JE on game length and stuff

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:27 am

[Game -> Update]

JE Sawyer, being the little chatter box he is, has <A href="http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.p ... 5">replied here</a> about how many areas Fallout 3.. errr.. Van Buren should have.
 
 <blockquote>However, at the beginning of Van Buren, we sat down for a few weeks and made outlines of the various areas you could explore in the game. It was pretty damned big. So, I went back and I looked at Fallout. Fallout only had 13 areas. Fallout 2 had 23 areas. Does Van Buren really need to have 23, or even 20 areas? Personally, I think it would be better off with 15-17 very good areas than 23 really rushed areas. And if, in those 15-17 areas, you can get better gameplay balance than you would have been able to in 23 areas, I think that's a good thing. I would rather have crazed lunatic people complain that 100 hours of gameplay isn't enough than have the majority of people quit the game because the first 10 of its 300 estimated hours just suck.</blockquote>
 
 I'd much rather have quality over quantity. 50 hours spent well versus 100 hours spent mundane, I'll take the 50 one.
 
 Thanks, SuperH!

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 3:33 pm

Indeed, I had a post on the same topic elsewhere. JE is making me very happy.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 4:07 pm

There was a pretty good thread about it here.

If you implement too many locations, the quailty suffers... You just can't make enough good and interesting location and quests to go around.

Kreegle · Post by **Kreegle** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 4:12 pm

Love your work JE!

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 4:15 pm

Would you still love it if I posted the part about the real time and turn based combat?

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 4:18 pm

Would you still love it if I posted the part about the real time and turn based combat?

Probably not...
*prays that this WONT be the next nwn!*

Kreegle · Post by **Kreegle** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 4:27 pm

No - say no to real-time :x

Please make Fallout 3 a "Fallout" game - not another easy-to-swallow exercise in dull and simplified "action-fun!!1", made accesible to the Tony Hawk-playing masses.

Interplay have been saying for years that they'd stick to their roots with Fallout 3, so I FUCKING WELL expect them to. Tweaks and updates and ground-breaking new ideas - yes, gimme. Baldurs-Gate0rizations - no, go away.

I want a supermo-deluxe RPG, something that'll raise the bar and be "true" to what an RPG *should* be. Not what has sold in the past to the D&D-hungry masses.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 4:42 pm

Yeah, but JE is saying he's going to have to put in RT and TB. He sez dat if he tells the publishers he wants to do only one and do it right, it'll probably have to be RT. So it looks like Fallout 3 won't be TB only.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:52 pm

Which means the combat in Fallout 3 is going to be really bad...

The combat in Fallout was so fun... It will be sad to see how they ruin it again.

It would be funny to see how they even try and solve the balancing issues this will cause.

Bridgeburner · Post by **Bridgeburner** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 6:16 pm

you should consider renaming this site to "The JE Sawyer Fan Shrine"

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:08 am

damn bridge, i love your avatar

Lunchmeat · Post by **Lunchmeat** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:12 am

I posted this in another thread, but it seems more appropriate here.

Lunchmeat wrote:I prefer the length of Fallout to Fallout 2. It's all quality, not really repetitve, and there's plenty of replayabiliy. I just played the game and I didn't even talk to Set, Loxley, or Morpheus once. It's also perfect in length for the gamer who doesn't have all the time in the world to put into a game. In other words, perfect for me.

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 2:10 am

You know, I've never actually talked to Set in all the times I've played the game. I've just killed him every time. That's what's great, every single time I play, something new. Maybe next time I'll talk to Set, heh.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 2:12 am

I did something like five playthroughs of FO1 without once talking to the Lieutenant or Zax. Damn, I suck.

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 2:51 am

Zax is the computer right? I never bother talking to it any more... it frustrates me that I had 10 intelligence and maxed speech and I could never seem to beat it at chess... grrr... always tried so many times my rad-x wore off :/

Strap · Post by **Strap** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 2:59 am

SuperH wrote:Zax is the computer right? I never bother talking to it any more... it frustrates me that I had 10 intelligence and maxed speech and I could never seem to beat it at chess... grrr... always tried so many times my rad-x wore off :/

same, heheh. i didnt know i could get 5760 rads in my system. lol

i definatly like FO1 more than FO2, gotta go buy it again. mmm quality games rock.

swordinstone · Post by **swordinstone** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 3:37 pm

I definately want quality over quantity... i tend to loose interest in games, when they start to run on too long.

As far as combat goes, I enjoyed the CTB combat in FO:T more than I even enjoyed it in the other fallouts... not that they were bad by anymeans... I think what added the most (to me) was the positions and sentry modes. But this is going to be a RPG, so commanding a squad of people prob wont happen. I do hope they keep the postions (p/c/s)... it lets you take advantage of cover a lot more... i like how it affected skills also.