Why Sawyer Hates Us

Raymondo · Post by **Raymondo** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:57 am

Maybe its time for interplay to just shut up and just die, the only good game they have left is fallout and they manged to screw that one up.

Way to go interplay.

Post by **DarkUnderlord** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:52 am

Grifman wrote:He fired the first shots? You guys have been firing broadsides for years - forgotten all your previous derogatory comments about IP and BIS - got amnesia or something?

Remember a site called Vault13.net? Now tell me why that was established.

ANSWER: It was created for the release of Fallout: Tactics and intended to be a FOT mapping site, BEFORE the game was released.

Grifman wrote:Keep the fires burning, or burning the developers? Yes, you kept the fires burning - but I also see around here constant attacks and putdowns on Interplay and BIS.

What should we say? Hey, great job on fucking over the Fallout talking Deathclaws in FOT guys? Great job? Keep up the good work?

Grifman wrote:IWD was fairly popular, got generally favorable ratings from critics and apparently was a successful game(s) for Interplay. I call the RPGs they produced in the interim, the BG, IWD series, and PST hardly mediocre - most reviewers and alot of gamers would disagree with you. And why did you even go there - ripping them for those games wasn't going to get you Fallout any faster?! If anything, it was counterproductive, and was going to put you in the exact same situation you're now complaining about.

You'd prefer we lied about games we didn't like and sucked some Interplay cock just so we could ensure a good Fallout 3, or maybe just kept all hush-hush about the whole thing and never said a word about them at all?

Grifman wrote:No one says you had to suck up to Interplay or BIS, but you really shouldn't be surprised at their attitude - after all, you helped to create it. Maybe you'll realize that people don't like being constantly criticized all the time.

As I've said before to other people in other forums, JE was fucking with the combat skills no matter what. He could've had giant neon flashing lights saying "Combining 3 gun skills into 1 is not a good idea" and he still would've done it. What JE does, JE does. Without Feargus, without Chris, without most of the people that worked on the Fallout games previously, IPLY/Blackisle Studios is left full of people who like the IWD type of games. That's great, for the IWD crowd.

To me, Fallout is Fallout. It is turn-based, it has the skills it has, it has the steting it has. I see no need to change that to "cater for a different audience". Why not cater for the audience that liked the games in the first place? The real-time mob and others all have their fun with the plethora (and there is a plethora) of real-time games out there. That's great, they have their games for their tastes, but where are ours?

Mr Carrot · Post by **Mr Carrot** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:49 pm

Also BIS only decent offering was an MCA game and MCA has left.

My one community regret is our constant beat down on MCA when really he was a far better bloke than JE.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:04 pm

All the games are getting screwed up :
fallout going RT and console, starcraft going console, civ going RT, Full Throttle going 3D, etc..

pnutz · Post by **pnutz** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:22 pm

I'm still getting over Zork going away from text-based. Damn you Infocom!!!!

swordinstone · Post by **swordinstone** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:40 pm

Didnt a lot of the problems you guys are talking about start with fallout 2 then? Talking Deathclaws (not hairy tho, but who gives a shit), aliens (and wanamingos, i know the bible says they arent alien), Newly created military equipment, working cars and other vehicles... Seems like the direction FO:T took was largely due to this.

Yes, the story went to shit in FO:T, I myself never played passed the reapers cos i just lost interest. But I had a lot of fun up untill that point.... And that was playing in CTB the entire time. Was that TB that much changed? How can you call it half ass if it hasnt changed?

Here is an almost totally unavoidable fact... if you want multiplayer (on a computer game), it pretty much has to be real-time. Thats why CTB was added, and thats probably why they are keeping it in FO3.

spyder07 · Post by **spyder07** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:56 pm

Well the MP is either going to be great, or it's going to suck ass being reduced to deathmatch style battles.

swordinstone · Post by **swordinstone** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:21 pm

it damn well better be co-op, other wise whats the fucking point? The deathmatch style in FO:T was total ass, with everyone using the same fucking characters and taking the same drugs at the same time, then running into the meat grinder.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:54 pm

RT multiplayer sucks for Falloutish/squad games, it is basically resumed by that : the guy with the best mouse-clicking skills win, the other lose

I played FOT singleplayer TB, as well as the multiplayer. It was cool when you played with weak characters, it was sneaking and strategies. RT was only a bloodfest without any purpose.

bloodbathmaster2 · Post by **bloodbathmaster2** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:58 pm

Meh. FOT online was fun when you found people willing to play without drugs. Really the only reason I hate the game was its SHITTY plot.

