FALLOUT 3 ON THE WAY!!!! (FINALLY) - Fallout (1997) Discussion

[–] adslpyfv 18 years ago

A Fallout game with Oblivion graphics, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

It'll be very different but Bethesda would be the only company who could do Fallout justice in my opinion.

reply

[–] Roddenhyzer 18 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------
A Fallout game with Oblivion graphics, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm."
--------------------------------------------------------------
A console game with Oblivion gameplay and Fallout textures is much closer to what we should expect ;)

reply

[–] royallyrambunctious 18 years ago

As far as I'm concerned, Fallout 3 died with the closing of BIS.

reply

[–] Roddenhyzer 18 years ago

Pretty much, yeah (though some might even go as far as saying it died the moment the original team left Interplay). It could've been brought back to life by Troika, but since they couldn't afford the license back then and now they've gone down the drain, all hope is lost.

Bethesda will undoubtly rape Fallout beyond recognition.

reply

[–] afulop5195 17 years ago

Black Isle still exists, they just aren't called Black Isle anymore because Interplay owned Black Isle. They are now called Obsidian and they did KOTOR2 and NWN2. Unfortunately, both of those were rushed.

Yes, some of the former members of Black Isle got some other folks together and formed Troika. But they were understaffed and didn't have the right technical people they needed. The mastermind behind Fallout is working at Obsidian.

reply

[–] Roddenhyzer 17 years ago

Just wondering, who exactly is that mastermind behind Fallout that now works at Obsidian? If you're talking about Tim Cain, he was a founder of Troika and is currently unemployed. If you're talking about Brian Fargo (I'd wonder why, though), he's the founder of InXile Entertainment, where he still works and produces terrible games. If you have either Leonard Boyarsky or Jason Anderson in mind, they both co-founded Troika and their current whereabouts are pretty much unknown (last thing I heard, Anderson is now in real estate, but that might be just a rumor).

The only two guys of any relevance at all over at Obsidian are Chris Avellone and J. E. Saywer. The latter didn't have anything to do with any Fallout game, except for the (cancelled) Fallout 3 and The Allmighty Avellone only worked on Fallout 2.

By the way, the stuff you've said about Troika and their problems is pure bullsh't.

reply

[–] afulop5195 17 years ago

NO, I mean the man with the master plan:
Feargus Urquhart

reply

[–] Roddenhyzer 17 years ago

You've got to be f'cking kidding me. If you're actually serious, then let me assure you that Urquhart had barely anything to do with the creative process behind Fallout. But don't just take my word for it. Here's what he said about his involvement:

NMA: Tell us a little about your role in the making of Fallout 1/2/3 (Van Buren)/Tactics ?

URQUHART: I was put in charge of the TSR division at Interplay in early 1996 which included the Fallout 1 project. Other than helping Tim Cain ramp up the team in 1996, I didn't work a whole lot on the project that year. There were a lot of other fires to put out at the time. In 1997, I started to work on the project a lot more and by May-ish, I was working on the project about 100 hours a week. Other than managing a lot of the QA (playtesting) process, I also straightened up the Hub, made the Boneyard work and designed a number of small things in the game. I also spent a lot of time trying to get the economy to work and re-designed the buy/sell equation. It didn't end up perfect, but it was a lot better than it was a few days before we shipped the game.

So please tell me what makes you think he's the "man with the plan"?

reply

[–] afulop5195 17 years ago

Ok, so I didn't know. Sue me. FFS, Feargus is easter egged all over Fallout.

Though Black Isle doesn't really conern me at this point. Obsidian has shown it can weave some great plots and astounding character development. Current problem is that publishers still get in the way and won't let them actually finish their work. The character development in KOTOR2 is the finest I've ever seen. Did you see the scripts they had in for the originally intended ending (that wasn't in tehre because LA pushed the release date)?

Mind you then you have NWN2 where you can see they purposefully shortchanged some plot and character development side plots to avoid having good character development until the ending like in KOTOR2.

It will probably take another title or two before they find a happy medium. If they get big enough, perhaps like Bioware is, maybe publishers will finally give them to freedom to take whatever time they need to make the masterpieces they are clearly capable of.

