Classic franchises corrupted by casuals...Fallout, XCom

Sure, they could make it like that, but I don't think it would do very will in today's gaming climate. It would be about as popular as Men of War... meaning a niche title with little hope of big box success.

VoodooHak

The fact is...it's simply impossible to make a Fallout3-like game without having 10-15 mln dollars of budget, such game can be made only by a huge developer. Fallout team would never be able to handle such game and it's members know it. Why do you think the zombie RPG from ex Troika writers is iso TB? Because it's the only way to make indie RPG and be able to dream about even finishing such project.

[QUOTE="dakan45"] If fallout 3 was made today it would NEVER be issomatric and have turn based combat.AdrianWerner

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

Sure, they could make it like that, but I don't think it would do very will in today's gaming climate. It would be about as popular as Men of War... meaning a niche title with little hope of big box success.

AdrianWerner

The fact is...it's simply impossible to make a Fallout3-like game without having 10-15 mln dollars of budget, such game can be made only by a huge developer. Fallout team would never be able to handle such game and it's members know it. Why do you think the zombie RPG from ex Troika writers is iso TB? Because it's the only way to make indie RPG and be able to dream about even finishing such project.

The environment has changed considerably since then.

Would it be profitable? I'll have to disagree with the idea that isometric turn-based RPGs like the old Fallouts and Baldur's Gate are just as popular now as they were a decade ago. The major RPG devs today have moved on to a real-time, third person perscpective. For better of worse, that's just the way things are moving.

If the devs want to make turn-based isometric RPGs due to budgetary contraints, more power to 'em. I'd check 'em out. However, they would have to be satisfied with mild success.

The environment has changed considerably since then.VoodooHak

Would it be profitable? I'll have to disagree with the idea that isometric turn-based RPGs like the old Fallouts and Baldur's Gate are just as popular now as they were a decade ago. The major RPG devs today have moved on to a real-time, third person perscpective. For better of worse, that's just the way things are moving.VoodooHak

Fallout was never a big seller and most of all plenty of modern niche pc games stay profitable without any problem, why would Fallout be any different?

And devs moved on? Since when? Most modern PC centric RPGs still stick to the formulas that were popular back when Fallout and Baldurs Gate were being released. It's only console-centric rpg that have "moved on". Heck...look at Bioware...the moment they take a break from console centric RPGs to make a PC oriented title they deliver Dragon Age, which plays exactly like Baldurs Gate did back in 1998.

If the devs want to make turn-based isometric RPGs due to budgetary contraints, more power to 'em. I'd check 'em out. However, they would have to be satisfied with mild success.

VoodooHak

What's more...original Fallout was a "mild success" too. So why do you act like it's natural to expecti a successor to such game to turn into mega blockbuster ?

[QUOTE="Eleckidding"][QUOTE="VideoGameGuy"]Without Doki Doki panic we wouldn't have classic Mario characters like Shy Guy, Toad, and Birdo!ThePlothole

"Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!"

Eh, Toad is one part of the original game I would rather forget.

[QUOTE="-Feath-"]Welcome to 2010 where the entire of society has a short attention span and people only want two things. Explosions and boobs.IronBass

And to complain about everything in internet forums.

For you to call games like Fallout 3 junk is outrageous. If you do not like the game, and feel that it is a disgrace, that's fine, but to call it junk is just downright not true. The game is one of the best games this generation. Clearly it appeals to much more than those "mindless" individuals, but admitting that kind of defeats your argument. It turns it into a personal issue, where you are annoyed that it isn't tailored for you, but rather another set of gamers. You try to pass it off by calling them inferior, but really, that's a cop-out.

Also, you could easily play Fallout 3 as a first person shooter if you wanted, you did not have to use VATs. Zooming in had practically the same effect, it was just more clunky and unintuitive. When all a gamer does is rage over the way the industry is going, it's pretty clear they aren't really supporting gaming anymore. Things change, and you may think it's for the worst, but express it better. That's the main issue I have. Fallout 3 is not a casual game by the way, none of my friends who are casual gamers would touch it.

