A Requiem Aeternam Deo for Fallout

(right click to view full image)

It's unrealistic, but if one million gamers could be made to understand that what Bethesda is doing, in a civilized world, would be considered rape, and each of them gave $25, we could buy the rights to Fallout, and prevent this ****c series from being destroyed by lunatics. More realistically, if one million gamers could begin the public outcry, and raise their voices against Bethesda, a force far stronger than the clink of coin could be raised.

It's not just that isometric, turn-based gameplay is being thrown out the window, it's not just that the skills system is being crippled, graphics replacing charm, and repetitive missions replacing true exploration, it's not just that Bethesda is more or less the anti-christ of ****c gaming, it's that Fallout 3 had the potential to be a game that made people understand a ****c genre, in the way Zack & Wiki was hyped to bring back point-and-click adventure, or how Portal showcased puzzle driven gaming and clever writing are just as fun as explosions and bloodshed.

It's that what Bethesda is doing is turning a game that should have shown a new generation of gamers something different into just-another RPG. It's that gamers playing Fallout 3 for the first time, rather than having that "wow" moment each of us ties to a special game in our past, will experience just another RPG. It's that in 2015, Fallout 3 will be a forgotten mediocrity, instead of a replayed, beloved ****c.

I would rather the lead platform for this title have been the Wii than the Xbox 360, at least then I'd be guaranteed it did something different, in fact, I'd rather it do anything than be yet another console WRPG, ported to hell, sold to the lowest common denominator, and destroyed at the hands of madman. What we are watching is the bastardization of a work of art. It would be far better that their *never be a Fallout 3* than for it to have it spine, heart, and soul sacrificed at the altar of corporate greed.

My friends, we are but a year away from watching the grand murder of a series... I apologize to those of you who've never played Fallout that this may be your introduction to it. For those of you who don't understand, imagine the CD-I Mario and Zelda games, or Sonic the Hedgehog (xbox 360 / ps3)... does it start to make sense? Imagine those releasing after a seven-year absence of any games in their series, and paraded around as a revolution. Horrific. Absolutely horrific news. I don't know what to say, it's going to be a sickening year, as each piece of news coming from Bethesda is simply another dagger in the heart of Fallout fans.

The events that lead up the massacre are easy to predict, under a deluge of media-frenzy and hype, Bethesda will maneuver their marketing in such a way as to draw their largest target audience (360 owners, most of whom have never played a Fallout title). Positioning the title both as "stealing something from PC gamers" and "showcasing their platform", we will see 360-fanboys latch onto this title, using it to bash the cult-following that has surrounded the series. In the greatest sadness to take gaming, gamer will turn upon gamer, and we will watch the *true fans of Fallout* outnumbered by a sickening, oily mass of Bethesda-defenders, eager to gobble up the series, to somehow possess its greatness.

What I hope, what I pray, is that there are true gamers amongst us who rise above the marketing sirens, who rise above and recognize that what Fallout is - what it was - the charm, memories, and gameplay it represents *can never be stolen*. What I'm asking for is new gamers to listen to respected longtime lovers of gaming and to understand. Can the system war put aside its own stupidity long enough to stop a murder, or will you stand by and *pay the butcher*, praising his knifework in killing the joy of your fellow man?

Do the right thing, start now, start watching, go back and play Fallout 2, and start listening to the longtime gamer. Gaming is about us, not Bethesda's pocket book - the outcry needs to begin now, because *ruined* is forever.

I'm keeping the faith that Bethesda won't royally **** this one up.

*Curls up into fetal position*

Just look at Shadowrun....no one cares anymore.Ibacai

Shadowrun was a damn shame... it was akin to having the tomb of your ancestors desecrated, all for the hopes of stealing the coins off their eyelids - coins that were never there to begin with.

I'm keeping the faith that Bethesda won't royally **** this one up.

*Curls up into fetal position*

PBSnipes

Too late, it has already been confirmed that several key recurring elements of the Fallout series are being removed. Bethesda talks about "maintaining the spirit of the game", all while cutting out the unique, over-the-top dark, juvenile humor, and bad-mouthing the original games as "immature".

When the developer of Fallout 3 is *insulting* trademarks of the first two titles, it does not bode well for them maintaining true to the series. Their own shortcomings with Oblivion are enough to demonstrate their fading skills - this will not end well, and gamer's who defend Bethesda, anyone who responds with anything other than pure venom towards what is occuring here, is just another hand on the shovel digging Fallout's grave.

