The sum of all (Fallout3 related) fears

[Saint_Proverbius]

Because all of the other fallouts have had an "overhead view". See where this is going?

So would I be correct in assuming that you are saying that to feel like Fallout, the game must be isometric? Would it not also feel like Fallout if didn't have an isometric viewpoint, yet had the exact same atmosphere of the first game?

Probably not, since Fallout was designed to have a tabletop PnP feel for a lot of it's mechanics. That means you either have to do top-down like the ultima games, which I doubt anyone would accept these days -or- isometric(three quarter viewpoint). There's a lot of mechanics that you'd just have to toss out if you weren't going to go with a three-quarter view system. They either wouldn't work at all, or they'd work poorly. Having a hex grid, for example, doesn't work so great in first person or third person over the shoulder.

[Mismatch]

We need to get a mole into bethesda.
This lack of anything is bothering me.
Ok, it hasn't been long since they bought the licence... But I think they should at least get a site up, announce something on what they plan so that we can bitch about it.
And, on top of this, my new FO1 && FO2 copies are late.

[Burnov]

The only reason Fallout FP would be bad is because RPGs don't work in FP: you can't get a good view of your surroundings, you can't see your own character, and combat is weird.

Aside from that, viewpoint is something that you might want to carefully consider, but it could go either way (3d with zooming camera angles and shit or isometric). So long as the graphics are good enough to make the game look as clean and consistent as the original Fallout, then everything should be fine.

It depends on what your concept of a RPG exactly is. I hated rpgs before I played Daggerfall. Combat is a huge thing for me, more to the point, having control over combat. It made the more boring points of the game more enjoyable when you could essentially deathmatch your enemies, or use your own dexterity to compensate for a lack of good equipment/experience. That doesn't disqualify the game as an RPG but it is certainly different. I'm just one of these people that must have something fun to do whilst playing the game. Not simply sitting back and clicking as if it were some type of interactive movie. Much like those first person Might and magic games. Or hell... any console rpg.

I like fallout because it was one of the first turn based games to actually give consideration to those who want a certain degree of control. Instead of giving you a stupid little combat window in which you see two sides fight one another which consists of one character jumping at another and performing an attack and jumping back. In fallout you had a lot of freedom, not only to move about and strategically maneuver your character, but in your choice of attacks. To me. Nothing's sweeter than shooting a guy in the balls and then planting a bomb on him or just giving him a good old sledgehammer to the head whilst he's stunned.

The new thing seems to be this pseudo-realtime combat.

I hate this shit. Baldur's gate, NWN, take your pick. They're just as bad as those awful console rpgs combat wise.

You basically sit there and click on your enemy and watch your guy and your target perform attacks at a predetermined interval. Boring. You have no control whatsoever. It's entirely determined by statistics. It sucks.

I think one of the biggest threats to fallout 3 becoming a realtime game is the fact that it appeals to a more broad audience. You don't need to appreciate combat or player interaction to that extent to enjoy the game. Just click and watch.

I think the worst case scenario for fallout 3 is that the developers don't stick to the tried and true formula. I personally think that the game doesn't need a massive overhaul to be enjoyable. Their biggest fault could be to simply try to bring more people into the game.

Someone mentioned morrowind with guns. Which yeah. Would be a bad thing for fallout. I hated Morrowind personally, for other reasons. However once you start using a lot of ranged weapons and firearms in a game like that. The RPG elements very quickly get shuffled by the wayside and while there might be a market for that if done right. It's -not- what fallout is and I don't think anyone who really appreciates the game wants that to happen.

[Burnov]

The only reason Fallout FP would be bad is because RPGs don't work in FP: you can't get a good view of your surroundings, you can't see your own character, and combat is weird.

Aside from that, viewpoint is something that you might want to carefully consider, but it could go either way (3d with zooming camera angles and shit or isometric). So long as the graphics are good enough to make the game look as clean and consistent as the original Fallout, then everything should be fine.