So we agree that PC gaming has changed. Games like Fallout 1 and 2 gained popularity partially because of the era in which it existed. The PC and console worlds were still separate. It was rare that we saw a PC-centric dev produce something for the consoles, and vice versa. Now we have a business model that invites multiplatform development which affects what form a game takes. Case in point, Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

Even without any solid numbers for me to quote, I'm still confident in saying that those console-centric RPGs are doing much better than those found on the PC. Where you have Dragon Age, we also have games like KOTOR, KOTOR 2, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, Fable 2... all of which have been hits that helped sustain the devs and publishers that put them out.

At the end of the day, what are we really arguing about here? Looking back through the thread, I think our only points of contention are maybe our definitions of "success" or the current state of RPG development.

That minutiae aside, would I welcome an isometric PC RPG? Of course. Just as I'd welcome a console third person RPG. As long as they're good games, does it matter?

Are we really disagreeing?

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

I don't think they're corrupted by "casuals", I think developers and publishers are starting to realize that they have a potentially larger audience by making their titles more accessible. Fallout 3 and TESIV: Oblivion are pretty damn good examples of games that while taking a hit in some RPG mechanics, end up being very "playable".

I think gamers need to understand that for some of these franchises to make these come backs it is necessary for them to undergo some modifications to bring them into the now. In Fallout's case I'm just glad they gave the series a reboot at all.

jimkabrhel

Very well said. Change can be good sometimes. Your favorite franchise may not be the same as you remember it, but it could still be very good.

I agree. Well said indeed.

"Corrupted", :lol:. That's laughable. No one was "corrupted", it just happens that the developers who got their hands on the IP's had different ideas for how to develop games for it. For what it's worth Fallout was never that great in the first place. People complain about the shallow combat in Fallout 3, but I really have to wonder how they manage to completely gloss over the fact the original had one of the most tedious, boring and most importantly shallow combat systems in any RPG of that time. I don't really understand what I'm missing with this combat complaint, it's always been poor. The RPG mechanics are better in the original two games though.

I'm getting really bored of this whole "casual's ruined my life" concept. My advice, be more careful in what games you choose to play, or just stick to the 90's. Maybe gaming isn't for you, or maybe you should actually try enjoying the good aspects of games instead of focusing entirely on what makes them bad. That dosn't mean you can enjoy every game you play though, but it does mean there will be more of a chance you will like it.

I don't consider people who play Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Fallout 3 "casuals". You can put it any way you want, but the truth is, gamers have moved on, and expect a little more fun and a bit less chores when it comes to games. If you don't like it, then thats fine, just stop whining so much. Everyday theres a new thread about "the casuals". Just because a franchise evolves, doesn't mean that its bad.

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]New Super Mario Bros and Super Mario Galaxy 2 with that stupid Super Guide, oh no! Wait? Did I just hear that there is a reason why there are Super Guides in those games?Dtnoip28

fallout series is not a continuation of anything. therefore fallout 2 cannot be fallout 3. technology has evolved gaming have evolved. deal with itAndrovinus

This is not necessarily news. What it is, however, is a place for you to discuss the epic failure contained in the following news tidbits. They indicate the general move in the industry towards homogenized junk that appeals to mindless Monster-drinking teens/fratboys.

In the latest game informer we are informed that Bioshock 2 developer 2K Marin has unfortunately been given an opportunity to violate the X-Com franchise's memory by mutating it into a first-person shooter. Is this X-Com? No, but it is a cute attempt to dupe oldschool fans.

There is a very large preview feature of Fallout New Vegas in the same issue. I was excited to dig in. On page 66, or page 5 of the preview, they reveal that the game will have ironsights as opposed to the zoom mechanic of Fallout 3. Great, I thought, I hate z.....wait, WHAT? Okay, so Fallout New Vegas will feature the real-time gameplay of Fallout 3 and it will take place in the first person perspective. In other words you can play the game like a first person shooter.