I can't disagree with that, except for the bit about Fallout 3 being forgettable - it'll have rave reviews, and sell millions of copies, regardless of the 'quality' of the game.

As it is, you'll never be able to convince people to pay money to prevent Bethesda from screwing up Fallout.
The best we can hope for is that people just don't buy it, and stop buying Bethesda products until they either get their act together or go bankrupt...not that that will happen (although, given the price of their new MMO, there's still hope).

Having said that, Interplay weren't doing any better (think Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel), and they still have the rights to a Fallout MMO.
It would have been great if Interplay hadn't dropped Black Isle and finished Fallout 3, or if Bethesda hadn't scrapped the real sequel, but as it is, the franchise is better off dead.

In that case, where's my gun...PBSnipes

war... war never changes
the end of the world occured pretty much as we'd predicted...

I can't disagree with that, except for the bit about Fallout 3 being forgettable - it'll have rave reviews, and sell millions of copies, regardless of the 'quality' of the game.

As it is, you'll never be able to convince people to pay money to prevent Bethesda from screwing up Fallout.
The best we can hope for is that people just don't buy it, and stop buying Bethesda products until they either get their act together or go bankrupt...not that that will happen (although, given the price of their new MMO, there's still hope).

Having said that, Interplay weren't doing any better (think Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel), and they still have the rights to a Fallout MMO.
It would have been great if Interplay hadn't dropped Black Isle and finished Fallout 3, or if Bethesda hadn't scrapped the real sequel, but as it is, the franchise is better off dead.

Planeforger

That will be the worst thing. The inevitable truth is that fanboys (especially here in SW) will view high Fallout 3 review scores as a trophy to bludgeon the fans of the cult-cl assics with. We will be forced to sit by as the idiots stand on the ruins of a once-great series, and spit down upon the few people who truly cared.

So, it's time now to start asking people to do the right thing - to recognize this is an issue bigger than "what platform is best" or "old gamer versus new gamer". This is about integrity, quality, and protecting something that belongs to all of us now, a cl assic memory, from desecration at the hands of jackals.

they did buy the fallout ip for 50 million so i guess they twouldn't be willing to part fro $25 from 1 million gamers. but i seriously like to know why they decide to make a game on the original fallout rather than their own universe as by not making a true sequel they are loosing most of the fanbase of the seriesnaval

Bethesda simply doesn't care, rather than taking the hard and righteous route of making a game to appeal to fans of the clas sic series, while introducing a new generation of gamers to Fallout, they have chosen to take the easy route. Bethesda hasn't just fallen into mediocrity, they've chosen it, having the arrogance to believe *they are right* rather than respecting the series they have acquired.

Rest in piece Black Isle, enjoy your last year before Bethesda sets fire to your grave.

In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell... ( yes i played the first 2... when they were released ;) ) The whole style of the game just doesn't seem like the 'gold' of todays world. Bethesda are a company first and they will make a game that will sell (read: that they believe will sell) and if they have to destroy everything you loved about the series... so be it. Having said that, its possible that it might be an OK game in the end. While Oblivion had some major issues it wasn't all bad (and yes i played Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind ) Sometimes these things happen. If you feel that strongly make your own game! while you can't offically use the fallout name you can use any other name you like and you make it happen ;) Believe! :PDMWhiteDragon

Why use the Fallout name if you're not making Fallout? (referring to Bethesda)

And for that matter, I strongly disagree, there is absolutely no reason Fallout 3 could not remain true to the series (by being an innovative, ahead-of-its-time, deeply exploitative turn-based RPG). In fact, the turn-based WRPG world on consoles (and for mainstream releases on the PC) is *dead empty*. It's a gamble, but the financial rewards are potentially huge.

What Bethesda is doing here is murder. Their profits shouldn't be *your concern* as a gamer, and *any defense of their actions* as somehow "noble" for being for-profit is a white-flag on the part of the consumer. I do not consider anyone with a *kind word* for what Bethesda is doing to be a true fan of Fallout. "An okay game" was never an option when they picked up the license, in the same way you do not buy a protected historic home and paint pink racing stripes on it.

In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell...DMWhiteDragon

...but Black Isle were making a true Fallout sequel!

