Things that MUST be in FO3

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:45 am

Well it's abit more then just said. Bethsoft isn't exactly known around these circles as being a "Quality" development house. They also have a really bad record so snubbing out fans, such as those Star Trek dudes when that last star trek game came out.

Cardinal sin - Calling Oblivion an RPG. Oblivion was alot of things, but I don't think anyone around here considers it an RPG really.

I think the problem here is that everything is condensed into a really small place so its like you're stuck in the same city the whole time really. It makes for a really crappy intepretation of fallout because without some sort of fast travel map, everything is messed up. IF you make everything big and expansive like the original fallouts, you spend like 9 hours walking real time to the next town. If you make everything in a cramp space, it looses the whole "Wasteland" feel.

popscythe · Post by **popscythe** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:57 pm

LordLevo wrote:... So that's it? All this hate and Beth-flaming over them taking the name "Fallout" and making a game loosely based on the first two?

I, personally, wasn't a fan of the combat in FO1 or 2, and despised Tactics. I did, however, love the choices and the amount of interactivity with the NPCs and such.

Concerning the whole wasteland issue... Though I thought Oblivion was a decent RPG in itself, it had a lot of wasted space. Sure, it was cool to walk around for a bit and see a unique little spring or tree grouping you wouldn't find anywhere else, but after a while it got tedious and fast traveling was a much better option.

From what we've seen in Morrowind and Oblivion from Bethsoft, I really don't think it would work for them to push a wasteland. I mean, then we'd just have a lot of... flat... wasted space.

Besides, in FO1 and 2, it was easy to have a massive world. Games were nowhere near as demanding. Seems to me that if they have a smaller world this time around, there's more room for decent NPC content and quests/events. You know, what Oblivion... struggled with.

Get the fucking hell out, goddamn you.

LordLevo · Post by **LordLevo** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:28 am

popscythe wrote:Get the fucking hell out, goddamn you.

... You could have at least answered my questions. I said I was undecided, and I'm just make a few valid points.

Like kid killing. All well and good, but the game would be virtually off the shelves in Europe.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:05 am

LordLevo wrote:all well and good, but the game would be virtually off the shelves in Europe.

Why? Fallout 2 wasn't off the shelves in Europe.

DaC-Sniper · Post by **DaC-Sniper** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:41 pm

LordLevo wrote:... You could have at least answered my questions.

First of all, Oblivion is a girlie game, all dat horse riding shit, flowers, magic, fantasy, bitches and whatnot, Fallout is a game with the real thug shit, blood, gore, cheap ass hoes, style, don`t compare the real shit with that fake shit, know what m sayin, just to set this straight. We call dat oldschool, what Bethesda makes is total new shit, they don`t care about what those niggas back then made, they don`t respect it, and because they don`t respect it, we can`t respect them, ya know, thats how it works. Show some respect, fo`real.

fallout ranger · Post by **fallout ranger** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:20 pm

LordLevo wrote: I, personally, wasn't a fan of the combat in FO1 or 2, and despised Tactics.

So you like neither RT or TB?

LordLevo · Post by **LordLevo** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:33 am

No, I'm not exactly a fan of turn-based. At least when people claim it's better for immersion.

And Tactics in my opinion was a cumbersome Real-Time Tactical.

popscythe · Post by **popscythe** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:03 am

LordLevo wrote:No, I'm not exactly a fan of turn-based. At least when people claim it's better for immersion.

And Tactics in my opinion was a cumbersome Real-Time Tactical.

That's pretty cool. Now get back on your xbox and get some of those achievements, dick. They won't get themselves.

Subhuman · Post by **Subhuman** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:44 pm

He's right, though. FO's combat was the weakest aspect of the game. I also don't think turn-based is the Alpha and Omega of RPG battle systems, but wading into that argument is debating with a good thirty years of "this is how RPGs have always been" loyalism, which goes nowhere. It's like trying to convince Trekkies that Kirk was a better captain than Picard, or vice versa. Turn-based fans will not be persuaded, by hook or by crook. (Or by reasonable argument. Welcome to DAC.)

fallout ranger · Post by **fallout ranger** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:38 pm

Kirk was better than Picard, don't blaspheme by saying otherwise.

Also, we need sandbums.

popscythe · Post by **popscythe** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:58 am

Subhuman wrote:He's right, though. FO's combat was the weakest aspect of the game.

I feel that the way it was implemented, and the general lack of complex options that could have easily been tacked onto the combat system while keeping it turn based (see what tactics was going for and fell short of) is mostly interplay proving that shitty development can add a negative to anything.

That being said, turn based combat (strategy, mostly) is widely responsible for the hottest selling gaming market to date.

Care to venture a guess as to which massive cashcow proves that turn based combat is not only still popular, but sells more widely than Halo?

LordLevo · Post by **LordLevo** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:17 am

popscythe wrote: Care to venture a guess as to which massive cashcow proves that turn based combat is not only still popular, but sells more widely than Halo?

According to every list I've read, that's Pokemon or Final Fantasy.

And I don't think Fallout is targeting the same demographic that either of those two are. Also, both of those franchises have been out quite a bit longer than Halo.

Then you factor in console sales, and general appeal. Xbox sales (both the original and the 360), don't compare to either the Game Boy or Playstation, mainly because they were both cheaper at the time and more kid friendly.

Hey, I know I was a Pokefreak when I was 10. Who wasn't?

Dreadnought · Post by **Dreadnought** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:04 am

LordLevo wrote:Pokemon or Final Fantasy.

LordLevo wrote:And I don't think Fallout is targeting the same demographic that either of those two are.

How can you be so sure? The odds are good that they actually do.

LordLevo wrote:Halo?

Halo sucks. Unreal (tournament) is so much superior and way more fun.

LordLevo wrote:Hey, I know I was a Pokefreak when I was 10. Who wasn't?

Me. Because when I was ten children still used to play with real toys, like syringes, knives, LEGO and NES.

Summary: You sound like a consolekid/swell guy, thus my recommendation as a specialist is a clear STOP FUCKING POSTING, CUNT.

Edit:

LordLevo wrote:The Naysayer to Naysayers

Yeasayer then?

popscythe · Post by **popscythe** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:13 am

LordLevo wrote:Hey, I know I was a Pokefreak when I was 10. Who wasn't?

Wow, you missed it by a big, bad yard. I wasn't mentioning a specific gaming franchise, I was talking about a platform, namely the top selling video gaming platform currently available. The one that's made fuck loads of money publishing a plethroa of turn based games.

I suggest you go check out sales figures on google or something, sign up for IGN's forums, then talk about the aformentioned sales figures there. Not here. You've blown your fucking chance, asshole.