The best and most loved turn-based RPGs of gaming history have been turned into first-person shooters. Discuss.

Brownesque

[QUOTE="Androvinus"]fallout series is not a continuation of anything. therefore fallout 2 cannot be fallout 3. technology has evolved gaming have evolved. deal with itAdrianWerner

Maybe a better term to use would be "changing with the times". Having a bit to do with the technology and more to do with who's actually buying games nowadays.

Sure, I liked F3's style of play. But did I like it better than the first 2? Yes and no. Pitting them against each other is a little unfair, and ultimately moot since I enjoyed all of them. The only objective thing we can say about them is that they're mechanically different and occupy a similar fiction.

They're good games. I think we should leave it at that.

Maybe a better term to use would be "changing with the times". Having a bit to do with the technology and more to do with who's actually buying games nowadays.

VoodooHak

evolution suggest improvements, which isn't the case with Fallout 3. I can understand how some people prefer FO3 style of gameplay, but objectively it's not better than the one found in first two games.AdrianWerner

Yeah... too bad there's nothing objective about saying that Fallout 1 and 2 are better than Fallout 3.

Just opinions, which are subjective. ;)

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

[QUOTE="antifanboyftw"] its my favorite one seeing as how it actually has new enemies, items, and a bad guy. not to mention the different characters all have different abilities. (luigi jumps higher, peach floats, and toad is a speed demon)ThePlothole

Yeah well, like another user said it's just Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic with a new skin.

Of course Doki Doki Panic never came to the states. So it is still a unique game from our perspective. And numerous elements in YK: DDP / SM2 USA would become staples in later Mario games. Bob-ombs for example.

yes my new business plan. ..... invest millions in making a game that will appeal to only a few elitist sixteen sided dice wielding geeks. sts106mat

thread put on smash, more as story develops

anyway most people who complain about 'casualization' are kind of kin to the annoying losers who criticisze the film industry. guess what? theres lots of fun, challenging games out there being produced by indie developers and small studios. the problem is most of you are too lazy to consider looking for games anywhere but a site like gamespot or ign, or you need metacritic scores to validate your purchases.

get over yourselves. you are an unprofitable market nobody cares about. accept it and move on. maybe get into another hobby.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

Maybe a better term to use would be "changing with the times". Having a bit to do with the technology and more to do with who's actually buying games nowadays.

AdrianWerner

Right. The end result was a generally critically acclaimed game that people went out and bought. I'd say that the path they chose worked out really well.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="Yangire"]

Yeah well, like another user said it's just Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic with a new skin.

Nintendo_Ownes7

Of course Doki Doki Panic never came to the states. So it is still a unique game from our perspective. And numerous elements in YK: DDP / SM2 USA would become staples in later Mario games. Bob-ombs for example.

Luigi jumped higher than Mario in Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels.

[QUOTE="Nintendo_Ownes7"]

Also some of the Characters Attributes from SMB2 USA have been used in other games like Luigi's Stats being able to jump higher then Mario, Peach being able to Hover. Those attributes are still used to this day.

Yangire

Luigi jumped higher than Mario in Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels.

Yeah, Lost Levels also introduced the idea of him being a bit more slippery on his feet. However USA was the first game to make Luigi taller than Mario.

I think you will find if you look back that developers are the ones that ruin franchises.

