Fallout 3=oblivion?

I'm looking foward to Fallout 3. I'd be happy if the game was a graphically updated version of the previous two with the same turnbased combat, but that's probably not going to happen. I'd also be happy if the game was first person or third person with realtime combat, since I enjoy that more than turnbased combat. Yeah, that's right. Contrary to what some of these know-it-alls say, I actually played through most of Fallout 1 and loved it, but I still like realtime combat more.

I'm looking foward to Fallout 3. I'd be happy if the game was a graphically updated version of the previous two with the same turnbased combat, but that's probably not going to happen. I'd also be happy if the game was first person or third person with realtime combat, since I enjoy that more than turnbased combat. Yeah, that's right. Contrary to what some of these know-it-alls say, I actually played through most of Fallout 1 and loved it, but I still like realtime combat more.

 

Herrick

That doesn't mean they should change it to real time simply because you like it more. I

like shooters like gears of war, so therefore I think that starcraft 2 should be set completely in third person where the gameplay is where you shoot people and jump from cover to cover. 

That doesn't mean they should change it to real time simply because you like it more.

onemic

I never said they should change just because I like realtime more than turnbased. Reading Comprehension 101.

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.sircyrus

It's not so much that they couldn't be replicated on the consoles as it is that consoles offer a different gaming experience so replicating it wouldn't be preferable.

If you put a PC down in a room and play a variety of PC-exclusive games for 8 hours, then put a console down in the same room and play console-exclusive games for 8 hours you would see a difference between the two. That's all there is to it.

[QUOTE="sircyrus"]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.JN_Fenrir

I think Sir Cyrus is talking more about multiplatform games that are released at the same time. I think if Doom 3 was in development for the PC and the Xbox at the same time, that the PC version would have been developed with the Xbox's limitations in mind. Aren't the levels in the PC version of Doom 3 bigger than the ones in the Xbox version? That's not really "deeper" gameplay but right there we see that the PC version wasn't based on the console's limitations 'cause it came out almost a year before the Xbox version. We've seen this happen time and time again. Another example of this is the game GUN. I don't think there's any reason to do as much case building as you say has to be done in order to prove that multiplatform games are "dumbed down" (I really dislike that expression) compared to PC exclusives...generally speaking.

[QUOTE="onemic"]That doesn't mean they should change it to real time simply because you like it more.

Herrick

I never said they should change just because I like realtime more than turnbased. Reading Comprehension 101.

You said you would be happy if they changed it. It's practically the same thing.

If I said I would be happy if hilary clinton won the election next year, does that not mean I think she should win? Maybe it is you who should learn some reading comprehension.   

You said you would be happy if they changed it. It's practically the same thing.

If I said I would be happy if hilary clinton won the election next year, does that not mean I think she should win? Maybe it is you who should learn some reading comprehension.   

onemic

If you read my whole post, you would also have noticed that I'd be happy if they kept the turnbased combat. I did not say I'd rather them change it. I don't care much either way. So to use your Hillary Clinton example, it would be like saying I'd be happy if she lost or won.

[QUOTE="onemic"]You said you would be happy if they changed it. It's practically the same thing.

If I said I would be happy if hilary clinton won the election next year, does that not mean I think she should win? Maybe it is you who should learn some reading comprehension.

Herrick

If you read my whole post, you would also have noticed that I'd be happy if they kept the turnbased combat. I did not say I'd rather them change it. I don't care much either way. So to use your Hillary Clinton example, it would be like saying I'd be happy if she lost or won.

Okay I see what you're saying. I can officially say my bad on this one.  

Okay I see what you're saying. I can officially say my bad on this one.onemic

No big deal.

But for the record, I think I really would prefer if they kept the gameplay the way it was in Fallout 1 & 2. Although I like realtime combat more than turnbased, I'd like to see Fallout 3 still resemble the game world in the first two games & the turnbased combat was a big part of that. Ah well. They'll probably make it very different but I'll still check it out as long as it doesn't suck balls. We hardly get any games that take place in a post apocalyptic setting so I'm happy they're making one.

[QUOTE="Dracunos"][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.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.

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.

 RPG combat systems have ALWAYS left me with much, very much to be desired.. The combat systems in almost every RPG I've played served to do nothing but make the game longer, and provide you, perhaps, with a sense of accomplishment when you got to the actual good parts, such as the next part of the brilliant story.. Most people rating Fallout, as an example, said the combat system sucked, actually.. I don't really care if it does or not.. This game is an RPG. This game is a fantastic world, immersive, deep. It also just so happens to be played in the top down turn based perspective.. But that's not what this game 'is'.. Fallout 'is' it's immersive and deep world and storyline. Fallout 3 is a respectable name for ANY game that continues said immersive and deep world and brilliant storyline.. Whether it just so happens to be first person, or just so happens to be top down, or just so happens to be third person shooter.. That has nothing to do with what Fallout really is, and I fail to see how you could possibly be so attached to that tiny, miniscule, insignificant (and most people consider BAD) aspect of this huge and brilliant game.

