[Multiplatform] Fallout 3 - Guns with Oblivion

The premise of Bioshock's children might have given it the go ahead. I think the idea of just killing random children might not fly, but your point is still quite strong in lieu of this.

Fallout 2 wasn't exactly this bastion of brilliance. At least to me, though I wouldn't exactly relegate it to "It's my opinion" status either. So, while I know that Elder Scrolls is like That Game That's Text Filtered/Madden/GTA/Something Negative Not Necessarily Because It's a Franchise Game if that's your fuckingthing*GASP FOR AIR NOW*... I could think of far worse things. Like, no Fallout 3 (in which I wait for anyone and everyone to pop in with a "THAT'S BETTER") or EA Games Presents "Fallout 3" or some other copout scenario.

Things look decent at this point, I can still play through Fallout 1 and obviously my take on game and or the universe isn't so seemingly rigid as some around here.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Have a props, bubs.

"Everything is fine. Nothing is broken."

How ya doing, buddy?

VICTIM COMPLEX.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Don't fee-- too late.

Aesthetically, I'm inclined to agree with Brady. It'd be stupid to deny facts, yet what bothers me is hating the game before playing it. Especially since meme has a point about how it's "not the same." Though to be less ridiculous, Fallout Tactics was still faithful to the visual design of... well, Fallout. I'm not saying that people's pre-analysis of the game is wrong or that Bethesda has a perfect track record but christ, I would like to play the game first. Guess there is something to say about being skeptical and pleasantly surprised, though.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I like how FFT wasn't actually marketed as a Final Fantasy sequel. It's good to see you put in some effort tho.

Most people don't count it as a "traditional" Final Fantasy, though. At least it was common not to way back when.

Quote:

Tactics was post-apocalypticky like Fallout, but the problem was that the art direction was the post-apocalyptic near future from the contemporary perspective. With M-16s, Humvees, and all that other junk and crap.

Also the Super Mutants were terrible.

I imagine that it didn't garner quite as much criticism as Bethesda current thing, though.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Well, it isn't. Neither is Tactics traditional Fallout.

I was getting at the fact that nowadays, people are more apt to put it on their "Favorite Final Fantasy" list without reservation as opposed to the *not really a Final Fantasy* type treatment it received way back when... point taken, though. I don't see Fallout Tactics ever gaining that kind of status. It just isn't a "Fallout" like 1 and 2, hard fact.

Like I needed to tell you.

Quote:

Back then Roshambo was an administrator. Rosh was to the Tactics developers as The Incredible Hulk is to a generic cityscape. He's even referenced in the game as a bitter old man, but apparently also had something to do with reversing a bad design decision.

I'd like to say people saw this coming from a mile away, but the NMA thread had 400+ comments. Their general IQ took a nose dive a little over a year ago.

... I just want to sneak in here that I never said it wasn't criticized. It probably goes without saying, but just feeling insecure and all. So... uh, generally, I don't take fandoms too seriously. Mainly because there's a lot of sound and fury, but usually very little of substance at the end of the day. "I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY'RE DOING THIS! I MEAN, I WOULDN'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ON WHAT TO DO AS FAR AS ANYTHING COMPETENT GOES, BUT HOLY SHIT I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS!" If the NMA starts speaking in unison, referring to itself like "The Many" from System Shock 2 does, I'd probably be very unsettled if I were Bethesda.

Good on Roshambo if he did get something changed on the game. I wasn't there, but I'll take the good word for what it's worth.

Quote:

Also, the scans were posted in this Something Awful thread. Get 'em while they last.

Getting some mileage out of that new membership, eh?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I think these days, I would worry more about the development studio that gets their hands on a title than anything else. For everything we've learned about game development, I sometimes thing... think that referring to the main company itself is something of a side-show to people who probably know something of substance about this business itself. The kind of eye we get into development these days is great, especially in comparison to the kind of reaching I remember doing in 1999/2000 on gaming. And especially now because I can do a much better job at faking an informed opinon.

I'm of the mindset that Ken Levine would make a killer Fallout 3, based off what Bethesda has just shown us. Doesn't make it a good idea, but I still like games guys.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

What they are disputing is making a franchise game that doesn't play like its predecessors and billing it as a sequel..

Admittedly a bit exasperated here. There will be debatable... things in here. I'm not entirely convinced I have a point, though the temptation to just vent here is too great for me. So, feel free to lay into me (like I could stop you).

All of those examples that Monkey King used are fine and dandy... but here's the thing. I don't think the Zelda or Castlevania fanbases were polarized back then. I can't think of a single person I knew who WASN'T excited for Symphony of the Night. Zelda 2... I was too young back then, though call me crazy, I think the guys behind those projects still had a legitimately known origin in the development of those games. Zelda is always controversial (it's fandom, like all fandoms, are a faggot collective) They hadn't tanked, so I find them laughable as examples in this case.