Fallout 3 was good/better than oblivion infact (not that it was a hard thing to achieve given the state of Oblivion) but I think Fallout 1 was an astonishing game with a lot of scope, but it was nowhere near as good as everyone made it out to be.

stop complaining. bethesda made everyone give a crap about fallout again after years and years of the franchise being dormant.

stop complaining. bethesda made everyone give a crap about fallout again after years and years of the franchise being dormant.

positivebalance

Fallout 3 was garbage, apparently Bethesda thought just because they made this big open world with lots of quests and dialogue, the shooting could be utter crap and no one would care. They need to take a note from Red Dead Redemption. If they're improving the shooting in New Vegas, that's hardly a bad thing. Fallout's original combat system is horribly outdated, this shift to FPS isn't casualization, it's modernization.

this shift to FPS isn't casualization, it's modernization.

ThatGuyFromB4

Hell no, they just want to sell more copies, and FPS games are just popular right now.

Fallout 3 was garbage, apparently Bethesda thought just because they made this big open world with lots of quests and dialogue, the shooting could be utter crap and no one would care. They need to take a note from Red Dead Redemption. If they're improving the shooting in New Vegas, that's hardly a bad thing. Fallout's original combat system is horribly outdated, this shift to FPS isn't casualization, it's modernization.

ThatGuyFromB4

Without those "mindless, causal gamers" to appeal to, you wouldn't have current-gen versions of these games at all.

Without those "mindless, causal gamers" to appeal to, you wouldn't have current-gen versions of these games at all.

Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

I really dislike this trend of "hardcore gamers" dismissing "casual gamers" as beneath them, and blaming them for "ruining gaming".

Brownesque

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Without those "mindless, causal gamers" to appeal to, you wouldn't have current-gen versions of these games at all.

osan0

Without those "mindless, causal gamers" to appeal to, you wouldn't have current-gen versions of these games at all.Teufelhuhn

Sounds great to me. You've got companies with Zero ties to the franchises in question buying a name and making whatever game they think will sell and then slapping a classic name on it. If they don't feel like making a real Fallout or X-Com game, then they should grow some balls and release fresh IPs.

Elder Scrolls: Oblivionohthemanatee

Sounds great to me. You've got companies with Zero ties to the franchises in question buying a name and making whatever game they think will sell and then slapping a classic name on it. If they don't feel like making a real Fallout or X-Com game, then they should grow some balls and release fresh IPs.santoron

Hmm reminds me of this. No one knows this band, I hope it becomes popular and everyone knows it. *Wish happens* Wow they suck now, they've become mainstreamed.....

You might want to keep a game for yourself but sadly it'll evolve into something the majority likes.

Hmm reminds me of this. No one knows this band, I hope it becomes popular and everyone knows it. *Wish happens* Wow they suck now, they've become mainstreamed.....

You might want to keep a game for yourself but sadly it'll evolve into something the majority likes.

ocstew

Two problems here:

1.) The games were fairly popular in the first place.

2.) The games changed to get more mainstream acceptance.

[QUOTE="ocstew"]

Hmm reminds me of this. No one knows this band, I hope it becomes popular and everyone knows it. *Wish happens* Wow they suck now, they've become mainstreamed.....

You might want to keep a game for yourself but sadly it'll evolve into something the majority likes.

Yangire

Two problems here:

1.) The games were fairly popular in the first place.

2.) The games changed to get more mainstream acceptance.

As an industrialized market for entertainment expands, the proportion of sophisticated art decreases and the proportion of simplistic art increases. This effect can be observed in literature, film, music and just about any other artform out there - you only notice it in gaming because the "casualization" of literature, film and music took place decades ago. The only way to reverse it is to make game development cheaper, easier and less time consuming, thus making it easier for creative developers to survive the market alongside money-grubbing corporate giants.... but that hasn't happened yet.

It's basically what happened to Fallout, where the focus shifted from deep roleplaying mechanics to a more "instant-gratification" type RPG with a more "over-the-top" gory presentation and much less mature adult themes, which for me resulted in it becoming a terribly boring RPG. Because, when you think about it... most of the gaming market, unfortunately, doesn't care about the former.

[QUOTE="positivebalance"]

stop complaining. bethesda made everyone give a crap about fallout again after years and years of the franchise being dormant.

Eleckidding