Bethesda bought it and scrapped it, opting instead for a full-priced total conversion of Oblivion.

Hopefully the game flops hard (particularily in sales) so Bioware's sugardaddy EA can buy the license :D.

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"]In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell... ( yes i played the first 2... when they were released ;) ) The whole style of the game just doesn't seem like the 'gold' of todays world. Bethesda are a company first and they will make a game that will sell (read: that they believe will sell) and if they have to destroy everything you loved about the series... so be it. Having said that, its possible that it might be an OK game in the end. While Oblivion had some major issues it wasn't all bad (and yes i played Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind ) Sometimes these things happen. If you feel that strongly make your own game! while you can't offically use the fallout name you can use any other name you like and you make it happen ;) Believe! :Psubrosian

Why use the Fallout name if you're not making Fallout? (referring to Bethesda)

And for that matter, I strongly disagree, there is absolutely no reason Fallout 3 could not remain true to the series (by being an innovative, ahead-of-its-time, deeply exploitative turn-based RPG). In fact, the turn-based WRPG world on consoles (and for mainstream releases on the PC) is *dead empty*. It's a gamble, but the financial rewards are potentially huge.

What Bethesda is doing here is murder. Their profits shouldn't be *your concern* as a gamer, and *any defense of their actions* as somehow "noble" for being for-profit is a white-flag on the part of the consumer. I do not consider anyone with a *kind word* for what Bethesda is doing to be a true fan of Fallout. "An okay game" was never an option when they picked up the license, in the same way you do not buy a protected historic home and paint pink racing stripes on it.

I do not believe I could do Fallout 3 the justice it deserves, therefore as a fan I would abstain from doing so, rather than tarnish the name with mediocrity. There is no gray area in providing an explanation. I know why Bethesda is doing what they're doing, if it does not *justify* it, then there is no need for you to *elaborate* on it.

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"]In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell...Planeforger

...but Black Isle were making a true Fallout sequel!

Bethesda bought it and scrapped it, opting instead for a full-priced total conversion of Oblivion.

You are correct, but what DMWhiteDragon is attempting to do is discredit my defense of Fallout 3 on the grounds that it would be "unprofitable" and suggesting that, because I am not *personally* making a sequel, I am somehow not a fan. As I stated in the OP, and I have said in other ways in the past, when an argument cannot be reconciled, the desperate will attempt discredit the *messanger*, or introduce statements irrelevant to the issue.

In any case... it is sad that the true Fallout 3 was scraped. I do not wish *scavengers* to pick it up and attempt to rebuild, in much the same way I would not want an unfinished art piece "finished" by middle school "art students".

There is Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. And that is all. 'Fallout 3' in name only...DMWhiteDragon

I guess we could just use the Escape from Monkey Island approach, and simply claim that the sequel doesn't exist.
Then again, EMI didn't have a huge following, while Fallout 3 will.

I guess that I don't really care about the reputation of the series (we're all trying to forget Brotherhood of Steel), but my main complaint is that, as long as Bethesda holds the Fallout licence, we won't be seeing any more great Fallout games.

If just about any other RPG company had bought the licence, it would be a fair bet that they would put some effort into making a game that the fans could enjoy...but Bethesda are just totally evil (see Oblivion; CoC: DCOTE; those Star Trek games; their countless lies; their 'moderated-with-an-iron-fist' forums; etc).

DMWhiteDragon,

I do not believe I could do Fallout 3 the justice it deserves, therefore as a fan I would abstain from doing so, rather than tarnish the name with mediocrity. There is no gray area in providing an explanation. I know why Bethesda is doing what they're doing, if it does not *justify* it, then there is no need for you to *elaborate* on it.

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"]In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell...subrosian

...but Black Isle were making a true Fallout sequel!

Bethesda bought it and scrapped it, opting instead for a full-priced total conversion of Oblivion.

You are correct, but what DMWhiteDragon is attempting to do is discredit my defense of Fallout 3 on the grounds that it would be "unprofitable" and suggesting that, because I am not *personally* making a sequel, I am somehow not a fan. As I stated in the OP, and I have said in other ways in the past, when an argument cannot be reconciled, the desperate will attempt discredit the *messanger*, or introduce statements irrelevant to the issue.