Now my example would be Thief 3... I think it's a bit more applicable here and that it makes me better than you all. REALLY! -- Not really :sadface:

First of all, it wasn't entirely horrible at the end of the day. Yeah it had issues, yeah if you didn't like Thief 2 you probably hated it at some level for being "Thief 3", YES CONSOLE DEVELOPMENT FUCKED THINGS. But there were good things going on there. The only thing I think was universally agreed upon was the question of "Was this Thief?" I know a lot of Thief 2 fans who still say "No" to that. I still say "No" to that. But it's subject to debate, and aesthetics and such are for fags lol.

That's me saying I don't give a shit about it now.

So, what does that have to do with anything? Similar circumstance and fanbase I'd call it. Reiterating, when Symphony of the Night was released, it wasn't like Konami had gone under. Same with Zelda 2 and Nintendo, the gaming community wasn't quite united in faggotry at that time via the internet. Yes there were faggots, but now we can all cry meaninglessly in unison. Did you hear the one about that Cel-Shaded Zelda?

Can we expect the same of Fallout 3? Is it going to be decent? Is anyone asking that question? Who would say they're more worried about the game being decent over, rather than along with, the fact that it doesn't bear true faith and allegiance to Fallout 1 and 2 so help it god? A fan [of a certain portrayal].

My frustration with this whole... Fallout thing lies in the fact that it's as if I need a demo or something which would put a collective mind at ease, like we're all waiting for that special someone to jump out and say "SEE!? I TOLD DAT NIGGA! TOLD DAT NIGGA! TOLD DAT NIGGA THE GAME WAS GONNA SUCK/RULE/BE FAITHFUL/ABUSE THE FRANCHISE NAME FOR PROFIT! WUT HE DO?!"

I can't fault anyone for speculating on this game given the evidence. Yet, for christ sake, for all the criticism I see shot toward gamers, this is a good case to reinforce that mindset. Are we all just a collective bunch of sandy vagina, whining faggots? If it's an enjoyable piece of work (please cast worries aside for me, do me that favor here), what are we left with?

"It shouldn't be called Fallout." ... Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

Given all we know of their work and with all of the things it could entail, I think saying at this point it isn't going to play like its predecessors, that it is going to move away from established themes... is refusing to accept that changing perspective and developers is going to also entail *GASP* change.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Tipping my hand, I wasn't a gigantic fan of some CRPG elements in the first place. But that goes hand in hand in the way I see games. I think the concepts Ken Levine is applying to Bioshock would be great for something like Fallout 3. I'm not such a fan of dialog trees as I was way back when.

I think I saw a few journal entries of yours basically, in a roundabout way, saying we're looking at a dying genre. Watching Fallout get taken into this whole bastardization/evolution of the old genre as you may or may not call it, is it that upsetting to people who didn't have such a vestment in the genre itself?

I don't have the time out here to do an Iron Man run of Fallout 1 or 2, but I think it'd be interesting to see how many people on the forums participate. Perhaps we could ask what they see in the games at the end of it? What they enjoyed and such? Was that your goal?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Eh, was more like a proposition. I thought if it were an ulterior motive of yours, it'd have been cool, regardless of that it'd be possibly worth doing if you could get a big enough number of participants. My reasoning is that most people I know never really play CRPGs for the roleplaying aspects, they complain that everything is "click click click." I'm wondering if that's all the conventional mind that most companies pander to for business is going to see in CRPGs.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

but shooters aren't a challenge for me

Elaborate, please.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

First person shooters are a fairly tried-and-true gameplay mechanic that generally operates within the same bounds every time. I've got the reflexes and the resourcefulness to hold my own in most of these games. I'd probably have a hard(er) time in Call of Cthulhu if I wasn't adept at making headshots with the revolver. This is why when it comes to an FPS I prefer games like the original Rainbow Sixes or Armed Assault, which are more simulationist and a single hit will fuck up your day.

Now, most turn-based games aren't simulationist, but they do provide a challenge and a sense of tension, especially in games like Fallout where a single critical hit will drop you down from full health to zilch.

*see Pang's original response*

Real-Time, reflex challenging... versus turn based. I don't find RPGs challenging because while most sections of action based games require at least some semblance of memorization and then on the fly execution, RPGs tend to just fail based off memorization, because there's very little to penalize on execution due to the fact they're so susceptible to "prep time."

I suppose this is why actual Pen and Paper is better than video game attempts at replicating this. But seriously dude, I'm at a loss here... you should be ashamed.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Rushing into a situation ill-prepared for it can have disasterous consequences.