In any case, speaking of Bioware, I'd be willing to bet their upcoming title will be amazing.

As for Bethesda taking over, my personal opinion is that Bethesda has made some really immersive worlds in their games, but seem to come up a little short on character development. But since Fallout hasn't really been so much about character development and more about freedom and immersion, I think Bethesda will do a great job.

reply

[–] Roddenhyzer 17 years ago

Feargus is easter egged all over Fallout.

That's true, the Fallout team sure enjoyed making fun of him.

Did you see the scripts they had in for the originally intended ending (that wasn't in tehre because LA pushed the release date)?

Well, I'm aware of the whole "altered ending" fiasco, but I've never actually read the originally intended stuff (I've never been that much of a KOTOR fan). I obviously didn't make this clear in my previous posts, but I don't doubt Obsidian's creativity at all. Afterall, Chris Avellone was responsible for Planescape: Torment, one of the best and most creative CRPGs I've ever played. The problem is that the people in charge over there don't really seem to care much about the company's potential. They only seem to see the quick cash in rushed sequels to successful games. But with a mindset like this, they will never get those a''hole publishers off their backs. They should just go ahead and create their very own original IP, and let their great masters over at BioWare publish it.

In any case, speaking of Bioware, I'd be willing to bet their upcoming title will be amazing.

You mean Dragon Age? Well, I can only hope so.

As for Bethesda taking over, my personal opinion is that Bethesda has made some really immersive worlds in their games, but seem to come up a little short on character development. But since Fallout hasn't really been so much about character development and more about freedom and immersion, I think Bethesda will do a great job.

In my opinion, character development was very important in the original Fallout (even more in the sequel), considering that almost every single stat, most of the perks and basically all skills heavily influenced your ingame options. But that aside, Bethesda's interpretation of "freedom and immersion" isn't really comparable to Fallout's. See, to Bethesda, freedom basically just means "You are free to roam this huge, but barren world the way you see fit", but in Fallout, freedom meant "freedom of choice". You always had a choice how to solve quests and how to approach challenges, and more importantly, your choices actually mattered and made a difference. And when it comes to immersion... well, Bethesda thinks simulated soil erosion, a character with Captain Picard's voice and an unbelievably retarded minigame where dialog trees should be are pinnacles of immersion. Of course, I kinda disagree with that, too ;)

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion and if you actually enjoyed Oblivion, my guess is you will also love the upcomming Fallout 3.

reply

[–] afulop5195 17 years ago

Haven't played Oblivion. Loved Morrowind though.

Character development isn't dialog options. Character development are characters with well fleshed out personalities. Fallout didn't have much character development; characters were mostly one dimensional. There were a few good spots, like in Junktown, but other than that, most NPCs in the game had 1 purpose and no actual personality.

BG, BG2, KOTOR, KOTOR2, Plainscape: Torment are all exampels of games with great character development. You get to know the characters; they all have extensive history. You wind up really caring about the characters. In Fallout and Fallout 2, I really didn't care about the characters much. There was a little history built in for the NPCs, but IMO not enough. What it really comes down to is you don't get to interact with them on a personal level enough for them to be fully developed. Once they joined your group they pretty much had no reaction to anything you did (with only a couple exceptions; Sulik and the slaver guild for example).

As for Bioware, I was thinking of Mass Effect which is due in May of this year. Personally I think it's more likely to come out in November though.

reply

[–] Roddenhyzer 17 years ago

Haven't played Oblivion. Loved Morrowind though.

Good to hear. You should really avoid that game.

Character development isn't dialog options. Character development are characters with well fleshed out personalities.

When you mentioned "character development" in your other post, I thought you were talking about ACTUAL character development (i. e. the development of the player character), not about how well written the NPCs were. Anyway, Fallout really didn't offer much in terms of memorable NPCs, I sure won't argue about that. Ian had just as much personality as Dogmeat...

As for Bioware, I was thinking of Mass Effect which is due in May of this year.