[QUOTE="onemic"] Okay I see what you're saying. I can officially say my bad on this one.Herrick

No big deal.

But for the record, I think I really would prefer if they kept the gameplay the way it was in Fallout 1 & 2. Although I like realtime combat more than turnbased, I'd like to see Fallout 3 still resemble the game world in the first two games & the turnbased combat was a big part of that. Ah well. They'll probably make it very different but I'll still check it out as long as it doesn't suck balls. We hardly get any games that take place in a post apocalyptic setting so I'm happy they're making one.

I would be alright with them changing the genre from RPG to action RPG as long as they take out the three from fallout and don't brand it as a direct sequel. Make it a game within the fallout universe if they want to do that. Even interplay had the decency to do that when they made fallout: BOS.  

I would be alright with them changing the genre from RPG to action RPG as long as they take out the three from fallout and don't brand it as a direct sequel. Make it a game within the fallout universe if they want to do that. Even interplay had the decency to do that when they made fallout: BOS.onemic

I understand what you mean. I said something similar in a different Fallout 3 thread. Maybe they shouldn't have named this Fallout 3 since it'll probably be so different from the first two. It seems weird to call this a sequel if it's going to be vastly different from the first two games.

I'm really "Luke Warm" to this whole thing though. I loved Fallout 1 but I guess I'm not as big a fan as some of the others are, and I don't care much that the game is being billed as a sequel to Fallout 2 and possibly being changed a lot.

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

RPG combat systems have ALWAYS left me with much, very much to be desired.. The combat systems in almost every RPG I've played served to do nothing but make the game longer, and provide you, perhaps, with a sense of accomplishment when you got to the actual good parts, such as the next part of the brilliant story.. Most people rating Fallout, as an example, said the combat system sucked, actually.. I don't really care if it does or not.. This game is an RPG. This game is a fantastic world, immersive, deep. It also just so happens to be played in the top down turn based perspective.. But that's not what this game 'is'.. Fallout 'is' it's immersive and deep world and storyline. Fallout 3 is a respectable name for ANY game that continues said immersive and deep world and brilliant storyline.. Whether it just so happens to be first person, or just so happens to be top down, or just so happens to be third person shooter.. That has nothing to do with what Fallout really is, and I fail to see how you could possibly be so attached to that tiny, miniscule, insignificant (and most people consider BAD) aspect of this huge and brilliant game.

Most people said the combat system sucked? That was probably you and you alone. Most people love the gameplay within fallout and the combat system makes up a very big part of that. Where you even got that stasistic from reall makes me wonder.

Like I said if all that matter is the games stoy and setting to you, then you are in an extremely small minority. Most people that are fans of a series like the genre its under and wouldn't want it to be changed. Do you know how outraged people would be if blizzard stated that starcraft ghost would indeed be starcraft 2? I wouldn't even want to think about it. You can't simply say, "It's just a combat system, get over it" maybe that's you, but for others(Meaning mostly everyone) changing a games entire genre and lableling as a sequel is basically a kick in the pants. Like I said before, you just like a game for its story and interactivity, so that's why you think that's all that fallout needs whether the game is completly changed or not. Most people don't think like that which is why almost all fallout fans are really against the perspective of fallout 3 being first person. It will kill what fallout is.

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

[QUOTE="Zilor"]teh gameplay is not importantonemic

nu itz not

nohuh

no way dued

Okay, it's very important. It's extremely important, it matters SO much. It's actually the most important thing ever in the world. You win this exciting and stimulating argument. 

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

[QUOTE="Zilor"]teh gameplay is not importantDracunos

nu itz not

nohuh

no way dued

Okay, it's very important. It's extremely important, it matters SO much. It's actually the most important thing ever in the world. You win this exciting and stimulating argument.

No need to be that sarcastic LMAO. 

The combat systems in almost every RPG I've played served to do nothing but make the game longer, and provide you, perhaps, with a sense of accomplishment when you got to the actual good parts, such as the next part of the brilliant story.. Most people rating Fallout, as an example, said the combat system sucked, actually..Dracunos

Fallout 'is' it's immersive and deep world and storyline.

Fallout is more than that.  Fallout is awesome death animations.  It's much more enjoyable to cut someone in half with a chaingun than the rag-doll BS we see these days.  Fallout is it's humor.  Sometimes you need a mutant with a tree growing out the side of his head.  Fallout is the SPECIAL system.  Fallout is having at least three ways to solve a quest (direct, stealth, diplomatic).  Fallout is exploring the world and running into quirky special encounters.  It's having an NPC that you need to make sure you're not in front of because he's going to go full auto right into your back the minute he spots an enemy. ;)

There's a lot that makes Fallout Fallout.  We'll have to see how much of it gets gutted by Bethesda.  Even if Bethesda tries to stay true to Fallout, they've never made a game that has the same strong points as Fallout.