I'm saying that Turn-Based kills what one might consider "challenge." Rushing in anything usually has disastrous consequences.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I would say the fact that "something can kill you in spite of memorization even when you're skilled" applies to other games in other genres, including FPS. That's about the only issue I have with it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I tend to enjoy a balance. I remember how fun (not fun) Halo 2 was when the shoe was on the other foot in Legendary mode. The computer kills you in a burst, and a volley of gunfire won't stop the computer from maiming you in seconds, all the while Elites have shields that will recover with time. Usually the time you're taking to attempt and recover.

I still believe challenge is relative, and the thing about RPGs (that you were getting at) is that you're still technically "rolling the dice." I'm not sure I consider it a challenge, though the mechanic would probably be a thrill in some other lifetime for me.

I can agree to disagree in that we find excitement from entirely different variables. I like the illusion that my skill can get me out of any spot. Ninja Gaiden was a good example, until I realized that a great chunk of the move list in that game became impractical.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Why not do some sort of randomized damage system for a FPS as well? Put in bullet randomization as well as little numbers that pop up each time you shoot an enemy that aren't necessarily the same every time. What's so hard about adding random critical hits to a FPS game?

Critical hits were done in Shogo: Mobile Armor Division. Unfortunately, the enemy had critical hits as well... thinking on it, I think Brady might find the challenge in FPS games he's looking for in that particular game.

And Brady has played games in Elder Scrolls series. It's why he's so critical of them.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Your memory is failing you, "Critical Hit!" usually popped up on the hud and trippy colors flashed whenever you delivered one on the opponent. You didn't notice an occasional massive health drop if enemies hit you, Brady? It's pretty much why most people loathe playing the non-MCA levels. Everything you describe RPG wise was present here. Yes, you could easily kill an opponent, but any shot could leave you crippled or dead health wise.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It better allows the player to make in-character decisions and determine the best possible approach.

Again, I have to disagree. Uh, to point out on the Shogo element. I realize that there might be more to the system and mechanics involved, but the feeling of "challenge" and "danger" you described is basically executed in real time with Shogo's system. It only popped in my head when I was thinking about enemies that could just drop you out of nowhere. That or I would have brought up the fact that if anything so much as sneezes on you in a shoot em up, you're done. But, it wasn't in the first person genre.

I'm not a fan of ultra-realism. It isn't unreasonable to say that a balance between difficulty and non-asinine game mechanics can be achieved. I'm not a slouch at FPS, though we obviously see things differently.

I think as far as engrossing the player, I don't like feeling detached at any point. What you described sounds like a preference rather than anything I would go around telling anyone. With a game like Thief, where you're forced to use your wits and tools at hand, there's always a sense of tension that you could be seen, you could get yourself seen.

When the game stops, the way Turn Based does so often, the immersion ceases. Why the hell would I want to be separated from the Player Character. The player character is supposed to be me. I don't feel that stopping time helps me better enjoy the game, perhaps think about my decisions maybe... but I'm not looking to be thrown out of the loop. Challenging players to make their actions on the spot, make their decisions on the spot. Yes, it causes spontaneity, but it feels genuine that way.

Life doesn't feature Turn Based mechanics. I realize this isn't the idea behind certain RPG styles, though I'm more than willing to argue for progression.

Dialogue trees, turn based combat... I don't believe in these mechanics. I don't feel they can immerse the player the way an active system can. I feel that "in-character" decisions can be conveyed through mechanics that don't involve preset paths or stopping time.

I know that right now, we haven't quite reached that level of gameplay execution. But I'm highly anticipating Bioshock because of the ideas behind this.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The reason that tension exists is because the guards would fuck you up, and were harder to kill once they spotted Garret.

Was rolling with the whole "active challenge thing", but you're right.

Quote:

Immersion isn't the purpose of a turn-based system, which is part of why I like it so much.

I figured I was missing the point.

Quote:

Haha, that's fine, but this isn't a religion, we just have different opinions regarding how roleplaying should be. I don't roleplay by pretending that I am the player character and you do, that's great. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I love games, but definitely. Still, I have no problem with acquiring knowledge.

Quote:

*Bioshock stuff*

I've been trying not to overhype myself about the game, it's just been awhile since I've had a game of that nature that I actually felt was going to be worth a shit. I want to see what Levine was trying to sell everyone on when he was talking about emergent gameplay.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Not everyone bases their feelings about this release on a sense of dread and pessimism and BRING OUT YE DEAD, NIGGAS. Compared to a lot of what comes out lately, I'm not sure "not so mainstream RPG" can be called on being unoriginal and hack piece of shit compared to most everything else that gets released these days.