It depends on what your concept of a RPG exactly is. I hated rpgs before I played Daggerfall. Combat is a huge thing for me, more to the point, having control over combat. It made the more boring points of the game more enjoyable when you could essentially deathmatch your enemies, or use your own dexterity to compensate for a lack of good equipment/experience. That doesn't disqualify the game as an RPG but it is certainly different. I'm just one of these people that must have something fun to do whilst playing the game. Not simply sitting back and clicking as if it were some type of interactive movie. Much like those first person Might and magic games. Or hell... any console rpg.

I like fallout because it was one of the first turn based games to actually give consideration to those who want a certain degree of control. Instead of giving you a stupid little combat window in which you see two sides fight one another which consists of one character jumping at another and performing an attack and jumping back. In fallout you had a lot of freedom, not only to move about and strategically maneuver your character, but in your choice of attacks. To me. Nothing's sweeter than shooting a guy in the balls and then planting a bomb on him or just giving him a good old sledgehammer to the head whilst he's stunned.

The new thing seems to be this pseudo-realtime combat.

I hate this shit. Baldur's gate, NWN, take your pick. They're just as bad as those awful console rpgs combat wise.

You basically sit there and click on your enemy and watch your guy and your target perform attacks at a predetermined interval. Boring. You have no control whatsoever. It's entirely determined by statistics. It sucks.

I think one of the biggest threats to fallout 3 becoming a realtime game is the fact that it appeals to a more broad audience. You don't need to appreciate combat or player interaction to that extent to enjoy the game. Just click and watch.

I think the worst case scenario for fallout 3 is that the developers don't stick to the tried and true formula. I personally think that the game doesn't need a massive overhaul to be enjoyable. Their biggest fault could be to simply try to bring more people into the game.

Someone mentioned morrowind with guns. Which yeah. Would be a bad thing for fallout. I hated Morrowind personally, for other reasons. However once you start using a lot of ranged weapons and firearms in a game like that. The RPG elements very quickly get shuffled by the wayside and while there might be a market for that if done right. It's -not- what fallout is and I don't think anyone who really appreciates the game wants that to happen.

[Burnov]

Someone mentioned Gangland. So I did a little search.


This game looks like it'd be interesting had it turn based combat. However this excerpt from a gamespot review hits the nail right on the head as to why realtime games of this nature blow like a gale force hurricane... or Jenna Jameson.

Gangland's combat is hit-or-miss. While you can (and must) use the environment to your advantage by positioning your men behind cover, the action usually develops so fast that it can be very difficult and frustrating to manage. The ability to issue orders while paused would have done a lot to mitigate the chaos, but this feature isn't available in Gangland. Hundreds of bullets fill the air with each pitched battle because it takes a ridiculous amount of gunfire to bring down just one man. The fact that most of your men are such horrible shots makes matters even worse because ammunition is one of the game's key resources. As a result, the more gun shops you have in the fold, the faster you accumulate bullets.

[Mismatch]

Been thinking.
a tad, not that much mind you.

and Im concerned. That if FO3'll be all black and white (no grayscale) or, even worse, you have to be the goodfella... no more blasting kiddies, smacking down drug addicts and raping farmers daughters... well, mostly Id miss the kid part, nothing was quite as relieving as, after being stolen from repeatedly, just loosing it and smacking them den kids up against the wall with your sledge.

but well, mostly the grayscale is what I want, not just real obvious choices between good & bad. And some decent quests and such for the less than good person. Prefferably two or more outcome of most quests..... nah. three or more.

yeah, and Turnbased. No. I will not stop going on about turnbased.

[Mr. Teatime]

Shades of grey are good for morality. Whether Bethsoft put killable children in the game, we'll have to see. They should be in, as just another possibility. Want to kill a child? Go for it, we won't prevent you. Just be prepared for the consequences associated with being known as a child killer.

[Mismatch]

yeah, consequences are good, as long as theyre reasonable, as I felt they were they were in FO1&&2. there you still had a chance.
It shouldnt be like "OMG you kiied teh kids! the pink furry wizards of tellitubbiness (whom are not killable) attcks!"