I'm not passing any judgement on Fallout 3 yet as I have only seen the teaser trailer.   When I have seen some gameplay trailers or a demo then I will have some idea what the game will be like then. I thought fallout 1 and 2 were great games so I hope the same will be true of fallout 3.

I wont say it looks great or really bad until I have at least seen some more than a teaser trailer and a couple of lines from a press release

[QUOTE="Dracunos"]The combat systems in almost every RPG I've played served to do nothing but make the game longer, and provide you, perhaps, with a sense of accomplishment when you got to the actual good parts, such as the next part of the brilliant story.. Most people rating Fallout, as an example, said the combat system sucked, actually..Skie7

Fallout 'is' it's immersive and deep world and storyline.

Fallout is more than that. Fallout is awesome death animations. It's much more enjoyable to cut someone in half with a chaingun than the rag-doll BS we see these days. Fallout is it's humor. Sometimes you need a mutant with a tree growing out the side of his head. Fallout is the SPECIAL system. Fallout is having at least three ways to solve a quest (direct, stealth, diplomatic). Fallout is exploring the world and running into quirky special encounters. It's having an NPC that you need to make sure you're not in front of because he's going to go full auto right into your back the minute he spots an enemy. ;)

There's a lot that makes Fallout Fallout. We'll have to see how much of it gets gutted by Bethesda. Even if Bethesda tries to stay true to Fallout, they've never made a game that has the same strong points as Fallout.

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

It's using the oblivion engine.. and it's a story about war..

in case you can't piece that together.. oblivion=first person, war=shooting... first person shooter?

 I don't know what you guys are talking about.  I never played the originals, but an Oblivion style game set in an apocolyptic war-torn world sounds awesome to me.. can't wait.

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

It's using the oblivion engine.. and it's a story about war..

in case you can't piece that together.. oblivion=first person, war=shooting... first person shooter?

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I never played the originals, but an Oblivion style game set in an apocolyptic war-torn world sounds awesome to me.. can't wait.

*pukes*  Oblivion is the worst big budget crap released for the PC in recent memory.  It's saving grace?  The 45 mods I have installed to make it worth playing.

I'd rather have some cheap, obscure Russian developer make the game than Bethesda. 

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

It's using the oblivion engine.. and it's a story about war..

in case you can't piece that together.. oblivion=first person, war=shooting... first person shooter?

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I never played the originals, but an Oblivion style game set in an apocolyptic war-torn world sounds awesome to me.. can't wait.

Exactly, you've never played the game before.  

I think the only way to make fallout 3 as good as the others is to design it similar to infinity engine type games like NWN or BG. I certainly wouldnt buy it if it becomes an Oblivion type action adventure game but I know a lot of people especially on consoles who love this type of genre.

I think this game should have been given to Bioware. Bethesda isnt really experienced with fallout type of gaming and Obsidian is just a "fall back to" developer when you want to make sequels cheap. They always end up taking over a series and just remaking it with very little change, worse dialog and tons of bugs. Bioware would have been the best choice. Bethesda is a good choice if you want action adventure.

I think this game should have been given to Bioware. Bethesda isnt really experienced with fallout type of gaming and Obsidian is just a "fall back to" developer when you want to make sequels cheap. They always end up taking over a series and just remaking it with very little change, worse dialog and tons of bugs. Bioware would have been the best choice. Bethesda is a good choice if you want action adventure.

marc5477

Obsidian is a fall back developer? Sure there games have had bugs, but it's mostly because the were rushed to complete it. KOTOR2 and NWN2 got much better in terms of gameplay thanks to obsidian. Obsidian would really be the best choice as most of the employees were the makers of fallout 2. Bioware would definitely be my second choice though.  

[QUOTE="IMAHAPYHIPPO"]

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

It's using the oblivion engine.. and it's a story about war..

in case you can't piece that together.. oblivion=first person, war=shooting... first person shooter?

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I never played the originals, but an Oblivion style game set in an apocolyptic war-torn world sounds awesome to me.. can't wait.

Exactly, you've never played the game before.  

but why not take it for what it is?  no matter what fans of the series do to complain about it, the game is still being made by bestheda, and it's coming out, regardless of what you have to say about it.  Bestheda can make a good game, we already know that.  I trust them.  Even if it's not like the other Fallouts..who cares?  It's a game with a lot of promise and quite a following, so why not enjoy the new take on it?  It could be quite intriguing.

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

[QUOTE="Zilor"]teh gameplay is not importantDracunos

nu itz not

nohuh

no way dued

Okay, it's very important. It's extremely important, it matters SO much. It's actually the most important thing ever in the world. You win this exciting and stimulating argument.

Simply awesome! I LMAO (seriously) with this post. Well done!