Fallout 3=oblivion?

Well after reading the gamespot article, I think it's now pretty obvious that the game will be an FPS with a broken skeletal frame of what the SPECIAL system used to be. I really wouldn't have any problem with this if they didn't brand it as a direct sequel to the game. I think everyone knows that fallout: BOS was a POS, but at least interplay of all publishers had the decency to not brand it as a sequel an really just as a game within the fallout universe.

"The GI cover also added ammo to the theory that Fallout 3 would be a major departure from previous PC Fallouts and the widely despised console spin-off, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. The magazine claims that Bethesda's goal has been to "reinvent" the RPG, which was originally a top-down turn-based title, into an all-new "open-ended RPG." Both Fallout and Fallout 2 offered open-ended gameplay with many side quests inside a larger, linear storyline--as did Oblivion." -gamespot

Oblvion with guns FTL

Well after reading the gamespot article, I think it's now pretty obvious that the game will be an FPS with a broken skeletal frame of what the SPECIAL system used to be. I really wouldn't have any problem with this if they didn't brand it as a direct sequel to the game. I think everyone knows that fallout: BOS was a POS, but at least interplay of all publishers had the decency to not brand it as a sequel an really just as a game within the fallout universe.

 

"The GI cover also added ammo to the theory that Fallout 3 would be a major departure from previous PC Fallouts and the widely despised console spin-off, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. The magazine claims that Bethesda's goal has been to "reinvent" the RPG, which was originally a top-down turn-based title, into an all-new "open-ended RPG." Both Fallout and Fallout 2 offered open-ended gameplay with many side quests inside a larger, linear storyline--as did Oblivion." -gamespot

 

Oblvion with guns FTL

onemic

What a bunch of morons.

if this is anything like Oblivion, it will suck. Fallout is the total opposite of Oblivion. No trouble to tell many posting comments are console gamers who now little about good RPG's. NWN2 was top down and fully 3d, great game. Games do not have to be FPS or third person. It was top down due to the tactical battles, it was way better that way, the fact that it is multi-platform and not going to be top down means there is little hope this will be anything near as good as previous fallouts. FPS view will kill the series, third person would not be as bad, but still lose a lot. Top down games work better for some games, fallout is one. What is it with the console gamers who think games are only good if it is FPS or third person view? Total ignorance. My worst fears are being realized. Bethsoft are not known for good fighting mechanics, nor good dialog, more of the sandbox are run around doing menial tasks, fallout was about depth, and Beth suck at it. This is one of the many reasons going to the consoles sucks for this game, all the main stream simple console gamers will be looking for a game like Oblivion which was a glorified action game masquerading as an RPG. No depth, button mashing brainless combat, and terrible dialog and a below average main story. Look at the comments by some here and you see what i mean. Some gamers wouldn't know an RPG if it bite them in the Xbox.

I have alreadt lost most hope for Fallout 3, and todays announcement was the last straw. It was inevitable as Bethesda is all about the cash.  

The console fans are happy about this, but I am not so happy about it. The way I see it is if the formula is not flawed than why risk changing it for the worse?

I too think that this game should not be Fallout 3, but a game in the Fallout universe.  

where did it say it was going to fps style and like oblivion?duelen

Near 50% of gamers don't know what Fallout is.. pretty sad for such a noteworthy game. Bethesda may have the right idea since it is so "unknown".. good for business, bad for fans of the series. 

where did it say it was going to fps style and like oblivion?duelen

You see that is the funny thing. Bethesda never stated that Fallout 3 was going to be "oblivion with gun." Anyone assuming such things are idiots who need to worry about real issues.  

[QUOTE="duelen"]where did it say it was going to fps style and like oblivion?ChocoKat

You see that is the funny thing. Bethesda never stated that Fallout 3 was going to be "oblivion with gun." Anyone assuming such things are idiots who need to worry about real issues.

Read the article. I think it's pretty obvious that this huge reinvention of the series is making it into an FPS. Bethesda has never cared about its fans and certainly not fallout fans. Anything to make a quick buck is good enough for them.  

[QUOTE="ChocoKat"]

[QUOTE="duelen"]where did it say it was going to fps style and like oblivion?onemic

You see that is the funny thing. Bethesda never stated that Fallout 3 was going to be "oblivion with gun." Anyone assuming such things are idiots who need to worry about real issues.

Read the article. I think it's pretty obvious that this huge reinvention of the series is making it into an FPS. Bethesda has never cared about its fans and certainly not fallout fans. Anything to make a quick buck is good enough for them.

I read the article. Show me where the article had anything pertaining to "oblivion with guns". You all complain about how oblivion was bad, personally I found the game to be quite good for what it was. Morrowind was a boring and drab game, while Oblivion made the world of Cryodil(sp) come alive.

If you weren't viewing gaming through the eyes of a PC fanboy, you would see. Care to continue with your non-factual claims? We're all ears. :roll:

There is nothing at all that even hints that it will be a FPS. "Reinvention" could refer to it being a fully 3d game, among any other number of possible changes. Yes, it is possible that it may be a FPS, but damn... all you doomsayers need to wait for a little more info before blowing your gaskets.

