A Fallout 3 Conversation

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
After NMA's Fallout 3 preview, I cast about for comments from some of the media people I've know as Fallout fans for year (the type Desslock or Will Porter) to get some feedback on our opinions and assumptions.

Desslock eventually replied, and we got into a debate about some of the key issues surrounding our difference of opinion of this game. With Desslock's permission, I've merged these e-mails into one A Tale of Two Cities article. If you're interested in hearing some different views on the topic of Fallout 3 be sure to read it. For instance, on V.A.T.S.:<blockquote>Brother None: It's not "the only thing" they have in common, it's exactly the same mechanic. Ignoring the fact that BioWare's system is just an example (I think you got bogged down on that), the point is that this is just another predictable, uninnovative RTwP system.

Desslock: I disagree - that's like saying Fallout 1's combat is identical to the combat in the Final Fantasy series because they both feature turn-based combat. You're culling out details that make the systems distinct, and in Fallout 3's case, original. Again, there's never been an RPG that featured combat similar to Fallout 3's, so by definition, it's innovative.

Brother None: I think we're asking the wrong question, tho'. Try to make a list of how two combat systems are identical and you'll always end up with a big wad of differences, does that mean every combat system is innovative? I think the key question is (considering the above) what exactly is so innovative about this combat system? A different angle; not what are they doing that's exactly the same, but what are they doing that's significantly different?

Desslock: The combination of features: real-time/stats-based (as opposed to twitch-based) combat which can be stopped in order to initiate targeted shots using action points. Sure, at some level you can point to aspects that you feel are derived from other games, but the overall package is not just "different", it feels original.

Anyway, I think this argument is distracting from the more substantive issues of (a) whether this combat system actually works well in practice, and I think we both agree that we have reservations/questions that need to be addressed as more details are revealed by Bethesda; and (b) whether it feels like Fallout 1/2, and I think we both agree that it's definitely different, so fans hoping for something closer to the turn-based combat of the original games are likely disappointed, while gamers who thought it would be just like Oblivion's combat are probably pleased that it's something different - it's an original, hybrid combat system, which I think looks promising, although I have reservations.

Hell, Bethesda could unveil the melee combat and it'll have "super-smash; spinning lightning attacks", in which case I'll agree with your "supermoves" description, and be disappointed by Bethesda's design decision. But for now, I'm cautiously optimistic about the combat system.

Brother None: Is my description 100% accurate? Probably not, but I made a clear judgment call, and I feel it's at least as fair as calling it "innovative".

Again, there was never a game that featured exactly the same combat as its predecessors. Every combat system is different in some way, and it's odd to put down arbitrary lines at which something is "innovative" or not.

However, when I remember what I saw play out, and when I then look at this Mass Effect combat video, they're functionally the same. You can argue that the details are different, but the difference between the two is the interface and the replacement of biotic attacks with aimed shots. The biotics are stat-based, not twitch-based, and depend on the amount of energy you have for it, i.e. action points. That's functionally identical, right there.

I'll gladly accept the fact that you can differentiate Mass Effect and Fallout 3's RTwP from Infinity Engine's RTwP because the underlying mechanics are different, but that doesn't go for differentiating Mass Effect from Fallout 3.

I'm not going to accept that anything that isn't done before is innovative per definition. Innovation should be more meaningful than that (even if it is currently as useless as meaningless terms like "next-gen"), it shouldn't just be taking RTwP and including Fallout's aiming system.</blockquote>Link: A Tale of Two Cities.
 
Very well constructed debate. It's good to see two guys from the "opposite(?)" side of some topics debate things rationally. Kind of a relief rather than flame baiting and goading each other into pointless arguments.

A+ (lol)
 
Good read. Thanks for that.

Desslock's optimism lent a certain hopeful aspect, yet I still couldn't help but do a lot of groaning, which is pretty much par for the course whenever I read anything FO3 related.

I'm not backed completely into the "Man, this is gonna suck bad" corner. Not quite, at least. But where I keep hearing voices echo the "Well, let's just remain cautiously optimistic" bit, I'm more in the camp of guarded cynicism. I'll grudgingly admit that it's *possible* they'll pull some miracle out of their arse and give me a game I end up considering worthy of bearing the name Fallout, but I highly doubt it.

Of course, the thought that really scares me is that if the game sucks and still manages to do really well, developers (and publishers even more so) will take that as a sign of "what gamers want" (read: keep marketing the same tired crap and calling it 'innovative'), and by contrast, if the game does very poorly (whether it sucks or not), it could easily mean the ultimate death of the series, considering how hard and how long FO3 has been struggling to see the light of day in *any* form as it is.