[Sovy Kurosei]

I don't think Bethesda will risk getting itself in trouble with Germany or the United Kingdom, or possibly the US ever since the Columbine shootings. Preferably they do the smart thing and not include children at all rather than include them then make them invincible or some other bullshit.

I also like the shades of grey morality instead of being shoe-horned into two possible choices, one designated as being good and another being designated as being evil. Also, why is it that evil usually means "being a psychotic bastard that kills everything", especially in Bioware games? Or is it just limited to Bioware games?

EDIT: I also notice the before mentioned "I am evil, see me kill!" applies to Morrowind as well.

[Retlaw83]

I don't think Bethesda will risk getting itself in trouble with Germany or the United Kingdom, or possibly the US ever since the Columbine shootings...

That would be an unfortunate reasoning, on par with when Rockstar changed dialogue in Vice City because some Haitians complained about a "racist" remark in it.

[Blargh]

That so Retlaw ? It seems I might have had grounds for complaining about their portrayal of lawyers or Scottish people then, as I do not, nor do I ever intend to indulge in cocaine, hysterics, terrible 'singing', cross dressing or lewd behaviour with sheep. But enough frivolity.

Given the necessity of bridging both minor and major language differences with regard to software releases, wouldn't it be a relatively simple matter to do what was done with Fallout 1 and 2 - that is, have children in some versions, and not in others ? Regardless, I find invisible and/or invincible children, and ridiculous consequences (as illustrated by Mismatch) to be poor 'solutions'. Not as bad as non-existent children, but close. Some bright spark will patch the issue at some point, I imagine.

[Franz Schubert]

Of course we all want a game that provides us freedom to sculpt our character into whatever shade of grey pleases us. We all want a game that holds no punches as far as moral choices and consequences go. But regardless of which religious groups/politicians Bethesda is worried about pissing off, there's also the question of ability. It takes a lot of skill to craft a game that can actually deliver the kind of moral content we crave, and frankly I'm not sure Bethesda has the talent to pull it off.

[Blargh]

You have a point, obviously. I recall playing Morrowind once, and depopulating several settlements on a whim. Yet, shockingly, I did not feel as though I had perpetuated evil, on the contrary, I felt elated ! There were no particular indications that what I had done was wrong, as such, instead there was a wonderful sense of . . . peace. Then, if I recall correctly, I uninstalled the bastard.

Expecting too much, or simply optimism ? I hope they can and do make a game rife with the sort of trademark moral ambiguity of Fallout, I just have many, many doubts about their ability and direction.

[Mr. Teatime]

Films can be controversial, why not games? It's just that any controversial subject in games is often presented in a stupidly immature fashion. Bethsoft should include children in the game, and make them killable in suitable gory fashion. It should just have real consequences on not only the in-game player, but the gamer who is playing the game (emotional, for good or bad).

[Nicolai]

Killing children in fo2 made me feel good.

[Mr. Teatime]

Me too, because I was playing a bad-ass punk who was too tuff 2 care.

[Mismatch]

killing the children gave one an opportunity to deal with all them fucking spoiled brats you face everyday.
Its not them kids you kill, its every screaming kid youve ever met in the tube. every cheeky little punk, annoying lil' brat.

thats why it felt so good...
mebbe....

edit:
when bethesdas FO deal was announced, I checked oout them TES forums. If I recall correctly, in the FO3 thread (or whatevah) i told them how great a thing childkilling was.... Which got me a warning from a mod. which was rather strange. Found the msg:

Discussions that involve hurting/killing children are not acceptable on the forums, nor is it acceptable to tell the devs that they will receive certain sexual favors for making the game turned base. Unless your behavior and posts improve, your account will be locked.

[Kahgan]

-that they "modify SPECIAL """"to the better"""""
-hairy deathclaws and other stupid tweaking to make creatures kewler
-camera locked to character
-bad story(linearity, etc..)
-that they miss the ROLE playing factor(people and enviroment is supposed to interact according to the character you are)
-that they call it s00per 4dul7 r4t3d cuz t3hr3s l0tz o' b4bes and bl00d...