In any case... it is sad that the true Fallout 3 was scraped. I do not wish *scavengers* to pick it up and attempt to rebuild, in much the same way I would not want an unfinished art piece "finished" by middle school "art students".

It'll be like Oblivion all over again. Only worse.KrazyKenKutarag

Oblivion's level-up system was one of the worst ever created. It punished the player for advancing, forcing gamers to repeat activities in order to avoid "gimping" their level up. Worse still, character growth was utterly counter-intuitive, and the "choices" that were supposed to be present to the player consisted mainly of "choosing" what order to do the side-quests in, with nothing significant of the plot change by their interaction.

Bethesda's belief that "area A" or "area B" for one city in Fallout 3 based on a pure "good" or "bad" decision involving a nuke represents true variety of choice bodes badly for the title.

In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell...DMWhiteDragon

Depends. Making it a 20mln$ game like Bethsoft's FO3 will be would be a financial diseaster and yes.. it wouldn't sell enogh. But make is less expensive (look at leaked FO3 tech demo, then look at movie of canceled Troika RPG), it would look nice, not anywhere near how FO3 will look, but it would still look nice, it would cost max 3-4mln$s to make and it would sell more than enough to make good profit. Now...personaly I would rather have true FO3 with 7/10 graphics than Oblivion with Guns with 10/10 graphics

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"]In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell...AdrianWerner

Depends. Making it a 20mln$ game like Bethsoft's FO3 will be would be a financial diseaster and yes.. it wouldn't sell enogh. But make is less expensive (look at leaked FO3 tech demo, then look at movie of canceled Troika RPG), it would look nice, not anywhere near how FO3 will look, but it would still look nice, it would cost max 3-4mln$s to make and it would sell more than enough to make good profit. Now...personaly I would rather have true FO3 with 7/10 graphics than Oblivion with Guns with 10/10 graphics

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"]In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell...DMWhiteDragon

Depends. Making it a 20mln$ game like Bethsoft's FO3 will be would be a financial diseaster and yes.. it wouldn't sell enogh. But make is less expensive (look at leaked FO3 tech demo, then look at movie of canceled Troika RPG), it would look nice, not anywhere near how FO3 will look, but it would still look nice, it would cost max 3-4mln$s to make and it would sell more than enough to make good profit. Now...personaly I would rather have true FO3 with 7/10 graphics than Oblivion with Guns with 10/10 graphics

Graphics make games expensive to make. You have worse graphics, the game costs less to make and thus it needs to sell less to make profit. Lower-budgeted Fallout3 would make good profit. And really...Witcher is selling great, I don't know what you're talking about. It proves PCgamers want oldschool complex RPGs and are willing to pay for them. So really...FO3 that's a true sucessor to FO1, with turn-based gamplay, the same complexity and depth would make a very nice profit.

interesting...ive never played a fallout game before, but i had heard that the pc gamers were not happy with fallout 3. I just didnt know it was this bad. will it be worse than oblivion?samusarmada

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"]In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell...AdrianWerner

Depends. Making it a 20mln$ game like Bethsoft's FO3 will be would be a financial diseaster and yes.. it wouldn't sell enogh. But make is less expensive (look at leaked FO3 tech demo, then look at movie of canceled Troika RPG), it would look nice, not anywhere near how FO3 will look, but it would still look nice, it would cost max 3-4mln$s to make and it would sell more than enough to make good profit. Now...personaly I would rather have true FO3 with 7/10 graphics than Oblivion with Guns with 10/10 graphics

Graphics make games expensive to make. You have worse graphics, the game costs less to make and thus it needs to sell less to make profit. Lower-budgeted Fallout3 would make good profit. And really...Witcher is selling great, I don't know what you're talking about. It proves PCgamers want oldschool complex RPGs and are willing to pay for them. So really...FO3 that's a true sucessor to FO1, with turn-based gamplay, the same complexity and depth would make a very nice profit.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"]In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell...DMWhiteDragon

Depends. Making it a 20mln$ game like Bethsoft's FO3 will be would be a financial diseaster and yes.. it wouldn't sell enogh. But make is less expensive (look at leaked FO3 tech demo, then look at movie of canceled Troika RPG), it would look nice, not anywhere near how FO3 will look, but it would still look nice, it would cost max 3-4mln$s to make and it would sell more than enough to make good profit. Now...personaly I would rather have true FO3 with 7/10 graphics than Oblivion with Guns with 10/10 graphics

I find it strange that as a supposed developer you haven't pondered that turn-based does not automatically mean slow, plodding combat. In fact, it's a play-style that offers a wealth of flexibility in both speed and complexity, and yet it has remained virtually ignored by major studios for some time now. Choosing turn-based combat would have offered Bethesda *more flexibility*, not less, in creating unique combat, and perfectly controlling the pacing. As is, it is inevitable they will exchange depth for "speed", ignoring that they could have both.