I personally still have high hopes for the game - if it turns out to play like Oblivion, it will certainly seem strange in the Fallout universe, granted, but I have faith in Bethesda as well. They haven't let us down with the last couple RPG's, there is no reason to think that they would do so here.

Go look at Gamespot ratings (both editor ratings, and user ratings) for Bethesda's last couple of games, and then go look at other developer's past games' ratings, and tell me that you honestly would rather see the Fallout title in another developer's hands.

There is nothing at all that even hints that it will be a FPS. "Reinvention" could refer to it being a fully 3d game, among any other number of possible changes. Yes, it is possible that it may be a FPS, but damn... all you doomsayers need to wait for a little more info before blowing your gaskets.

I personally still have high hopes for the game - if it turns out to play like Oblivion, it will certainly seem strange in the Fallout universe, granted, but I have faith in Bethesda as well. They haven't let us down with the last couple RPG's, there is no reason to think that they would do so here.

Go look at Gamespot ratings (both editor ratings, and user ratings) for Bethesda's last couple of games, and then go look at other developer's past games' ratings, and tell me that you honestly would rather see the Fallout title in another developer's hands.

sloopieone

Finally! A voice of reason. Welcome to the board.

There is nothing at all that even hints that it will be a FPS. "Reinvention" could refer to it being a fully 3d game, among any other number of possible changes. Yes, it is possible that it may be a FPS, but damn... all you doomsayers need to wait for a little more info before blowing your gaskets.

I personally still have high hopes for the game - if it turns out to play like Oblivion, it will certainly seem strange in the Fallout universe, granted, but I have faith in Bethesda as well. They haven't let us down with the last couple RPG's, there is no reason to think that they would do so here.

Go look at Gamespot ratings (both editor ratings, and user ratings) for Bethesda's last couple of games, and then go look at other developer's past games' ratings, and tell me that you honestly would rather see the Fallout title in another developer's hands.

sloopieone

Yes I would. I would rather see it in the hands of a capable developer like obsidian(Most of whom made fallout 2) or bioware.(A very capable RPG developer who worked closely with black isle studios in the past) Not only that, these devs actually care about their fans unlike bethesda, who doesn't give a damn as long as they make their money.

@choco cat I honestly don't know how you could ever think that oblivion was more alive than morrowind, unless that is you've never played the game before. The crappy leveling system, extremely underwhelming radiant AI, very generic environments, and a completely dumbed down RPG system made the game a mere shell of what morrowind once was. The only thing I can admit that oblivion was better at doing than morrowind was its melee combat system, which is still pretty much crap anyway. 

[QUOTE="sloopieone"]

There is nothing at all that even hints that it will be a FPS. "Reinvention" could refer to it being a fully 3d game, among any other number of possible changes. Yes, it is possible that it may be a FPS, but damn... all you doomsayers need to wait for a little more info before blowing your gaskets.

I personally still have high hopes for the game - if it turns out to play like Oblivion, it will certainly seem strange in the Fallout universe, granted, but I have faith in Bethesda as well. They haven't let us down with the last couple RPG's, there is no reason to think that they would do so here.

Go look at Gamespot ratings (both editor ratings, and user ratings) for Bethesda's last couple of games, and then go look at other developer's past games' ratings, and tell me that you honestly would rather see the Fallout title in another developer's hands.

onemic

Yes I would. I would rather see it in the hands of a capable developer like obsidian(Most of whom made fallout 2) or bioware.(A very capable RPG developer who worked closely with black isle studios in the past) Not only that, these devs actually care about their fans unlike bethesda, who doesn't give a damn as long as they make their money.

@choco cat I honestly don't know how you could ever think that oblivion was more alive than morrowind, unless that is you've never played the game before. The crappy leveling system, extremely underwhelming radiant AI, very generic environments, and a completely dumbed down RPG system made the game a mere shell of what morrowind once was. The only thing I can admit that oblivion was better at doing than morrowind was its melee combat system, which is still pretty much crap anyway.

I said, WORLD you know like immersion, atmosphere etc. I find it comical, that you mention Obsidian. I guess you don't remember KOTOR2.

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="sloopieone"]

There is nothing at all that even hints that it will be a FPS. "Reinvention" could refer to it being a fully 3d game, among any other number of possible changes. Yes, it is possible that it may be a FPS, but damn... all you doomsayers need to wait for a little more info before blowing your gaskets.

I personally still have high hopes for the game - if it turns out to play like Oblivion, it will certainly seem strange in the Fallout universe, granted, but I have faith in Bethesda as well. They haven't let us down with the last couple RPG's, there is no reason to think that they would do so here.

Go look at Gamespot ratings (both editor ratings, and user ratings) for Bethesda's last couple of games, and then go look at other developer's past games' ratings, and tell me that you honestly would rather see the Fallout title in another developer's hands.