*sigh*

Man I miss the old days. Back when "game developers" often meant "a few guys in a basement with time and a dream". Back then, no one cared what the statistics or market suggested would be a "good idea". They had a vision of a great game, and they made it. Simple idea, that's sadly become barely a wisp of a dream in today's game market.

-Wraith
 
I definitely would have preferred a Troika version of Fallout 3 (with Obsidian naturally being my second choice as developer), and I greatly miss isometric perspective RPGs, but I really like what I've seen of Fallout 3. I've played virtually every RPG since Temple of Apshai, and there have been very few RPGs that I've been more excited about.
Click to expand...

How does this add up?...I bet oblivion was one of those exceptional, most anticipated rpgs...like evah...right?...right?!
 
You're amazing Kharn not only in your writing as usual, but also that you both managed to stay so passionate yet calm. That would be hard for anyone in your position.

:clap: ,
The Vault Dweller
 
No worries, TVD. I can stay "passionate and calm", sugarplums.
 
Desslock said:
fans hoping for something closer to the turn-based combat of the original games are likely disappointed, while gamers who thought it would be just like Oblivion's combat are probably pleased that it's something different
Click to expand...



How does the old saying go? Something like " When you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing nobody"
 
To me, VATS just looks like extended Bullet Time.

And why does he keep calling it a "hybrid" combat system?
 
There was a time when we didn't knew for sure... In that time, there was hope that it could actually be a NEW turn based system. I was thinking of it and I thought that maybe VATS was a completely new and innovative system. Maybe it will be possible to mod it to that extent, and maybe it will be possible to create a new innovative system eventually. Here's my idea:

Ok, you know how vats work. Now, of course, for it to be a combat system and not just a feature (because that's what it is: a feature, NOT a combat system - I'm looking at you, Destructoid, you bunch of cretins), you'd have to be able, not only to make called shots, but also reload, see your inventory, make normal shots, and do other normal actions, just like in any combat system, except walking and similar actions, as I will explain ahead. Seccondly, there would be not stupid slow motion. It's a fully paused abstract time: a turn. You pause, and your turn begins, and you do whatever you want, except walking. No one else moves or does anything. Your turn ends when you loose all AP's or when you want. What happens next? Your AP's begin to regenarate and you are able to move, as well as your opponents. But here's the thing: you can't do ANYTHING in this mode, you can only walk/run/hide/stuff and so your enemies and allies. For anyone in the game to shoot, he would have to opne his own turn and act. When this happened, the player would stop moving because it was someone else's turn.

My point with this "innovative" combat system is that it's a model where you get to define when in time to start your turn, where in your turn you cannot walk, as you can only walk outside your turn. To simulate initiative, turns would automatically start, just like in Fallout/Fallout 2, depending on combat initiative (sequence, in this case). I know it's a mess (my explanation) but I hope you understand what I mean. Of course, it would have to be point and click and not this WASD crap, to COMPLETELY remove twitch based mechanics.
 
Nice exchange. I mostly agree with Desslock, save for the fact that I would've liked to see an old rat like him rail just a tiny bit against a company picking up the license to do a sequel, only to do something that cannot, in terms of gameplay and mechanics anyway, be considered a sequel.

He notes that people who would've liked turn based combat might be disappointed. Yes well no shit, Desslock. It was supposed to be a Fallout game. Not a semi-statbased firstperson shooter like Morrowind.

I also would have liked to see him mention what he thinks the chances are of ever getting another Fallout game that isn't Fallout in name & artdirection only, after Bethesda's done molesting the franchise.

- Not that I think I'll dislike the game itself. I'm sure I'll like it. Liked Oblivion and all. But I'd like a proper sequel a hell of a lot more and I don't think one will ever be made, now Bethesda's set out to prove it can toss out the gameplay and still sell copies.
 
Too bad people mistakenly credit innovation as creative genius. Innovation also implies something given new life, a new direction of thought - another lame skullfucking of Fallout's combat system into RT gameplay is NOT particularly new or imaginative, because we're now seeing it for the THIRD TIME.

Remember, we had something almost exactly like this shit back in FOT as well, and adopting it for a FPS style combat is possibly one of the lamest and honestly weakest design decision I've seen a developer do in order to be sucked off for "innovashun!" yet again. Innovation != ripoff, and innovation that is heavily inspired is often called a lawsuit.