It's also perfectly worth noting here that making combat a *treat* adds to the game, players don't feel the need to rush through an activity they enjoy. Rushing, aiming automatically for real-time as though motion is a savior that covers its own shallowness is irritating. All players eventually grew extremely bored of the repetitive, unrewarding hack-n-slash combat in Oblivion - this was an opportunity to make a game with rewarding combat again, and Bethesda is blowing it by being their usual selves.

Whether they go with the "real time pausing" style of Bioware, or their own "shallow hack-n-slash" style remains to be seen, but either is a failure of creativity in my eyes.

-

As far as "being a professional developer", I would love to know what company you work for, and what position. Throwing down a resume line without any backing is a serious faux pas :P

What's going to be so bad about Fallout 3? I ask for two reasons:

1) You didn't explain

2) I haven't played any game in the series

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"]In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell...DMWhiteDragon

Depends. Making it a 20mln$ game like Bethsoft's FO3 will be would be a financial diseaster and yes.. it wouldn't sell enogh. But make is less expensive (look at leaked FO3 tech demo, then look at movie of canceled Troika RPG), it would look nice, not anywhere near how FO3 will look, but it would still look nice, it would cost max 3-4mln$s to make and it would sell more than enough to make good profit. Now...personaly I would rather have true FO3 with 7/10 graphics than Oblivion with Guns with 10/10 graphics

Graphics make games expensive to make. You have worse graphics, the game costs less to make and thus it needs to sell less to make profit. Lower-budgeted Fallout3 would make good profit. And really...Witcher is selling great, I don't know what you're talking about. It proves PCgamers want oldschool complex RPGs and are willing to pay for them. So really...FO3 that's a true sucessor to FO1, with turn-based gamplay, the same complexity and depth would make a very nice profit.

Well..Witcher has it's problems, but what game doesn't? Despite everything it's still easily the very best RPG made since Torment was out. And turn-based can sell well. Just take a look at Civilization4 of HoMMV sales.

So "turn-based doesn't sell" is just a silly excuse for dumbing down. Excuse developers use all too often, so if you're one I'm not surprised you're trying to convince us it's so, it makes you feel less guilty I guess ;)

What's going to be so bad about Fallout 3? I ask for two reasons:

1) You didn't explain

2) I haven't played any game in the series

dracula_16

You probably wouldn't understand even if he explains it to you

What's going to be so bad about Fallout 3? I ask for two reasons:

1) You didn't explain

2) I haven't played any game in the series

dracula_16

To put it shortly, go on YouTube and try watching "Fallout 2 Intro", "fallout intro", "brotherhood of steel"... this will help you understand the immature, dark humor that Fallout is known for. To explain the gameplay, it's a character-growth driven, extremely flexible, exploration driven RPG, with wonky combat (you can shoot people in the crotch), and a number of strange situations. Ever want to slip a bomb in a bum's pocket when they aren't looking? That's Fallout in a nutshell. It's different, everything about it was different, the combat, the characters, the story, and all enjoyable and ahead of its time.

What's happening with Fallout 3 is that Bethesda is doing it basically as Oblivion set in the post-apocalyptic future. They consider the humor, sex, and crotch shots to be "immature", so out they go. They've also demonstrated *incredibly poor* understanding of how character growth should work in an RPG in their own games, and a complete lack of creating deep choices.

Without going too far into the plot of Fallout and Fallout 2, let's just say some of your actions can have some pretty huge long term ramifcations, something that hasn't happened seriously in a Bethesda game in quite some time.

So, what we have is a developer (Bethesda) who has publicly critized the ideas behind a game series they have taken over from the now defunct Black Isle Studios, handling the creation of a sequel to one of the true PC RPG cla ssics, despite having gone downhill themselves greatly in the past several years. It's an all around nightmare, and recent announcements such as the removal of the true Fallout humor, and making the Xbox 360 the lead platform for the title, do not bode well for creating something true to the series.