ChocoKat

Yes I would. I would rather see it in the hands of a capable developer like obsidian(Most of whom made fallout 2) or bioware.(A very capable RPG developer who worked closely with black isle studios in the past) Not only that, these devs actually care about their fans unlike bethesda, who doesn't give a damn as long as they make their money.

@choco cat I honestly don't know how you could ever think that oblivion was more alive than morrowind, unless that is you've never played the game before. The crappy leveling system, extremely underwhelming radiant AI, very generic environments, and a completely dumbed down RPG system made the game a mere shell of what morrowind once was. The only thing I can admit that oblivion was better at doing than morrowind was its melee combat system, which is still pretty much crap anyway.

I said, WORLD you know like immersion, atmosphere etc. I find it comical, that you mention Obsidian. I guess you don't remember KOTOR2.

Yes I will mention obsidian. I think everyone knows that the ending in KOTOR 2 was horrid, but no one can deny that in regards to gameplay and character development KOTOR2 was MUCH better than the original KOTOR. Although because of the bastardized ending most people were disappointed with the game. I think it's pretty obvious that from looking at the assets within the game,(If you have the PC version) a lot of the stuff that obsidian wanted to put in regards to further developing the story weren't put in place due to them being rushed. 

Like I said before, most of the guys that are in obsidian made fallout 2. Have you even played fallout by any chance?

I guess I just feel that totally throwing out any possible notion that Fallout 3 may still be a great game, based solely off of a 2 minute teaser and 3 lines of a press release seems a bit premature. I count Fallout and Fallout 2 as two of my all time favorite games, and am eagerly awaiting the release of 3... be it strategic turn based or what have you. If it turns out to be an awful game, I'll be right there with you, complaining about how the Fallout series was made a mockery of, but in the meantime... I'm looking forward to in-game pictures and gameplay footage.

I still have high hopes for the future of one of my favorite game worlds.

[QUOTE="sloopieone"]

There is nothing at all that even hints that it will be a FPS. "Reinvention" could refer to it being a fully 3d game, among any other number of possible changes. Yes, it is possible that it may be a FPS, but damn... all you doomsayers need to wait for a little more info before blowing your gaskets.

I personally still have high hopes for the game - if it turns out to play like Oblivion, it will certainly seem strange in the Fallout universe, granted, but I have faith in Bethesda as well. They haven't let us down with the last couple RPG's, there is no reason to think that they would do so here.

Go look at Gamespot ratings (both editor ratings, and user ratings) for Bethesda's last couple of games, and then go look at other developer's past games' ratings, and tell me that you honestly would rather see the Fallout title in another developer's hands.

ChocoKat

Finally! A voice of reason. Welcome to the board.

Meaning a consolized underwhelming "imagine what it could have been" title.

You claim that Morrowind was drab and boring, whereas Oblivion brought the world alive. This tells me you either don't have much experience with PC-style RPGs, or just don't like them. Either way, you wouldn't be able to understand the (justified) concerns many people have seeing this game in the hands of the studio that bungled TESIV.

I for one wouldn't mind an "Oblivion with guns" experience for Fallout 3. I wasn't a huge fan of Fallout 1 or 2, but I'm definitely keeping my eyes on this game after watching the in-game engine teaser. Can't wait to see more details about it in the future!

IMO... 

Oblivion was good....but Morrowind was excellent.

I wouldn't mind having Fallout on the Oblivion engine, but what I despise right now is the dumbed down kiddie friendly interface the PC gamers had to deal with just because Oblivion was on the consoles.
Give me a decent PC oriented game, and stay away from the mistakes made in Oblivion, and I'll be happy. 

Like I said.. The top down RPG thing has been done and done again, and it can be really fun, but the fighting systems are alllllways so crappy and boring to me, and basically just a hassle I had to get through to finish the story.

The RPG/FPS thing isn't perfect, but there's so so so much that can be done to make it brilliant, and a game like Oblivion, but with an actually really good story like Planescape or Fallout, an evil type of atmosphere, and less annoying battle (although it's still not that great, just a bit less repetitive, and it's twitch-based so you can play the repetitive combat crap without getting quite as bored like most RPGs). I mean, just look at how many people loved Bloodlines. It was done well, despite how crappily it was made.. I love that game, and a story is a story.. I really don't care for the 'RPG gameplay'.. I think it sucks.. But none-the-less, those RPGs blow me away because of the dialogue choices, the setting, the character depth, the story.. And all that can be done really well in a first person shooter style RPG game.

I bet I'll love it. You guys go ahead and enjoy yourselves less. 

Changing the perspective doesn't mean the game changes, if the combat is played out in rea time, fine, so long as it is still an RPG in a great world and with tons of story and humor, then it's all good.Zilor

Changing the perspective to third person? No. Changing the perspective to first person? Yes.

You can't make an RPG in the veins of fallout if it's first person. It just isn't possible and it's something that people who haven't played the series at all(The same ones saying that want an oblivion with guns) don't seem to understand.  

