What FO2 lacked and what F03 NEEDS!

Meths · Post by **Meths** » Sun Sep 01, 2002 7:28 pm

Didn't play IWD2
Didn't play Arcanum
played FALLOUT :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Sun Sep 01, 2002 8:59 pm

Meths wrote:Didn't play IWD2
Didn't play Arcanum
played FALLOUT :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

And this reply would be relevent...how?

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sun Sep 01, 2002 9:04 pm

Rosh wrote:
Meths wrote:Didn't play IWD2
Didn't play Arcanum
played FALLOUT :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:
And this reply would be relevent...how?

I don't get it either.

Anyway, Meths, you should play Arcanum.
Your'e not missing anything on IWD2.

Meths · Post by **Meths** » Sun Sep 01, 2002 10:53 pm

Complexity means more quality assurance, not nessecarily more bugs.

However, it usually does. Look at the Fallout 2 :mad:

Som Guy · Post by **Som Guy** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 12:56 am

fallout 2 wasnt that buggy

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 1:36 am

Som Guy wrote:fallout 2 wasnt that buggy

Oh, yes it was.

It had tons of bugs, not to mention it wasn't even completed.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 2:10 am

Rosh wrote:I'll have to correct you on this. That is not a bug, it's usually a marker of poor design if it's out of view from everyone else.

I don't know, it depends on what you'd call a bug, really. Frankly, I'd classify anything that lets a player break the game through player actions as a "bug".

Like the example I used, to a lesser extent, a first person shooter that allows players to get trapped in areas with no way out. I'd say that's a "bug" as well.

When it boils down to it, it's something that the scripting should handle, but doesn't when you think about it. It'd be like if a graphics routine crashed when changing resolutions because they didn't handle that in the game engine. That would be a bug. I don't see this as much different.

Of course, the ability to play anything evil in the Infinity Engine games is a COMPLETE joke. Aside from a few cosmetic and token things, there's really no other purpose for alignment.

Yeah, like I pointed out in that thread, Chaotic Evil is NOT "Good for Hire". That's how it's treated in those games. You're supposedly the most evil scumbag on the planet, but you'll save the world if there's money involved.

Personally, I have no idea why they even allow Chaotic Evil in those games.

With the exception of PS:T, that is. Then again, it's silly expecting anything remarkable from a few month knock-off game. The Inbred Engine being "balanced" is by far the best joke I've heard all year.

How long did PS:T take to develop? IWD2 got 13 months.

Plus, I see Orin' is still an idiot. Puuk does a wonderful explanation of why games are starting to suck ass. As are all the rest of the "ROLL-PLAYERS". Why the hell do you put something into a game if it can't be used? Some of these morons need to stop jerking off over eye-candy and try Arcanum for terms of role-playing a character.

Yeah, I loved those fan twits who were saying, "Chaotic Evil doesn't mean stupid. If you were role playing in the game, you'd know that."

To which I replied, "What if you're playing a low int Chaotic Evil character? OH! I GUESS YOU CAN'T ROLE PLAY THAT!"

I noticed that didn't get any reply.

Som Guy wrote:fallout 2 wasnt that buggy

Yeah, it was. Still is, in fact. There are gobs of little bugs all over the game, even after 1.02D.

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 9:57 am

Meths wrote: However, it usually does. Look at the Fallout 2 :mad:

No, Fallout 2 was a hatchet job that was pieced together off the plans that Cain and crew did before they left. It's a good chance if they stayed on, Fallout 2 might have been quite a bit better and not buggy as hell.

Som Dum Goi wrote: fallout 2 wasnt that buggy

Well, there's another person who hasn't played Fallout 2. Either that, or a spin-doctor for Interplay's Q&A dept. Or think that numerous bugs and parts of the game left at "half-ass" is perfectly fine.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 12:43 pm

Think about the boxing ring in san fransisco, you needed to fight all of them together.
Think about the ghouls in the reactor. (This was repaired in the patch).
Think of all the unfinished parts of the game.

Fallout 2 was bad in many ways.
It looks like a game forced to come out on a Xmas deadline.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 3:49 pm

Actually, it was forced out several months before Christmas in order to make room for a Baldur's Gate Christmas. Oh well.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 4:38 pm

Saint_Proverbius wrote:Actually, it was forced out several months before Christmas in order to make room for a Baldur's Gate Christmas. Oh well.

So they had even less time.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 10:31 pm

The question is, who is to blame? The early deadline or the hard workin' guys at BIS?

I guess both, but would Fallout 2 have rocked with a proper deadline? Even though Tim Cain & crew wasn't working on it anymore. Who knows, maybe Fallout 2 designers had in mind to introduce the talking raccoons to the game series but couldn't do that before the deadline was upon.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 3:25 am

It most likely would have sucked anyway, even with a longer dev cycle. After all, they had enough time to radically alter what Tim Cain's design called for, and we all saw how that turned out.