Sammael · Post by **Sammael** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:15 pm

Can we please make this thread a sticky? I mean, it is more than sufficient to show why Josh doesn't visit DAC.

Briareus · Post by **Briareus** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 6:02 pm

Killzig wrote:We've proven before we can be civil, its when we're told we're not going to be bothered with or that Fallout is being bastardized once again that we get testy.

Uh huh. Only when a developer happens to create a post-apoc title that happens to agree with whatever it is you want are you civil. The moment you start to disagree, out come the back-handed comments, the jokes, one-line cracks, and derogetory news posts. The only way I could see a developer talking with you is if they look at the shit they've created and have done extensive reading of DAC/NMA/et. al. and have found that you won't think their shit stinks. Otherwise, it's luduacris ass-reaming by Killzig and Saint as you take apart each line from an interview and twist the dev's words as if Fallout fans are jews and the dev is the new Hitler.

Devs, "Hey, we're merging First Aid and Doctor."

You, "Hooray! See! Aren't we nice?"

Devs, "Hey, we're merging gun skills."

You, "You fucktard! Way to sell out you whore. Enjoy feeding crack to your babies."

So what's the point of coming here?

swordinstone · Post by **swordinstone** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 7:10 pm

lol...

"You know, the Nazi's had pieces of flair they made the Jews wear".

Because merging medical skills makes sense when all you use it for is healing. Merging the gun skills is dumb cos combat is probably the biggest part of the game overall. Why simplify it and make everyone's character the same?

Briareus · Post by **Briareus** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 7:31 pm

I love that quote.

swordinstone wrote:Why simplify it and make everyone's character the same?

Why do people care how other people play the game?

swordinstone · Post by **swordinstone** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 7:49 pm

Briareus wrote:Why do people care how other people play the game?

Well, if its going to be Multiplayer Co-op, then it will matter quite abit. But even if it isnt, people still like their characters to be unique... I know I do. Whats so hard to understand about that?

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:58 pm

It's not 'everyone else' plays, Briareus. It's how we play. Supposing in one playthrough, I decide to use small guns and in another, I lean towards big guns. Why should both characters have near identical skill progressions? They're learning entirely different things, and yet it's the same skill? That just doesn't make sense to me.

And besides that, I think that JE doesn't mind so much that we disagree or dislike his ideas, it's how we express our discontent. I'm guessing the same applies to Briareus.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 9:01 pm

Well, assuming a balanced set of 18 skills, with 6 combat skills, each should be roughly equal, right? And it was for the most part in Fallout 1 and 2, with a few minor differences (which could EASILY be developed around in Fallout 3). So combat skills should be involved in roughly 1/3 of the gameplay (that's covered by skills anyway).

Let's say we cut combat skills down to 2. Now we're down to 1/9 or the skills being combat skills! Suddenly, the combat-centric atmosphere changes to something tamer, or the game becomes horribly unbalanced. You can't not tag Marksmanship. So such a choice would have a pretty drastic impact.

Briareus · Post by **Briareus** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 9:48 pm

swordinstone wrote:Well, if its going to be Multiplayer Co-op, then it will matter quite abit. But even if it isnt, people still like their characters to be unique... I know I do. Whats so hard to understand about that?

What does MP have to do with it? How many combat skills are required to make unique Fallout characters? What about all of the other Fallout skills? You could have one Combat Boy, Charisma Boy, Stealth Boy, and Science Boy, and still have 2 skills not tagged by anyone. With other players, they could take up that slack and still take one combat skill or another. Or maybe that tag it but only raise it to 100 while you've gone all out and raised it higher to get those hard to get perks. Then there are the visual differences (skin tones, sex, etc.) for those people that care about such things.