There may be nothing that hints it will be like a FPS, but there is a hell of a lot that hints it will be like Oblivion.

Meaning a consolized underwhelming "imagine what it could have been" title.

You claim that Morrowind was drab and boring, whereas Oblivion brought the world alive. This tells me you either don't have much experience with PC-style RPGs, or just don't like them. Either way, you wouldn't be able to understand the (justified) concerns many people have seeing this game in the hands of the studio that bungled TESIV.

sircyrus

THIS tells me that you need to work on your reading comprehension, as it was not I who made that statement.

Changing the perspective doesn't mean the game changes, if the combat is played out in rea time, fine, so long as it is still an RPG in a great world and with tons of story and humor, then it's all good.Zilor

here here!! well said sir.

THIS tells me that you need to work on your reading comprehension, as it was not I who made that statement.sloopieone

[QUOTE="Zilor"]Changing the perspective doesn't mean the game changes, if the combat is played out in rea time, fine, so long as it is still an RPG in a great world and with tons of story and humor, then it's all good.onemic

Changing the perspective to third person? No. Changing the perspective to first person? Yes.

You can't make an RPG in the veins of fallout if it's first person. It just isn't possible and it's something that people who haven't played the series at all(The same ones saying that want an oblivion with guns) don't seem to understand.

Like I said.. Maybe not you, but many people who consider themselves hardcore RPG enjoyers.. Not people who like clickfests like Diablo and call themselves rpg lovers.. And not people who thought Oblivion was a great RPG (although it was a great game in general), but people who loved the classics like Morrowind, Planescape, Fallout, BG.. And many of them also loved Bloodlines. Have you ever played it? I understand you saying that you can first-person-ize an RPG game with no guns a lot easier, because with a game with guns mostly, ala Fallout would make it too FPS-ish, but it has nothing to do with that.. An RPG is about story.. It's about atmosphere, it's about dialogue, it's about depth, it's about mental decisions, it's about using your brain and enjoying things that are just so different and unique and special.. It's about characters, your own character becoming something specific and not just some nameless guy that does all this crap. It's about a great story.. All of this is possible. You can do that in an RTS.. You can do that in a TBS.. You can do that in an FPS.. Bloodlines did pretty good according to many who could see past the physical flaws.. You can do that in a TEXT ONLY game, even.. If the story blows my mind.. It will be a fantastic game for me. If the Planescape: Torment  story was made to me any other way at all, as long as it was just as interactive, I woud absolutely love it.. And I'd probably love it more if it was FPS style because it would be as much hassle getting through the fighting system just to see the next part of the amazing story. Maybe I just value different parts of RPG than you.

[QUOTE="sloopieone"]THIS tells me that you need to work on your reading comprehension, as it was not I who made that statement.sircyrus

My apologies in that case. the double quoting lead me to believe you were referring to my post. :P

There is nothing at all that even hints that it will be a FPS. "Reinvention" could refer to it being a fully 3d game, among any other number of possible changes. Yes, it is possible that it may be a FPS, but damn... all you doomsayers need to wait for a little more info before blowing your gaskets.

I personally still have high hopes for the game - if it turns out to play like Oblivion, it will certainly seem strange in the Fallout universe, granted, but I have faith in Bethesda as well. They haven't let us down with the last couple RPG's, there is no reason to think that they would do so here.

Go look at Gamespot ratings (both editor ratings, and user ratings) for Bethesda's last couple of games, and then go look at other developer's past games' ratings, and tell me that you honestly would rather see the Fallout title in another developer's hands.

sloopieone

Umm, they let us down with oblivion, an ActionA dventure game masquerading as an RPG. In an interview someone asked beth if they would make a top down true RPG, his response? We don't make games like that. Add tot he fact it will be dumbed down like Oblivion for cross platform console gamers, the writing is on the wall.

Grow Up

[QUOTE="onemic"]

[QUOTE="Zilor"]Changing the perspective doesn't mean the game changes, if the combat is played out in rea time, fine, so long as it is still an RPG in a great world and with tons of story and humor, then it's all good.Dracunos

Changing the perspective to third person? No. Changing the perspective to first person? Yes.

You can't make an RPG in the veins of fallout if it's first person. It just isn't possible and it's something that people who haven't played the series at all(The same ones saying that want an oblivion with guns) don't seem to understand.

