid, but it's probably not going to happen. So I'd fight a more 'realistic' battle in saying the linchpin to my buying FO3 and lovin' it is dialog, dialog, dialog.

[Mismatch]

aye okay.

What is acceptable is a NWN style with a moveable cam.
That would do.

I can not, however, accept poor dialogue trees, single solution quests, and baby sitting behaviour.

Also, I do feel that turnbased combat is a must. FO1 && 2 are actually theonly RPG's where Ive enjoyed combat. Usually combat is nescessary but boring. In fallout, however, it was like decorating the cristmastree. With blood. And then setting it on fire.
All fun and games.

Also, bukkakegogglesgirl posters.


In essence, realtime combat, poor dialogues and/or babysitting would force me not to buy the game.

[Mr. Teatime]

I agree with whoever said FO games are the only games where I've enjoyed the combat (for RPGs). That's very true. Aside from maybe JA, I never enjoy RPG combat aside from Fallout's, when I loved how sprawling and messy it could get (shoot one guy. An hour later, the entire town is covered in blood).

[Dreadnought]

I want my favorite Fallout character, Dogp0rn, back.

[Cthulhugoat]

No BOS, no shitloads of raiders, isometric with whichever useless camera gimmick you like, turn-based, an extensive dialogue tree, and I'm fine.

I guess Ron Perlman is too much.

[box]

No, Ron Perlman is important, too. Is there even any talk about securing him for the new game? Too soon I imagine, and probably not difficult to do once the game is far enough along.