Imagine if after Halo 2, Bungie went bankrupt , and Halo had been bought out by EA, the real Halo 3 cancelled, and then EA announced Master Chief Fantasy Football Poker Party would be the third title in the series. Now (because Halo 2 wasn't exactly a timeless game in the way Fallout is) imagine they also killed Miyamoto, and paid serial killers dressed as Mario to set fire to your house. That's about the appropriate "wrongness" level of Bethesda having any hand in Fallout 3.

Unfortunately, it's only going to get worse for fans of the series as we get closer to the Fall 2008 release date.

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"]In the end, a 'true' fallout 3 sequel wouldn't sell...subrosian

Depends. Making it a 20mln$ game like Bethsoft's FO3 will be would be a financial diseaster and yes.. it wouldn't sell enogh. But make is less expensive (look at leaked FO3 tech demo, then look at movie of canceled Troika RPG), it would look nice, not anywhere near how FO3 will look, but it would still look nice, it would cost max 3-4mln$s to make and it would sell more than enough to make good profit. Now...personaly I would rather have true FO3 with 7/10 graphics than Oblivion with Guns with 10/10 graphics

I find it strange that as a supposed developer you haven't pondered that turn-based does not automatically mean slow, plodding combat. In fact, it's a play-style that offers a wealth of flexibility in both speed and complexity, and yet it has remained virtually ignored by major studios for some time now. Choosing turn-based combat would have offered Bethesda *more flexibility*, not less, in creating unique combat, and perfectly controlling the pacing. As is, it is inevitable they will exchange depth for "speed", ignoring that they could have both.

It's also perfectly worth noting here that making combat a *treat* adds to the game, players don't feel the need to rush through an activity they enjoy. Rushing, aiming automatically for real-time as though motion is a savior that covers its own shallowness is irritating. All players eventually grew extremely bored of the repetitive, unrewarding hack-n-slash combat in Oblivion - this was an opportunity to make a game with rewarding combat again, and Bethesda is blowing it by being their usual selves.

Whether they go with the "real time pausing" style of Bioware, or their own "shallow hack-n-slash" style remains to be seen, but either is a failure of creativity in my eyes.

-

As far as "being a professional developer", I would love to know what company you work for, and what position. Throwing down a resume line without any backing is a serious faux pas :P

Just look at Shadowrun....no one cares anymore.Ibacai

..snip..

Well..Witcher has it's problems, but what game doesn't? Despite everything it's still easily the very best RPG made since Torment was out. And turn-based can sell well. Just take a look at Civilization4 of HoMMV sales.

So "turn-based doesn't sell" is just a silly excuse for dumbing down. Excuse developers use all too often, so if you're one I'm not surprised you're trying to convince us it's so, it makes you feel less guilty I guess ;)

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]Just look at Shadowrun....no one cares anymore.devious742

Shadowrun the RPG? Shadowrun on the Sega Genesis... or do you mean "Shadowrun, the xbox 360 / pc game which is somehow an FPS with absolutely no basis on its namesake?"

I hate to think that destroying history should be one of the hallmarks of Xbox 360 titles, it seems odd, given that LIVE Arcade is a strong selling point of the system, that Microsoft would have *backed* such a travesty itself, but Bethesda seems to be joining in the "giving the finger to cla ssic RPGs" trend.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

..snip..

Well..Witcher has it's problems, but what game doesn't? Despite everything it's still easily the very best RPG made since Torment was out. And turn-based can sell well. Just take a look at Civilization4 of HoMMV sales.

So "turn-based doesn't sell" is just a silly excuse for dumbing down. Excuse developers use all too often, so if you're one I'm not surprised you're trying to convince us it's so, it makes you feel less guilty I guess ;)

DMWhiteDragon

A truth told with ill intent beats all lies you can invent. You should have mentioned that in detail before simply saying "developer". And certainly, it's simply *your opinion* that a turn-based game would sell poorly. I have to say, I think you'd be surprised. Need I point out one of the top selling series (and still wildly popular internationally) Pokemon has used the same turn-based gameplay for a decade now, and been remarkably succesful in doing so?