Like I said.. Maybe not you, but many people who consider themselves hardcore RPG enjoyers.. Not people who like clickfests like Diablo and call themselves rpg lovers.. And not people who thought Oblivion was a great RPG (although it was a great game in general), but people who loved the classics like Morrowind, Planescape, Fallout, BG.. And many of them also loved Bloodlines. Have you ever played it? I understand you saying that you can first-person-ize an RPG game with no guns a lot easier, because with a game with guns mostly, ala Fallout would make it too FPS-ish, but it has nothing to do with that.. An RPG is about story.. It's about atmosphere, it's about dialogue, it's about depth, it's about mental decisions, it's about using your brain and enjoying things that are just so different and unique and special.. It's about characters, your own character becoming something specific and not just some nameless guy that does all this crap. It's about a great story.. All of this is possible. You can do that in an RTS.. You can do that in a TBS.. You can do that in an FPS.. Bloodlines did pretty good according to many who could see past the physical flaws.. You can do that in a TEXT ONLY game, even.. If the story blows my mind.. It will be a fantastic game for me. If the Planescape: Torment story was made to me any other way at all, as long as it was just as interactive, I woud absolutely love it.. And I'd probably love it more if it was FPS style because it would be as much hassle getting through the fighting system just to see the next part of the amazing story. Maybe I just value different parts of RPG than you.

So if a dev says they are making a sequel to planescape torment and stated that it wouldn't be an RPG, but merely an RTS, you would be all for it? Somehow I don't think so. you could turn the next planescape(if there ever is one) into a chess game and give it all the interactivity and themes in the world, but it still won't be planescape, no matter what you do as being an RPG is one big part of what makes planescape torment, planescape torment. 

By changing the perspective to first person you're completely destroying the combat system. Thus removing a huge draw of the original game. And this isn't ion storm or bioware, or obisidian we're talking about. This is bethesda. The guys that made the dumbed down to near retarded oblivion.   

[QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="onemic"]

[QUOTE="Zilor"]Changing the perspective doesn't mean the game changes, if the combat is played out in rea time, fine, so long as it is still an RPG in a great world and with tons of story and humor, then it's all good.onemic

Changing the perspective to third person? No. Changing the perspective to first person? Yes.

You can't make an RPG in the veins of fallout if it's first person. It just isn't possible and it's something that people who haven't played the series at all(The same ones saying that want an oblivion with guns) don't seem to understand.

Like I said.. Maybe not you, but many people who consider themselves hardcore RPG enjoyers.. Not people who like clickfests like Diablo and call themselves rpg lovers.. And not people who thought Oblivion was a great RPG (although it was a great game in general), but people who loved the classics like Morrowind, Planescape, Fallout, BG.. And many of them also loved Bloodlines. Have you ever played it? I understand you saying that you can first-person-ize an RPG game with no guns a lot easier, because with a game with guns mostly, ala Fallout would make it too FPS-ish, but it has nothing to do with that.. An RPG is about story.. It's about atmosphere, it's about dialogue, it's about depth, it's about mental decisions, it's about using your brain and enjoying things that are just so different and unique and special.. It's about characters, your own character becoming something specific and not just some nameless guy that does all this crap. It's about a great story.. All of this is possible. You can do that in an RTS.. You can do that in a TBS.. You can do that in an FPS.. Bloodlines did pretty good according to many who could see past the physical flaws.. You can do that in a TEXT ONLY game, even.. If the story blows my mind.. It will be a fantastic game for me. If the Planescape: Torment story was made to me any other way at all, as long as it was just as interactive, I woud absolutely love it.. And I'd probably love it more if it was FPS style because it would be as much hassle getting through the fighting system just to see the next part of the amazing story. Maybe I just value different parts of RPG than you.

So if a dev says they are making a sequel to planescape torment and stated that it wouldn't be an RPG, but merely an RTS, you would be all for it? Somehow I don't think so. you could turn the next planescape(if there ever is one) into a chess game and give it all the interactivity and themes in the world, but it still won't be planescape, no matter what you do as being an RPG is one big part of what makes planescape torment, planescape torment.

By changing the perspective to first person you're completely destroying the combat system. Thus removing a huge draw of the original game. And this isn't ion storm or bioware, or obisidian we're talking about. This is bethesda. The guys that made the dumbed down to near retarded oblivion.

That's not correct. I just wrote some quotes, and remembered some things that I loved about Planescape, and pretty much all of it was purely story.. Had nothing to do with the.. click and move character.. here.. Or the boring, bland combat system.. I highly doubt I would dislike a game that was exactly Planescape Torment, but was first person.. The fighting would be less bland, although I wouldn't expect Black Isle to make some brilliant combat system :p I would enjoy it more, actually. A sequel to Planescape in first person.. What's the difference? I really don't care what it's 'called'.. If they can somehow make another game with an amazing story like that, I wouldn't care. And a chess game would be boring :p And I don't see how it would.. Be interactive with the story.. That makes no sense..

