Duck and Cover

Blacken wrote:I wholeheartedly agree with you on the bit about 2nd Edition AD&D. However, Third Edition is...lacking. A lot. So I don't derail the topic, I won't go into it, though if invited I might.

I formaly invite you.

*Smacks Blacken with the formal glove*

Blacken wrote:Buncha thingies.

-One: BIS does seem to want to make FO3. But nobody wants them to. And Interplay is having a lovely time with the financial sector, eh?

-Two: I'm working on a battle system fairly similar to the FO games - turn-based, and all. I will be throwing together a module for post-apocalyptic games first. If anyone knows any coders, they're welcome to use this engine for free.

-Three: Lionheart should die.

-One: That is just so wrong. There are gamers all over the world wanting a new Fallout. 'Nobody wants them to', WHO may I ask? There has been a lot of interest lately, many people expected some news on Fallout in E3 and were disappointed. Here is an interesting poll.

-Two: That's good to hear, good luck.

-Three: Lionheart combines Special system from Fallouts with a fantasy setting, that sounds 100x better than a D&D game.

I think D&D has improved greatly in 3rd edition rule set. It now offers more freedom and versatility in character development. It still has some stupid restrictions and penalties, but some people think that's good. :roll:

VasikkA is right. You can't post a news item about BIS or Fallout on a major gaming site without someone mentioning Fallout 3. When IWD2 was announced, most of the comments on VE and Blue's in those threads were about Fallout 3.

However, IPLY marketting boys only look at how much Fallout and Fallout 2 sold. Then they look at how much Baldur's Gate sold, and they tell BIS to make a D&D game.

Of course, they don't factor in that Fallout had no marketting at all and no copyprotection so it was heavily warezed.

Dont forget how very contraversial they are.

In fallout there is prostitution, drugs use, slavery, bigotry, government conspiracy against the people and any number of touchie subjects. that's more than enough reasons for a marketing department to have a nervous breakdown. While It offers the gamer choice as to how they play the idea of blowing away children (at least in the non-euro version. boo to that!) is a heavy sticking point. Yes, okay, fallout 1 & 2 were aimed towards and restricted to the older members of the gaming community but that doesn't stop people buying games simply to be disgusted by them nor does it stop youths getting hold of the games.

boo to marketing, boo i say!

In today's law-suit ridden world it's going to be nigh-on impossible to have a pure fallout 3. That is unless they demand proof of your age prior to purchase and make the cd's expload after a single installation.

I think D&D is a good game but I want to save the post-apocalyptic genre and fallout .
And i think we need more games like this not only Fallout

I'm not happy with over-saturating the market. lets not have Sim-vault.

sim-vault might let interplay/BIS get more money from Maxis/EA by letting them use their Fallout ideas, ect..

i might buy that game... cause i like sim-city, but only cause thats more of a step toward FO3.

i dont really care for fantasy games any more. spells, trolls, ogres, whatever, it just gets kinda boring if i cant relate to it at all.
and plus, it makes me feel like a looser if i memorize spells and strange things like "go through the forest of everlasting and vanquish the ogre lord to obtain the onx scepter that is used to seal the empire's portal to the underworld" or some shit like that, lol

Strapon2 wrote:strange things like "go through the forest of everlasting and vanquish the ogre lord to obtain the onx scepter that is used to seal the empire's portal to the underworld" or some shit like that, lol

Fallout translation:

Go to the evil agency base and destroy (*or outwit) the evil lieutenant to obtain the FOV that is used to unseal your way into the president's oilrig.

What I mean to say is that a D&D game that is done well can be really nice.
there was no D&D game as good as fallout and that is the reason it looks more boring.

Sure, a post-apocalyptic setting is a better idea but a D&D game is not soo bad.

And there are millions and millions of D&D/Fantasy fans. At least a lot more than post-apoc fans. That's why game developers tend to make RPGs based in a fantasy setting. It's so much 'safer' to do a D&D game because there is a steady market for those games unlike the post-apocalyptic genre. This is the main reason we see games like Lionheart instead of Fallout 3. It's not always which game setting would be 'better', the consumers and gaming market needs are more important. Often getting money and bigger profit is the main factor, not just the love for a making games. It's not the same situation as in the 80's where game studios could do whatever games they wanted to. Today, the competition is more tough and some gaming corps are struggling to survive. Interplay is just one example.

But remember, five years ago RPG market was a lot smaller than it is now. Baldur's gate resurrected the nearly dead RPG market. Of course, Fallouts had some part in this too, but they had not as big impact as BG. This proves one game can change the course of gaming industry, hopefully Fallout 3 will be that game and bring the post-apocalyptic genre to the consumers. It has all the potential. There are many examples of games like these, most recently Baldur's Gate and Half-Life. All you need is that special ingredient I call 'something'.

There is a reason why people embrace the D&D market, and that reason is familiarity. D&D was established before computer games took on the idea. When there is already an established rule system and monsters its so much easier to develop a game because you dont have to think about whats going in the game. Then there is the marketability of a D&D game. D&D players will most likely want to buy it, then people curious about the genre will buy it, and now the D&D RPG market is full of people trying to get your hard earned cash.

When you compare the number of Posc Apoc RPGs to D&D RPGs there's a massive difference. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all the RPG market is used to D&D games so doing somehing different is not a sure-fire way to make money. It's a shame but pretty much all fallout RPGers will buy D&D games but only a few D&Ders will buy fallout RPGs. Fallout fans are usually more varied gamers (like the game, play it how you like) while D&D gamers are usually very focused. Afterall, their games essentially go along the lines of "improve character, get better weapon" whereas fallout gamers have any number of possibilities to complete a game like "improve character, improve speech" and can complete the game in many ways other than mindless killing (even though that is always fun). Then there's the fact that the relative unknown market of the posc apoc gamer hinders that genre's development. Perhaps if the post apoc games which are in development at the moment are received well and sell well more developers will switch to our beloved genre.