RT+TB "hybrids" are all bullshit, since they computationally operate in RT with everyone acting at the same time. To consider a pause for a detailed instruction as turn-based....it really insists that the speaker has NO clue how the mechanics truly work. "Hur, hur! I hit spacebar! MY TURN!" *sigh*

Just because people haven't USED targeting in a RT+P FPS system EXACTLY like that doesn't mean that it's particularly new or even a good idea. It's just an idea that Bethesda hopes will excuse their shoddy hack of the former character system, in turn to further excuse their X-Brick whoring. Since after all, their X-Brick audience is too stupid to know better, and a lame shooter with stats IS something noteworthy for that piece of shit console and the retards who follow it. Since, y'know, most of the X-Brick games are merely shitty action games without ANY sense of depth.

I include Oblivion in on that assessment as well.

Now for Desslock and the rest, you need to understand the thing about a series, is that it's the familiar aspects of a game title given a technological and design progression. Using misplaced or "innovative" mechanics that do not fit is purely bullshit.

Now remember the care taken with Fallout, how Interplay and the developers showed detail to that game.

Now take a look at Bethesda's diarrhetic train of lies, hype, and general bullshit that has been disproven for both Morrowind and Oblivion.

Bethsda hasn't shown the license one shred of respect, from the displayed material (the laughable setting of the "preview", the nice soldiers taken directly from Fallout: POS*, the sign of Local Cult-> Pete's favorite part!), to DETAILS ALREADY DEVELOPED (again, a fucking nuke-launching catapult and VOICE ACTING OF GRUNTS!), to speaking about it. But they say they are, however. I call them liars and con men. And talentless hacks as developers if they need to fuck everything into what amounts to primarily a FPS and a RPG secondary in order for them to understand, much less develop, a title. How the hell does that fit into the "return to CRPG roots" as per the original developers? Yes, a few of the original developers designed a game primarily FPS in the past, but they weren't developing it for a game series styled on old-school CRPG gameplay in a time when Diablo was considered trendy and hip.

* - Proving that Bethesda has problem telling the difference between three games, not just Fallout and Fallout Tactics, and probably thinks the one on consoles was pretty cool since the gameplay is somewhat their action speed and Ritalin level.

Bethesda is making a sequel to a P&P styled CRPG, NOT a FPS, and not many are going to realize they've been suckered for the same con job until they buy Oblivion II. Too bad much of the gaming media has been dumbed down to the point of "anything with the name is okay!"

Innovation is bad for a game series if the innovation does not fit the original design given to the series. Otherwise, it's simply like Ultima 8 - innovative for having moronic and console-ish platform action and jumping puzzles in an established game series.

A new idea? It certainly was innovative. A good idea?
Fuck no. It innovated the Ultima series to death, and yet people expect Fallout to be as resilient or even more so, in a different developer's hands. A developer that either has no clue about the original design intents, or knows and simply does not care.

If an uncaring concept rapist of a developer gets an award for best CRPG presented, then the state of the CRPG is in an even worst state than back in 1997, when the Fallout developers purposefully designed something from the old school, to NOT be like all the derivative shit on the current 1997 market...
 
That's what bothers me the most about Bethesdas approach. Obviously an entirely new development team wants to make their imprint on a series, that's completely understandable I think.

But Bethesda seems to be taking Fallout, and morphing it into something that Bethesda is experienced at (though not all that good at I would say) instead of having Bethesda morph themselves to create something that can be called a sequel.

I would've personally been willing to give Bethesda a bit more slack if they had somehow proved that they wanted to create a "true sequel", to go away from the designs of the games they've created before.

The idea of having an actual sequel to a game is completely meaningless if one can just change the gameplay like that. Just saying "well, it's an RPG also" is just way to broad.
 
Stephen Amber said:
a fucking nuke-launching catapult
Click to expand...

Didn't think it was possible to trump the guasse mini-gun of tactics, but looks like they pulled it off.
Click to expand...

On that note, I didn't think it was possible to trump the idiocy found in Fallout: Piece of Shit, but the Bethesda assclowns have certainly won that award, too. They certainly are on the mark to be the developer to have given Fallout the worst treatment. At least MicroForté did talk and work with the fans to understand that the almost completely linear map-to-map design planned for Fallout Tactics wouldn't fit up under their claims of "like JA2, but in the Fallout universe", and worked on a number of other things they could fix and work upon. Otherwise, that game's release would have been a DISASTER, as even the mindless clannies would have been out for Interplay blood.