The only negative thing I could see is that if they were to make a sequel, is that I would be really paranoid that they'll be making it suckily. And they could just as easily make a sucky top down RPG game as a FPS game. I really don't understand your huge problem with them changing the parts of the game that didn't mean anything.. People loved that game because it had a great atmosphere, a great story.. Great dialogue, great characters, interactivity that can affect the story.. RPG things.. Any of those things can be EXACTLY as great in a First person game.. Atmosphere can be done even better, actually. You really need to get over this clinging to the WAY the game is played.. That has nothing to do with what an RPG is.. How can you possibly be so offended if they aren't changing the REAL things that actually matter at all? Even Oblivion could have been made far more RPG-oriented.. I mean.. Morrowind somehow did it.. Bloodlines somehow did it.. Oblivion was just missing a storyline, intriguing and indepth dialogue and character-player relationships.. Emotion-evoking.. All that can be put on their stupid little combat system and could have made one of the best RPGs of all time.. Or they could have put it all in a turn based top down RPG.. Or a real time one.. Any of those things can potentially make the best RPG of all time. Many people do believe morrowind is.. many people believe Fallout is.. Many people believe BG is.. There's all three of them right there.. Get over it. They aren't changing 'fallout'.. They are changing an unimportant aspect of the game. Those things I keep repeating above are what is really important, and all that really matters, and all that is needed to make a great game.. A great RPG.

Hmm, I'd like to know where all the hate for Bethesda stems from. Yeah, I agree Oblivion was a little watered-down, but it was still a great game. Morrowind is one of the best rpg's ever. Bethesda has a pretty good track record. And Onemic, why do you think they don't care about their fans? I've never heard of Beth not listening to it's community, if anything, it's always supported the mod community for it's games. Your baseless accusations of the company hurt your argument, because I question the motives behind it.

The article really doesn't reveal anything, other than there will be some changes in this latest chapter in the Fallout series. Change is not necessarily a bad thing.

*edit* Just read the post above mine, very well put Dracunos. That's basically where I stand as well.

i think all we're discussing here are pretty baseless......we know very little about Betheda's F3, but that doesn't mean we can't have our own opinion. at this stage, one is just as likely to be correct as another.

here's my take. i dislike the ES series...in fact very much. since that's about as far as Bethesda go, i won't even bother to get excited over this game. Bethesda is renowned for its open-ended engine, true, but most other elements that truly make a great RPG -- dialogue, atmosphere, characters and personalities, etc -- were pretty broken in that so-called open-endedness of Bethesda. Black Isle had no problem pulling it off and wrapping all those up into one engaging and coherent experience. the question is, can Bethesda do the same.

my experience with its product tells me, hell no.

Hmm, I'd like to know where all the hate for Bethesda stems from.

....

I've never heard of Beth not listening to it's community, if anything, it's always supported the mod community for it's games.TheCrazed420

Bethesda demonstrated an apparent heavy preference for the 360 when developing Oblivion. From the console interface to the dumbed down skill system, it seems the game was created to appeal more to the console crowd, rather than longtime PC fans of the series. Since many fans of Fallout are fans of the RPG genre in general, they likely have experienced this letdown personally after picking up Oblivion.

Enter Fallout, a top-down immersive RPG very dear to many gamers. The fears of it being "Oblivionized" are very justified.

It would be like a company taking the Baldur's Gate series, gutting it of several classes, removing the turn-based element, making it 3D where you control from the 1st person, and turning it's combat twitchy. Then trying to pass it off as Baldur's Gate 3, rather than an action RPG like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance.

....

As for the second part, Bethesda has always supported the mod community, yes. However it has not always listened to the community relating to the official game, rather than user-created content. Case in point is Oblivion's much hated scaled leveling system.

Bethesda demonstrated an apparent heavy preference for the 360 when developing Oblivion. From the console interface to the dumbed down skill system, it seems the game was created to appeal more to the console crowd, rather than longtime PC fans of the series.sircyrus

[QUOTE="onemic"]The magazine claims that Bethesda's goal has been to "reinvent" the RPG, which was originally a top-down turn-based title, into an all-new "open-ended RPG." Both Fallout and Fallout 2 offered open-ended gameplay with many side quests inside a larger, linear storyline--as did Oblivion." -gamespot_Memento_

What a bunch of morons.

I agree. To compare Elder Scrolls to Fallout is like comparing a factory farm in Plymouth to an open mountain range in Scotland.

Elder Scrolls is linear and diluted, while Fallout features layered and realistic dialogue

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="onemic"]

[QUOTE="Zilor"]Changing the perspective doesn't mean the game changes, if the combat is played out in rea time, fine, so long as it is still an RPG in a great world and with tons of story and humor, then it's all good.Dracunos

Changing the perspective to third person? No. Changing the perspective to first person? Yes.

You can't make an RPG in the veins of fallout if it's first person. It just isn't possible and it's something that people who haven't played the series at all(The same ones saying that want an oblivion with guns) don't seem to understand.