VasikkA wrote:And there are millions and millions of D&D/Fantasy fans. At least a lot more than post-apoc fans. That's why game developers tend to make RPGs based in a fantasy setting. It's so much 'safer' to do a D&D game because there is a steady market for those games unlike the post-apocalyptic genre.

Well, that's the perception at least. What marketters don't get are niche markets. They never bother to cater to them. Fallout is highly niche, and it pretty much soaked up everyone belonging to that niche.

It was a non-fantasy RPG and it was designed with a PnP feel. It's an instant classic.

It's amazing they DON'T get niche markets, since they're more easily catered to with less competition. How many action RPGs are there out there with a fantasy setting? Pretty much everything coughed up by the RPG developers these days fit that category.

This is the main reason we see games like Lionheart instead of Fallout 3. It's not always which game setting would be 'better', the consumers and gaming market needs are more important. Often getting money and bigger profit is the main factor, not just the love for a making games.

The problem with that thought is that all marketting departments think like that. In terms of what games to make, marketting people are pretty much all drones spewing the same garbage out to all developers.

Nevermind the fact that cloning another game rarely ever works. Most Diablo clones flop, most BG clones have flopped, and so on.

It's not the same situation as in the 80's where game studios could do whatever games they wanted to. Today, the competition is more tough and some gaming corps are struggling to survive. Interplay is just one example.

Competition is tough because they're not competing, they're merely rehashing or copying what seems to have worked elsewhere. There's no attempt to really one-up what the other guys make, they just make what the other guys make and change a few things.

But remember, five years ago RPG market was a lot smaller than it is now. Baldur's gate resurrected the nearly dead RPG market. Of course, Fallouts had some part in this too, but they had not as big impact as BG.

Fallout paved the way for BG. The RPG market was considered dead back in 1995 through 1997 when Fallout popped up on the market.

This proves one game can change the course of gaming industry, hopefully Fallout 3 will be that game and bring the post-apocalyptic genre to the consumers. It has all the potential. There are many examples of games like these, most recently Baldur's Gate and Half-Life. All you need is that special ingredient I call 'something'.

BG was mostly hyped in to sales. It was advertised all to hell. For six months, BG was what everyone was talking about as far as RPGs go. It got full, two page spreads in magazines, was advertised with other IPLY games, did the internet news tour, and so on.

And there's really nothing "special" about BG. It was a linear RPG with RTS style combat, and less to do than most every RPG before it in terms of interaction, dialogue, and so on.

Yes, but at that time BG was something new, something fresh. Hell, the timing couldn't have been better. Looking back at it now, the game is not really that special, but when it came out, there was no competition what so ever, no other fantasy RPGs to challenge the throne. With no other D&D games around, it became instantly a hit. And because of that, the RPG market is today what it is. It just needed a kick, and BG did it.

In todays standards, Half-life isn't so special either. But about 4-5 years ago, there was not any decent shooters around. HL came with a story, scripted events and other small tricks previously not used in the FPS genre. Most importantly, timing. People were playing Doom at that time, maybe I'm a bit exaggerating, but Quake became dumber with every sequel and FPS market was floating, not progressing. Try re-playing Half-Life, it aint the same anymore, but Swoosh, it changed the course of gaming market. Now there are new shooters getting released almost every week or so, all competing with the latest tricks around. All thanks to Half-Life.

A game doesn't have to be the greatest game ever to cause an impact. It's a combination of a lot of things, new ideas, timing, a bit of luck and yes, marketing has a role too. Gaming world is hard to predict, it's like stock market, with it's up and downs. At the moment flight sims are having a tough time, who knows what'll be tomorrow, especially with all these consoles messing around.

Whoa there! I just played Half-Life a couple moths ago, and it was amazing! It's not good because there weren't any other good FPS gmaes at the time. In fact, Jedi Knight, an excellent game by all accounts, came out the year before. Half-Life was (is) good because it's good. The atmosphere, the enemies, their AI, the weapons, the scripted events, the story, transmitted entirely without cutscenes... it was amazing. Half-Life is good based on its own merits, not by comparison to other games of the time.

Personally I think Half-Life is overrated. I mean, sure, it has some cool features and a reasonable story but it's kinda overplayed. especially when magazines still rank it as their number 1 spot.

I agree with you on Half-life being overrated. I mean It was fun and had a decent story but it was not as amazing as the game magazines made it seem. There have been games that I personaly feel were better and had great atmosphere. Theif is my favorite First person game ever. the zombies in that game still give me the creeps when I think about them.

Half-Life for its time was excellent... but why do people still go on about it being the best game ever... no. It was a milestone in the FPS genre but hasnt influenced any other Genres. RPGs have better stories, simulations have better physics and weaponry.

Half-Life basically added scripting to first person shooters. Old concept in a new genre. Nothing real spectacular there.

In fact, Half-Life wasn't the first to do it. That would be Strife that did that. Hell, even Duke Nukem 3D had some of that in it. The only reason people even remotely consider it innovative is that they've been told a thousand times that it was innovative.

And we from DAC how we can help Fallout future ?

Davide wrote:And we from DAC how we can help Fallout future ?

March to IPLY headquarters and demand justice??

well considdering iplay are in debt to the sum of something like 30 million i dunno if marching on their shed will help.