[QUOTE="devious742"][QUOTE="Ibacai"]Just look at Shadowrun....no one cares anymore.subrosian

Shadowrun the RPG? Shadowrun on the Sega Genesis... or do you mean "Shadowrun, the xbox 360 / pc game which is somehow an FPS with absolutely no basis on its namesake?"

I hate to think that destroying history should be one of the hallmarks of Xbox 360 titles, it seems odd, given that LIVE Arcade is a strong selling point of the system, that Microsoft would have *backed* such a travesty itself, but Bethesda seems to be joining in the "giving the finger to cla ssic RPGs" trend.

[QUOTE="DMWhiteDragon"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

..snip..

Well..Witcher has it's problems, but what game doesn't? Despite everything it's still easily the very best RPG made since Torment was out. And turn-based can sell well. Just take a look at Civilization4 of HoMMV sales.

So "turn-based doesn't sell" is just a silly excuse for dumbing down. Excuse developers use all too often, so if you're one I'm not surprised you're trying to convince us it's so, it makes you feel less guilty I guess ;)

subrosian

A truth told with ill intent beats all lies you can invent. You should have mentioned that in detail before simply saying "developer". And certainly, it's simply *your opinion* that a turn-based game would sell poorly. I have to say, I think you'd be surprised. Need I point out one of the top selling series (and still wildly popular internationally) Pokemon has used the same turn-based gameplay for a decade now, and been remarkably succesful in doing so?

Now your being rediculous...there are FAR FAR more non-game developers than game developers. The word developer does NOT imply a game developer. Perhaps in your world it does, but unless you are socially inept you should know that we each live within our own world and any assumptions you make you should be careful about...Claming im trying to lie with ill intent? You assume too much... way to much. I go by my life as a 'developer' since i started working professionally in 1998, its what i am. As for pokemon... if you want to go the route of saying a simplified menu style (like the old JRPG's heh) turned based system is reason to think there is a big enough market for a decent WRPG styled turned based in-depth game... well all i can say is the people who buy pokemon won't be buying it (generalising here) so their market really isn't part of the reading is it? Again, this particular line of conversation we should forget. We simply don't agree and thats fine isn't it? DMWhiteDragon

Thou protest too much. You say "I'm a developer" on a gaming based forum, it implies you're a developer in gaming. Let's not kid ourselves. I'm taking a break from an all-nighter writing tools for an SAP database, later on today I need to write a decision-support software for companies to evaluate computer upgrades. I wouldn't call myself a *developer* here, on a gaming website, nor would the word "developer" ever come up, because I would not attempt to imply my *formal education* or *career* impart some authority on my word on software sales. Were you not trying to make the implication yourself, the word would never have come up.

quod erat demonstrandum...

Anyway, I'm simply pointing out your *assumption* that turn-based gaming would doom a title from popularity is unfounded. The reason we see so many western titles go real times is simply because it is a known formula, nothing more. The public has *rewarded* developers in the past for breaking the mold and doing something new, making the old new again, et cetera - Bethesda's decision to go Oblivion-esque with Fallout 3 is one of lazyness and cowardice, not the end result of some engineered briliance that led them to realize "turn-based means failure".

Another over dramatic post by subrosian, but I still agree with you, they are gonna blow it. It's gonna take one hell of a mod team to fix obliv eer fallout 3 but who knows. It's a shame that people who haven't played the first 2 games will shape their oppinions of the fallout series based on fallout 3, but if theres somepeople out there who can make the game feel like fallout, then I'm not gonna cry over it.

I got over the game/franchise killings after WoW and Oblivion.

Another over dramatic post by subrosian, but I still agree with you, they are gonna blow it. It's gonna take one hell of a mod team to fix obliv eer fallout 3 but who knows. It's a shame that people who haven't played the first 2 games will shape their oppinions of the fallout series based on fallout 3, but if theres somepeople out there who can make the game feel like fallout, then I'm not gonna cry over it.

I got over the game/franchise killings after WoW and Oblivion.

astiop

This is the one we shouldn't shrug off. If gamer's who actually give a **** about gaming are still around, then Fallout is the title we should make a vocal stand on. I hope reviewers will have the sense to do the right thing, hear the public outcry, and universally bomb this game, ensuring its financial failure. What Bethesda has done here is a travesty, there's no other word for it, and it shouldn't take a mod team to make something as simple as *leveling up* work properly.