Like I said.. Maybe not you, but many people who consider themselves hardcore RPG enjoyers.. Not people who like clickfests like Diablo and call themselves rpg lovers.. And not people who thought Oblivion was a great RPG (although it was a great game in general), but people who loved the classics like Morrowind, Planescape, Fallout, BG.. And many of them also loved Bloodlines. Have you ever played it? I understand you saying that you can first-person-ize an RPG game with no guns a lot easier, because with a game with guns mostly, ala Fallout would make it too FPS-ish, but it has nothing to do with that.. An RPG is about story.. It's about atmosphere, it's about dialogue, it's about depth, it's about mental decisions, it's about using your brain and enjoying things that are just so different and unique and special.. It's about characters, your own character becoming something specific and not just some nameless guy that does all this crap. It's about a great story.. All of this is possible. You can do that in an RTS.. You can do that in a TBS.. You can do that in an FPS.. Bloodlines did pretty good according to many who could see past the physical flaws.. You can do that in a TEXT ONLY game, even.. If the story blows my mind.. It will be a fantastic game for me. If the Planescape: Torment story was made to me any other way at all, as long as it was just as interactive, I woud absolutely love it.. And I'd probably love it more if it was FPS style because it would be as much hassle getting through the fighting system just to see the next part of the amazing story. Maybe I just value different parts of RPG than you.

So if a dev says they are making a sequel to planescape torment and stated that it wouldn't be an RPG, but merely an RTS, you would be all for it? Somehow I don't think so. you could turn the next planescape(if there ever is one) into a chess game and give it all the interactivity and themes in the world, but it still won't be planescape, no matter what you do as being an RPG is one big part of what makes planescape torment, planescape torment.

By changing the perspective to first person you're completely destroying the combat system. Thus removing a huge draw of the original game. And this isn't ion storm or bioware, or obisidian we're talking about. This is bethesda. The guys that made the dumbed down to near retarded oblivion.

That's not correct. I just wrote some quotes, and remembered some things that I loved about Planescape, and pretty much all of it was purely story.. Had nothing to do with the.. click and move character.. here.. Or the boring, bland combat system.. I highly doubt I would dislike a game that was exactly Planescape Torment, but was first person.. The fighting would be less bland, although I wouldn't expect Black Isle to make some brilliant combat system :p I would enjoy it more, actually. A sequel to Planescape in first person.. What's the difference? I really don't care what it's 'called'.. If they can somehow make another game with an amazing story like that, I wouldn't care. And a chess game would be boring :p And I don't see how it would.. Be interactive with the story.. That makes no sense..

The only negative thing I could see is that if they were to make a sequel, is that I would be really paranoid that they'll be making it suckily. And they could just as easily make a sucky top down RPG game as a FPS game. I really don't understand your huge problem with them changing the parts of the game that didn't mean anything.. People loved that game because it had a great atmosphere, a great story.. Great dialogue, great characters, interactivity that can affect the story.. RPG things.. Any of those things can be EXACTLY as great in a First person game.. Atmosphere can be done even better, actually. You really need to get over this clinging to the WAY the game is played.. That has nothing to do with what an RPG is.. How can you possibly be so offended if they aren't changing the REAL things that actually matter at all? Even Oblivion could have been made far more RPG-oriented.. I mean.. Morrowind somehow did it.. Bloodlines somehow did it.. Oblivion was just missing a storyline, intriguing and indepth dialogue and character-player relationships.. Emotion-evoking.. All that can be put on their stupid little combat system and could have made one of the best RPGs of all time.. Or they could have put it all in a turn based top down RPG.. Or a real time one.. Any of those things can potentially make the best RPG of all time. Many people do believe morrowind is.. many people believe Fallout is.. Many people believe BG is.. There's all three of them right there.. Get over it. They aren't changing 'fallout'.. They are changing an unimportant aspect of the game. Those things I keep repeating above are what is really important, and all that really matters, and all that is needed to make a great game.. A great RPG.

I think you're forgetting that an RPG just doesn't include a story, but a great combat system. By changing the game to first person, you're completely eliminating that part of the game. It no longer becomes an RPG, but merely an action adventure with some RPG elements tacked on.

And yes you could probably make a chess game out of planescape torment and still have the same story and interactivity.  If you wanted to you could turn planescape torment into just about any other genre. I bet you still wouldn't like it if it was a little less extreme like say an RTS. I don't know. Maybe it's just that you strictly like the story of a game no matter how butchered the rest of the game might be. Making you pretty much in the minority.

I'm quite alright with series taking a completely different route when it comes to genres, as long as they don't try to make it look like a direct sequel. Take starcraft ghost for instance. The game is completely different than the original starcraft when it comes to gameplay, but I was actually really excited about that game and pretty let down when it was put on indefinite hold, but the thing is, is that it wasn't called starcraft 2 and blizzard didn't see it as a sequel to stacraft but more of a game within the same universe. If ghost was branded as a direct sequel to the original starcraft I sure as hell wouldn't want it and I bet that a lot of the other people that were excited about ghost and knew about starcrafts history wouldn't be excited about it either. If fallout 3 will be in first person, bethsoft shouldn't call it fallout 3, but should call it something else. Even interplay had the decency to not brand fallout: BOS as a direct sequel to the franchise. If bethesda decides to change the perspective to first person all they'll be doing is alienating their fans and removing a big part of what fallout is. 