They tried to make it better, especially with the feedback given from their demo/previewed material, but ran into many other development obstacles. It was that effort that only makes me begrudge MicroForté for their initial design and how they hyped the game initially; it was their efforts to work and understand what their target audience of the Fallout fans wanted that made me respect them.

Instead of just merely lie about it and pretend the fans would go away in lieu of X-Brick sales like Bethesda is doing. Like Chuck tried and failed.

Fallout Tactics - highest amount of pre-orders from the Interplay store of any title to date. Too bad actual sales numbers didn't reflect that, because once word of mouth hit, despite the number of ass-sucking reviews and clannies to artificially prolong the game, the game essentially tanked. Many waited until the pre-order suckers played and reviewed the game, and the long period of hype given to the title did in no way help.

Fallout: POS - Pirated more often than legitimately bought. The sales figures are around the 5-digits. Yes, some people can smell and see a turd before they manage to step in said turd. Word of mouth also works as the most powerful advertising (good or ill) in the industry, PROVEN multiple times to work with Fallout. The good games are loved for a decade, while the miserable con jobs tanked.

At least Chuck Cuevas had some mental restraint to keep half of his bullshit out of the game - or that might have been due to cutting the game in half and artificially extending it so Interplay can try to milk garbage and completely inbred people twice over.

Fallout 3 - sold out. Really, Bethesda says they are doing everything they can do to honor the original design of Fallout, even being so crass as to cherry pick quotes in limited context from original design docs as their divine mandate. These fuckers are so clueless about game design, not only do they think their FPS crackhead consolitis brand of bullshit fits the original design of Fallout, but at least a couple have had difficulties differentiating between core CRPGs (Fallout) and a couple of spin-offs (Fallout Tactics, and several probably thought F:POS was a good Fallout.) These people are stupid and dishonest enough to come up with the mini-nuke catapult launcher, which simply doesn't make a bit of fucking sense in the setting, and expect us to believe their claims when they come up with shit that would make a 10 year-old go "Lame." Yet it's so funny that the people with an intellect often rivaled by that of a moderately educated 10 year-old*, exempli gratia the gaming media and a good portion of the gaming audience, licks Bethesda's asshole for this.

Forget Fallout: POS' mangled setting descriptions around the combat armor and other items - this is just 100% Pure Bullshit™

* - (I'm NOT referring to the US Public Education System.)
 
Roshambo said:
Since after all, their X-Brick audience is too stupid to know better, and a lame shooter with stats IS something noteworthy for that piece of shit console and the retards who follow it. Since, y'know, most of the X-Brick games are merely shitty action games without ANY sense of depth.
Click to expand...

Oh yah, you know, because all intelligent people absolutely abhor games that require hand-eye co-ordination to play. We're to smart for our bodies, and require time and oceanic depth in every gaming experience. Only idiots enjoy shooting stuff, and only morons want a game system that will run everything they buy for it, without upgrades, unsupported parts, or Shader 3.1253.

Listen, Rosh, and some of you other guys. Console gamers are not all morons. People who enjoy shooters are not all morons. Me and all my friends just spent a weekend playing Halo 3, Gears of War, and Bioshock on that singularity of evil so dubbed the Xbox 360 and had a blast doing it, and we are not gibbering drooling idiots. In fact, me and my 360 toting friend are probably the smartest kids in my school.

So, howsabout you quit with this retarded generalizing about x-brick moron whoring and find something legitimate to bitch about.



Sorry to derail the thread, just had to get that out of my system. Great conversation/debate between Desslock and Brother None (how long do I have to be here until I can call you Kharn?).
 
El_Smacko said:
Console gamers are not all morons
Click to expand...

I'd call myself a console gamer. Not in the sense you think of it, I don't own any consoles from the past two generations, the newest ones I own are a PS1 and a Sega Dreamcast. And from playing the newer gens, I simply concluded it's gone downhill and there's no reason for me to upgrade further.

I think many of us understand the problem with the console market doesn't lie in the consumers, but rather in the market perception. But it's not like the consumers are helping the market perception by filing out en masse to buy bland shiny action crap like Halo 3, now is it?

El_Smacko said:
Sorry to derail the thread, just had to get that out of my system. Great conversation/debate between Desslock and Brother None (how long do I have to be here until I can call you Kharn?).
Click to expand...

People who know me as Kharn refer to me as Kharn. Stubborn types.
 
Smacko, there's a reason why there aren't rpgs like Fallout, Arcanum, Torment, even Baldur's Gate on consoles.
Not to mention games like The Longest Journey etc.
A shitload of shoters tho'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top