Duck and Cover

My original question about the IP (or license) stuff was raised since I wondered that if you buy a license to make a game, be it Fallout, a D&D game, or any other game, then my best guess is that you need stay within the boundaries of that license, which has to mean that you can't suddenly put elves and stuff in Fallout or laserguns in say
a D&D game. (if its set in say The Forgotten Realm).

It has to mean something if you're buying a license to make game under the D&D license or, in Bethsoft''s case, has bought the license from Interplay. [Then Interplay could have needed the money, so they probably sold the Fallout license without any strings attached...].


If Bethsoft do make Oblivion with guns ---- then I aggre that it could be a decent game, not just a decent Fallout game.

aries100 wrote:My original question about the IP (or license) stuff was raised since I wondered that if you buy a license to make a game, be it Fallout, a D&D game, or any other game, then my best guess is that you need stay within the boundaries of that license, which has to mean that you can't suddenly put elves and stuff in Fallout or laserguns in say
a D&D game. (if its set in say The Forgotten Realm).

It has to mean something if you're buying a license to make game under the D&D license or, in Bethsoft''s case, has bought the license from Interplay. [Then Interplay could have needed the money, so they probably sold the Fallout license without any strings attached...].


If Bethsoft do make Oblivion with guns ---- then I aggre that it could be a decent game, not just a decent Fallout game.

Um, oblivion wasnt a decent game even.


Please go back to smoking crack fucktard.

VasikkA wrote:

Keserian wrote:*Preventative snip*

I can't deny this, but it doesn't mean we as players cannot have any demands on what we'd like Fallout 3 to be. We also have the right to accuse a game company for making a bad game or being too market-centric. It's the same as an artist or a movie studio compromises its piece of art for the sake of commercial success. However, it's worth mentioning that most gaming classics are distinguished for being different from the norm. Mainstream games quickly fall into oblivion despite being profitable. Bethesda as a publisher has the possibility to choose what they want to prioritize.

*preventative snip*

The Elder Scrolls franchise was unknown to most gamers before Oblivion and probably will be again after a couple of years.

Meh, most gamers who've been around for at least a little while know about Morrowind. And Sniper, I'm not going to argue that point, just because I'm so tired I'm likely not to be civil about it, and I'd really like to not get banned from the board within such a short time of becoming active.

Right, but the question that I think Bethesda is asking itself is, "If we make Fallout 3 similar to Fallout 2, how will be distinguish ourselves from Neverwinter Nights 1&2, and the countless other RPGs that are floating around the market-place. Anyone here remember the stir that VTM:B (Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines) caused when people realized that it was going to be an FPS? It was huge. "Good god! An FPS RPG!" and I think that half of VTM:B's sales came from the "FPS/RPG" factor. Well, that, and Whitewolf fanboys.

Personally, I don't really understand the hostility to an FPS Fallout 3, alright, well, I do. I understand that it "Won't be Fallout" but for heaven's sake people, Fallout 2 wasn't Fallout. And beyond that, how do we even know that Fallout 3 will be an FPS? All Bethesda has said is that they'll do "What they do best." That could be anything from, "Massive worlds that allow you to wander at will." to "RPGs."

As for the "Oblivion with guns" issue, yes, it's likely that Bethesda will use the Oblivion engine, but that's only logical. It doesn't mean that Fallout 3 will be an FPS. There was a mod for Unreal Tournament 2004 that took a FPS and turned it into a... squad based, top down, RTS (Bughunt I think it was called). The "Engine" has more to do with how the game models visual objects and physics effects. It's like an engine in a real car, the engine might be the same, but that doesn't make two cars have the same steering wheel and dashboard (controls), the same body (genre of game), or the same handling (quality).

And beyond that, how do we even know that Fallout 3 will be an FPS? All Bethesda has said is that they'll do "What they do best." That could be anything from, "Massive worlds that allow you to wander at will." to "RPGs."

Here's what Pete Hines actually said:

Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in style. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well.