[QUOTE="sircyrus"]Bethesda demonstrated an apparent heavy preference for the 360 when developing Oblivion. From the console interface to the dumbed down skill system, it seems the game was created to appeal more to the console crowd, rather than longtime PC fans of the series.JN_Fenrir

What was dumbed down about it is the removal of several skill sets and the merger of others. The skills were gutted to make it more appealing to the casual gamer (ie: console crowd). Plus the mini-games take your own personal skill more into account than your character's. With low speechcraft you can go around and talk the pants off everybody... it's ridiculous.

And "console interface"? Since when did the word "console" become synonymous with the word "simple" (or, for that matter, an adjective)? Oblivion's interface works perfectly fine, save for the too-large font in the items menu (it's like that at every resolution, by the way).JN_Fenrir

Examples:

Dumbed down equippable inventory. You don't have nearly the amount of equippable gear as you did in Morrowind. Wrist/wrist pauldron/pauldron, gauntlet/gauntlet, etc. Now it's all bundled together in several pieces.

You have many tabs within the interface. These are accessible by the F1-F4 keys. There are far more sections than just 4. We're on a keyboard with tons of possible hotkeys, we should have the entire interface mapped. Consoles use a 4-button system, not PC users.

Too few quick-slot keys in general. Again, consoles are limited in buttons, PC users are not. We should be able to take advantage of that.

Inability to name your saved games. This was just annoying and unnecessary.

"Console crowd"... please. The PC has always been a great place for gaming, but consoles have been well caught up since the turn of the millennium. It's time to get along. I hate these arguments. And I can't wait for cross-platform multiplayer.JN_Fenrir

Cross-platform multiplayer = multiplatform gaming. Something you'll find many posters here do not like for a variety of reasons.

Very little in Oblivion was more complex or interesting, the skill system not being one of them.

What was dumbed down about it is the removal of several skill sets and the merger of others. The skills were gutted to make it more appealing to the casual gamer (ie: console crowd). Plus the mini-games take your own personal skill more into account than your character's. With low speechcraft you can go around and talk the pants off everybody... it's ridiculous.

sircyrus

The font is too big, the icons are too big, the interface is large and clunky. Console is synonymous with 'simple' in many cases because consolization refers to a game being dumbed down or simplified to appeal to casual gamers. The UI with it's huge text and menus was an extremely common complaint among PC users when the game was released because it was constructed to function better for consoles rather than PC.sircyrus

Examples:

Dumbed down equippable inventory. You don't have nearly the amount of equippable gear as you did in Morrowind. Wrist/wrist pauldron/pauldron, gauntlet/gauntlet, etc. Now it's all bundled together in several pieces.

sircyrus

You have many tabs within the interface. These are accessible by the F1-F4 keys. There are far more sections than just 4. We're on a keyboard with tons of possible hotkeys, we should have the entire interface mapped. Consoles use a 4-button system, not PC users.

sircyrus

Too few quick-slot keys in general. Again, consoles are limited in buttons, PC users are not. We should be able to take advantage of that.

sircyrus

Consoles haven't caught up since the turn of the millennium. Every few years new consoles come out and are close to the PC in hardware specs, but soon get left behind again. I don't have a problem with hardware specs however, I have a problem with the casual/dumbed down/simplified gameplay that consoles use. A console game is meant to be able to thrown in and played for 15 minutes. PC games generally are not like that.sircyrus

Cross-platform multiplayer = multiplatform gaming. Something you'll find many posters here do not like for a variety of reasons.sircyrus

You give me one shred of evidence that suggests gameplay on consoles is "dumbed down", and I'll name you a PC game that's just as "dumb". You can't possibly imply that simplified gameplay in a PC game has anything to do with consoles.JN_Fenrir

Gameplay on consoles is dumbed down for the majority of games because they're geared for the casual gamer. The living room gamer. Can you find games with depth on consoles? Absolutely. But they are not the majority. Halo 2 is the most popular FPS on consoles. Placed next to PC shooters do you feel it's a simplified shooter? BF2 vs Halo2... which is more complex? Baldur's Gate 2 vs Final Fantasy X. Again, which is more complex?

As for a shred of evidence of multiplatforming dumbing down the PC version? Thief 3: The Dark Project, TES4: Oblivion, Deus Ex 2... these are a few examples of games which went multiplatform and resulted in dumbed down gameplay. It's not coincidence.

It's like taking Monopoly and changing it to have a smaller board and 3 die, then plate the pieces in gold and make the board a pop-up. But promoting the pop-up and gold pieces while you barely touch on the fact it's got a smaller board and 3 die.

It's still basically Monopoly where you buy real estate and move around the board. For people who say Monopoly takes too long to play this new version would attract them. Fans of the old Monopoly would give this new pop-up version a try, only to discover you go around the board much faster resulting in shorter, easier games with less wheeling-and-dealing. That's essentially how multiplatform gaming works for PC users, and it's crappy.

If you truly can't see how a game being developed to attract 2 very different styles of gameplay will lose quality there's not really anything anyone can say to show you that though.

[QUOTE="sircyrus"]Cross-platform multiplayer = multiplatform gaming. Something you'll find many posters here do not like for a variety of reasons.JN_Fenrir