Spazmo wrote:It's not 'everyone else' plays, Briareus. It's how we play. Supposing in one playthrough, I decide to use small guns and in another, I lean towards big guns. Why should both characters have near identical skill progressions? They're learning entirely different things, and yet it's the same skill? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Suppose in one play through of Fallout 2 I use just single shot pistols, and another run through I just use SMGs. Why are do both characters have the same skill progression? It doesn't make sense to me, either. (I'm being sarcastic and NOT sarcastic at the same time there.) The answer? Because. *shrug* Besides, the game is fun even if both characters use the same skill.

Spazmo wrote:And besides that, I think that JE doesn't mind so much that we disagree or dislike his ideas, it's how we express our discontent. I'm guessing the same applies to Briareus.

True. I'm not saying everyone needs to complain while walking on eggshells, but the crap that gets posted on the front page isn't winning any devs to your cause.

atoga wrote:Well, assuming a balanced set of 18 skills, with 6 combat skills, each should be roughly equal, right? And it was for the most part in Fallout 1 and 2, with a few minor differences (which could EASILY be developed around in Fallout 3). So combat skills should be involved in roughly 1/3 of the gameplay (that's covered by skills anyway).

Let's say we cut combat skills down to 2. Now we're down to 1/9 or the skills being combat skills! Suddenly, the combat-centric atmosphere changes to something tamer, or the game becomes horribly unbalanced. You can't not tag Marksmanship. So such a choice would have a pretty drastic impact.

The number of skills has little to no correlation to how much combat/dialogue/sneaking/science there is in a game (as is proved by the previous Fallouts). What determines how much combat/sneaking/dialogue/science there is in a game are the design docs from the designers. Besides, Fallout is all about player choice and playing through the game the way they want. So what if there are six combat skills. If I make Charisma Boy, I can beat the game without having to swing one punch or shoot one bullet. In that game, there is 0% combat (unless you're gonna count the times you run away from enemies as combat).

swordinstone · Post by **swordinstone** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 9:59 pm

Briareus wrote:What does MP have to do with it?

Well, if you played tactics, you would know that its better to have a few chars with small guns, some with big guns, and maybe 1 or 2 with NRG. This made a nice well rounded team, and was "realistic" to how a special forces unit would opperate. Having any character be able to snipe, then switch to the minigun when someone gets close would be pretty stupid.

Briareus wrote:The number of skills has little to no correlation to how much combat/dialogue/sneaking/science there is in a game (as is proved by the previous Fallouts). What determines how much combat/sneaking/dialogue/science there is in a game are the design docs from the designers. Besides, Fallout is all about player choice and playing through the game the way they want. So what if there are six combat skills. If I make Charisma Boy, I can beat the game without having to swing one punch or shoot one bullet. In that game, there is 0% combat (unless you're gonna count the times you run away from enemies as combat).

Wrong! If there are less combat skills to put your points in, then you can make an equally powerfull character (to one in a version with more combat skills) and have A LOT more points in the non combat skills.

And besides that, I go under the assumption that the skills for small, big, and energy weapons covers more than just aiming them. It covers maintence and repair also.

If anything I think fallout would benefit from a more specialized gun system like shadowrun, where you can buy generic class skills like "small" or "big", but you could double your points by specializing in a specific weapon.

As far as dual wielding pistols, that would work better as a perk IMO. It should also have a penalty to your accuracy. How much is a balance issue.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 10:40 pm

Briareus wrote:The number of skills has little to no correlation to how much combat/dialogue/sneaking/science there is in a game (as is proved by the previous Fallouts). What determines how much combat/sneaking/dialogue/science there is in a game are the design docs from the designers. Besides, Fallout is all about player choice and playing through the game the way they want. So what if there are six combat skills. If I make Charisma Boy, I can beat the game without having to swing one punch or shoot one bullet. In that game, there is 0% combat (unless you're gonna count the times you run away from enemies as combat).

I never said that; what I'm saying that is that they should each have equal applications within the game world. Obviously you can't, and won't have to, take all paths, that's part of what an RPG sis. But by cutting things down the way you suggest you ludicrously unbalance things.

As for the Shadowrun-style system, that's pretty far from SPECIAL given the broad-based nature of everything.