Yes, but similar in style doesn't mean "Oh my god, Oblivion with guns!" They say that they're not doing a top down isometric. Okay, that still leaves movable camera systems like we saw in Neverwinter Nights 2. It doesn't necessarily mean that we'll be seeing a First Person system coming out of Bethesda.

Wolfman Walt wrote:

Keserian wrote:Yes, I like Fallout. Yes, I like Fallout 2. Even Brotherhood of Steel had its merits. I enjoyed Morrowind, and I play Oblivion. They are four separate games, so stop comparing them!

Math much? Those are 5 seperate games.

I was reffering to Fallout 1&2 as sort of the same. Sort of. Yes, I've played both, and there are differences, but they're "close enough(TM)."

P.S. Psycosniper, I have great respect for what you did in the military, thank you for serving the United States, but fuck off.

Keserian wrote:I was reffering to Fallout 1&2 as sort of the same. Sort of. Yes, I've played both, and there are differences, but they're "close enough(TM)."

By that logic, Oblivion and Morrowind should count as the same game as they are "sort of the same," so your math is still wrong.

No, Morrowind and Oblivion are two different animals. But you know, I think we're slightly off topic.

So are Fallout and Fallout 2 - The difference between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 is the different between Oblivion and Morrowind; no matter what though, the moral of the story is you can't count.

Or, the moral of the story could be that you're being an ass about it. Either way, we both look like morons.

Keserian wrote:Either way, we both look like morons.

That's just you.

Keserian wrote:for heaven's sake people, Fallout 2 wasn't Fallout.

Which is why it sucks.

FO2 was good enough.

Keep in mind, FO wasnt FO even, because it was so rushed to completition.


The diffrence is the unfinished stuff with FO you wanted to see, whereas the unfinished FO2 stuff seemed kinda gay (cultists in space anyone ? )

I will maintain that, while Fallout 2 had its bad concepts - for me, the particular ones were the whole tribal thing, Klamath and the Den and San Fran, and I recognise that other people have problems as well with things like New Reno and some of the new weapons - it was a better game once you got into combat. Fallout is pure video gaming art, and is one of the few games that I'll suggest to any computer gamer. Fallout 2 isn't as good, but I'll still play it regardless, because I find it really fun.

Keserian wrote:Meh, most gamers who've been around for at least a little while know about Morrowind.

Morrowind was a decent RPG and became somewhat known for conscious gamers. However, it never achieved a near mythical status in the RPG scene as Fallout did. This is mainly because the gameworld in TES games is a generic, medieval fantasy setting just like in 90% of all RPGs. TES lore? That's still a fucking mystery to me after playing Morrowind and Oblivion.

I claim that the Fallout franchise is still bigger than TES. Although the sales of the original release weren't high, many have bought a rerelease or torrented it but certainly most have read or heard about it.

Right, but the question that I think Bethesda is asking itself is, "If we make Fallout 3 similar to Fallout 2, how will be distinguish ourselves from Neverwinter Nights 1&2, and the countless other RPGs that are floating around the market-place.

Respecting its table top RPG roots would certainly distinguish the game from other CRPGs on the market. If you think that means keeping exactly the same engine, combat, and other external factors, you are wrong.

Anyone here remember the stir that VTM:B (Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines) caused when people realized that it was going to be an FPS? It was huge. "Good god! An FPS RPG!" and I think that half of VTM:B's sales came from the "FPS/RPG" factor. Well, that, and Whitewolf fanboys.

That was nothing exceptional as I remember it. Deus Ex 2 was an FPS RPG and it was released earlier that year. Bloodlines didn't sell well, mostly due to weak marketing efforts and perhaps because it had a too marginal setting. I enjoyed it a lot though, despite it had a few major flaws, namely the combat, bugs and bulky engine. The atmosphere is near Planescape: Torment level and some of the quests are perhaps the best ones I've experienced.

how do we even know that Fallout 3 will be an FPS? All Bethesda has said is that they'll do "What they do best." That could be anything from, "Massive worlds that allow you to wander at will." to "RPGs."