And I agree, it's an absolute shame that many people will have their first introduction to Fallout through Fallout 3. Of course, once their opinion is shaped, the chances of them going back to Fallout 2 and seeing it for what it is - a great cla ssic, are slim - the series will be just last year's RPG to them. Enough really is enough, the days of a series changing hand and being reduced to a shell of its former glory need to come to a close, and the first step to doing that is for gamers to take an interest - people should understand why Fallout fans are pissed.

I know what you mean...its sad that gaming companies have lost faith in their own creations and have opted for "it'll sell more option"... its happened to a lot of games, no doubt the game will be good *looks at oblivion and shadowrun*... but they are really just setting fire to the fans by doing this.

Fingers crossed "Diablo 3" doesn't turn in to a first person dungeon crawler... :cry:

I agree. Fallout 3 will be another reason not to view games as art, but rather a product that have to cater to the widest audience possible. Chess is "turn-based", I don't see what the problem would be with that. My biggest concern is that they wont get the RPG elements right. Nothing in their earlier games shows that they know of deep and/or profound game design.Yeakob

If Oblivion is an indication, calling Fallout 3 "doomed" is putting it lightly. The level-up system in Oblivion was so backwards, counter-intuitive, and unrewarding that it took away the joy that normally comes with leveling up in RPGs. Instead, level-ups were a punishment, potentially making the player significantly weaker relative to the enemies. That, combined with the shallow gameplay, lack of real moral consequences, and that Bethseda seemed to honestly believe they'd created a deep, complex, rewarding game do not bode well.

Fallout has been sold up the river in hopes of profit at the hands of consolites, a group generally unfamiliar with this older series.

I lost hope in FO3 when Bethesda bought the rights to it, and I lost it even more when they said they are focusing on the X360-version. It's sad, because FO and FO2 is two of the best games in the world, FO3 will probably be mediocre. It will be praised to the skies anyhow though, just as Oblivion were (I'm not saying that Oblivion was bad, it wasn't just that good).Hakkzpets

I know what you mean, Oblivion received far higher praise than it deserved as an RPG, and unfortunately Fallout 3 likely will as well. I'm hoping this time around reviewers will recognize their impact on the industry, and how they can shape game sales. We need *everyone* in the gaming community to do the right thing, and speak out against the bastardization of Fallout.

Despite my resentment for Bethesda after Oblivion, I'll still find myself buying Fallout 3 none-the-less. It may not be a mature and gritty RPG like it predecessors, but we have the Witcher for that, which has been described as a medieval Fallout.

Why will I buy Fallout 3? Modders fixed Oblivion to the extent where I found myself enjoying the game, thus warranting the purchase. It's ironic that the Fallout fans, who are 100% against Bethesda making a sequel will be the reason that I buy Fallout 3. As I assume that (a minority of them) will make mods like Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul.

But unfortunately, that must mean that I'll have to actually play Fallout 3. But to avoid the inevitable disappointment, I'll fill in blanks with my imagination. I'll go in and refuse to acknowledge the fact that it's a Fallout game, in turn the game should be more bearable.

Despite my resentment for Bethesda after Oblivion, I'll still find myself buying Fallout 3 none-the-less. It may not be a mature and gritty RPG like it predecessors, but we have the Witcher for that, which has been described as a medieval Fallout.

Why will I buy Fallout 3? Modders fixed Oblivion to the extent where I found myself enjoying the game, thus warranting the purchase. It's ironic that the Fallout fans, who are 100% against Bethesda making a sequel will be the reason that I buy Fallout 3. As I assume that (a minority of them) will make mods like Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul.

But unfortunately, that must mean that I'll have to actually play Fallout 3. But to avoid the inevitable disappointment, I'll fill in blanks with my imagination. I'll go in and refuse to acknowledge the fact that it's a Fallout game, in turn the game should be more bearable.

gingerdivid

It's somewhat of a slap in the face to game designer's who work hard to make good games that Oblivion sold well, and Fallout 3 will sell well, because of content that is *not included in the game*. "Close your eyes and pretend it's not Fallout kids! Let's hope the modders get here soon, this level up system is retarded!"

We shouldn't *have* to fix the core game that is being put out, that we do says worlds about what a terrible job Bethesda has been doing, and certainly recounts the horror of them holding such an important license (to cla ssic gaming) as Fallout.