(of course by sense of dread and pessimism, I meant educated opinion/factual knowledge)

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Something like that. I really just keep asking myself "Why do I give a shit?" As soon as Bioshock gets released, I'll be pacified and be able to keep fooling myself about games for another 10 years.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Yes, save the ignorant masses... from themselves?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I imagine several people feel that way, it's just that I have a hard time believing that one community is going to band together and not go the fuck away once Fallout 3 is released, re-official redundantly deemed shitty for redundancy, leaving us right back where we started:

With journalism that's still functioning with more PR and less whatever the hell journalism is supposed to do... inform impartially, I don't know. I think any one person who truly cares about games knows better than to take these sort of media blitzes seriously. At that, I would rather people begin to fix the problem, rather than have this non-effective witch hunt that isn't going to do anything but let them pat themselves collectively on the back.

"Yeah, we showed those guys, now they only sold 1/100000000 less copies of Fallout 3 because of us! YEAH!"

I realize every bit helps, but sound and fury is still sound and fury. Get in the industry, make games, talk about games where it isn't a vacuous void of stupid. Make a fucking difference or shut the fuck up.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Then again, what the fuck do you care what people do with their free time? Or did "this is a hobby" not get through to you?

Did I strike a nerve, Brady? No, really. You haven't convinced me I've said anything, well, stupid. Not yet, anyway. I'm sure it's not beyond your scope and whatever.

But, answer to the question: "What do I care?" Well, I'd say common decency. That and, actually making a difference. Which is sad considering in the end "It's just a game, faggots." Oops, stepped on someone's childhood there.

Nerds getting all hurt up about how their "hobby" isn't being made the way they like it is laughable if they don't do anything about it. SOMETHING. And no, yelling out in mass isn't doing anything. Present a solution, get it so saturated that the target audience can't fucking see straight because Turn Based RPG is falling from their eye-sockets and erupting from their mouths.

Because, really, you're not the target fucking audience, you're being fucked by the system. I understand this, I don't agree with it. Yet... "This is a hobby" "In my opinion", got anymore copouts?

I'm somehow supposed to believe that there can be a legion of Spider-Jerusalem's and this shit is serious business. It's not. It's why I take offense to the people who generally just flap their jaws and influence like, maybe one or two people (well, not really, those people agreed with them anyway). It's why I view your Fallout event as commendable. The idea you can expose someone to a game is a positive thing.

A guy I used to talk games with wouldn't just talk about games with me. He'd send me games that he'd talk so often with me about. I'd become exposed and formulate my own opinions about them, find my own reasons about liking them. These days, polarizing and dividing people from a vacuous cave and sending high level annoyance to someone who isn't going to listen to you anyway. It's why I view NMA's shit as laughable nerd garbage.

Wait, that's most anyone who's a gamer.

Three comprehensive links doesn't account for every faggot in-between the lines that comprises any gaming collective... They stick to their avenue of interest and I'm supposed to care when they point out that "All of gaming is fucked up." Or, narrowing it down, "You're fucking up Fallout." The game will be released, life will go on and their childhood will be ruined. Last I checked, Loonatics is still being animated.

Yes, it is their hobby, but I think common decency accounts for something. Memes, victim complexes... yeah, I think I draw a line there.

"Make the fucking games."

Good on those guys who did their own thing, my problem wasn't with them. I mean, independent comic labels don't really change things like the racial issues and portrayals of women in mainstream comics... but that's why people infiltrate the system, right? Or not, I guess.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I'm pretty sure we've already come to the conclusion that you haven't really said anything stupid and that we disagree fundamentally in opinion. Don't think I'm attacking you, because I'm not.

I also think you're confusing what I'm talking about in regards to my hobby. It isn't just gaming or Fallout, talking about games and exposing lemons is my hobby. I've already written quite a bit of material concerning my own reviews of several games, and a series of (unfinished) papers on how to go about designing a CRPG. If you want to read some of them, I can send them to you, and really the one I'm most proud of was my review for Just Cause. I posted most of them in my chocojournal because I don't actually think it's serious business, it's just a hobby.

This line obviously becomes blurred in regards to Fallout because it's my favorite gaming franchise. Granted I'm acting pretty crazy over Fallout, but then it's also something that's important to me. Nobody said that you had to care, because the message is out there for anybody that does.

People react this way because they feel that the general public has lost all sense of taste. Granted it's all a meaningless struggle into oblivion until "good taste" is redefined by the fad of the era, but I'm at least trying to have fun getting there. (oblivion)

I took it as a jab was all. Everything else is my sound and fury. I do wish there was more involvement past being critical, not that I didn't drive that into the ground already. I know where you stand, but I would hope that a difference is made past just keeping with the status quo. Frankly, i would like to believe it isn't all meaningless, but I'd be lying.

Jam it back in, in the dark.