That isn't 100% certain, but the signs are everywhere!

As for the "Oblivion with guns" issue, yes, it's likely that Bethesda will use the Oblivion engine, but that's only logical.

And it's confirmed.

Signature wrote:Yes, I like Fallout. Yes, I like Fallout 2. Even Brotherhood of Steel had its merits. I enjoyed Morrowind, and I play Oblivion. They are four separate games, so stop comparing them!

Yet they all claim to be RPGs(BOS excluded). I don't see why you can't compare games belonging to the same genre.

VasikkA wrote: Morrowind was a decent RPG and became somewhat known for conscious gamers. However, it never achieved a near mythical status in the RPG scene as Fallout did. This is mainly because the gameworld in TES games is a generic, medieval fantasy setting just like in 90% of all RPGs. TES lore? That's still a fucking mystery to me after playing Morrowind and Oblivion.

Agreed. Generic Medieval Fantasy isn't as attractive as a post-apocalyptic wasteland. And yes, TES Lore is a bit difficult, and it takes puzzling through the libraries of books that are coded into the game. Personally, I hope that if Bethesda is going to port one thing over from Oblivion to Fallout 3, it's the books. They gave you a ton of background information about the world. Heck, even some of the random stories were quite interesting.

I claim that the Fallout franchise is still bigger than TES. Although the sales of the original release weren't high, many have bought a rerelease or torrented it but certainly most have read or heard about it.

Not going to argue that. I think that the lack of sales was mostly because of how small the PC RPG market was at the time.

Respecting its table top RPG roots would certainly distinguish the game from other CRPGs on the market. If you think that means keeping exactly the same engine, combat, and other external factors, you are wrong.

True, but I think that what a lot of people here are arguing for is to keep combat, external factors and so forth exactly the same. Christ, quite a few of the people on this forum nearly had a heart attack when they heard that it was going to be the Oblivion engine used. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with an update of the SPECIAL system, heck, D20 system has gone through quite a few revisions. Yes, you can still find people playing AD&D, but I think that most of that fanbase has accepted the new rules.

That was nothing exceptional as I remember it. Deus Ex 2 was an FPS RPG and it was released earlier that year. Bloodlines didn't sell well, mostly due to weak marketing efforts and perhaps because it had a too marginal setting. I enjoyed it a lot though, despite it had a few major flaws, namely the combat, bugs and bulky engine. The atmosphere is near Planescape: Torment level and some of the quests are perhaps the best ones I've experienced.

Never played Deus Ex 2, so I can't speak to it. I played Deus Ex, which was more of a "FPS with RPG elements." And yes, I agree that Bloodlines didn't sell well, but I think that FPS RPGs are much harder to come by than the multitudes of great, good, bad, mediocre and "target practice" level RPGs that are flooding the market place.

That isn't 100% certain, but the signs are everywhere!

Heh, I won't pass judgment until either the open beta, demo, or game itself falls into my hands.

And it's confirmed.

Indeed.

Yet they all claim to be RPGs(BOS excluded). I don't see why you can't compare games belonging to the same genre.

Because they have different settings, and different play styles. Do you play D&D? If you do, it's a bit like the difference between a survival game where the DM tells you, "Alright, go make your own story in this world that I created." That's Fallout and to an extent, Fallout 2. Morrowind and Oblivion have a story to sell you. No matter what, you are always on The Quest, and the game constantly pokes and prods you back to The Quest. In BOS, it's a hack and slash game, with guns rather than swords and magic. Same types of games, different play-styles.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuiA2j52rP8"> Summing up bethesda</a>

I could only wish that Bestheda was as awesome as "Yakety Sax."

Benny Hill's got way more frickin' class. He's a pioneer in the field of grab-assery.

im not meaning benny hill himself, more the running around part with gorillas and chit.

Edit:
no, didn't mean that either.
actually I mostly just wanted to post the benny hill link...