I didn't follow that one closely, because I don't care for console games, but to me, Mass Effect looks more like an "RPG Light". An action game with a few RPG elements thrown in. It sure sounds like that in the interviews I've read.

reply

[–] afulop5195 17 years ago

RPG lite? Hardly. ROLE PLAYING GAME means you play a role; you are essentially an actor. RPG doesn't mean you crunch numbers, roll dice, and play around with statistics. I really don't get why there are people who think that RPG means you have to have bunch of "stats" that you can "level." Or worse yet, that RPG means non-reflex based combat.

The best kinds of role playing games are ones where the people and characters you meet have real and believable reactions to what you do. KOTOR 1 and 2 did that. BG 1 and 2 did that. Planescape did that. Fallout did it to a certain degree in that although party members didn't really react, the game itself was heavily influenced by your actions and you really could flesh out a clearly defined character personality.

reply

[–] Roddenhyzer 17 years ago

ROLE PLAYING GAME means you play a role; you are essentially an actor.

Now that's a load of horsesh't. You play a role in every f'cking game, even in Bubble Bobble. True role-playing games are about giving the player the ability to DEFINE his character and provide a world that actually reacts to those character defining decisions. But, wait, that's exactly what you said in your second paragraph. Quite confusing...

I really don't get why there are people who think that RPG means you have to have bunch of "stats" that you can "level."

That's a pretty stupid question, considering that this is what conventional role-playing has always been about. You might aswell ask why rap music has to have lyrics.
Sure, role-playing is not about jerking off to your Supar Awesum Axe of Destruxi0n +1 (which is why the Baldur's Gate games aren't exactly the best RPGs in the world...), but a certain set of stats is just plain necessary. If you don't like being able to create a multitude of different characters, with drastically different physical and mental attributes, then maybe you should ask yourself why you even bother with RPGs.

Or worse yet, that RPG means non-reflex based combat.

Reflex based means the success relies entirely on the player's skills, not the character's skills, which is kinda contradictory to the whole concept of role-playing.

reply

[–] afulop5195 17 years ago

You arne't an actor in Bubble Bobble. When I say role, I mean you define your motivation. You define your character's personality. There are few games which give you truly the freedom to do so and actually react to those choices you've made appropriately. Fallout gave you the freedom do do that, but there were some failings in that none of the NPCs in your party gave a crap what you did for the most part. In BG2 however for example, anything you did, your party members reacted based on their personalities. KOTOR and KOTOR2 was the same way with KOTOR2 having a full influence system built in.

Role playing is about the character's personality and motivation. Playing with stats has nothing to do with personality and motivation. Clearly you've never played a real PnP RPG with a decent DM. The stats in RPGs historically have only been for simulating outcomes fairly. Why bother with that garbage when you can have a perfectly good physics engine do it for you?

Plus, just because the combat in a game is action oriented doesn't mean it isn't influenced by what your character is capable of if you're so worried about your precious "stats." When firing a gun, just because you point the crosshairs at something doesn't mean that's where the bullet is going. If your character isn't skilled the crosshairs only really give you an idea of a cone of fire, not a pinpoint. Deus Ex for exmaple handled it this way. So did System Shock IIRC.

As for you saying BG games were never good for role playing, I have to disagree completely, especially when it comes to BG2. Heck, the romantic plot threads alone make BG2 blow most other games away. Icewind Dale games on the otherhand aren't really role playing games.

reply

[–] Roddenhyzer 17 years ago

When I say role, I mean you define your motivation. You define your character's personality.

I actually agree with that. But I think stats are necessary in order to bring the personality to life. Otherwise you're just playing 'make belief' and everything's only in your head.

Playing with stats has nothing to do with personality and motivation.

I think you've got me a little wrong. I didn't say (and didn't mean) that the actual act of "playing with stats" is essential to role-playing. But in order to be able to create more than one "Default Character" in a game, you simply need stats. Role-playing is more than picking a few dialog otions and getting a boner when the elf chick starts to fall for you, you know ;)

Why bother with that garbage when you can have a perfectly good physics engine do it for you?

Man, do you really believe a physics engine could help getting rid of character attributes like "Intelligence", "Charisma" or "Wisdom"? If so, please tell me how. You seem to forget that stats are very important in dialogs, too.

Deus Ex for exmaple handled it this way. So did System Shock IIRC.

You're right. And they were both what? Correct! ACTION RPGS! Shooters with a rudimentary set of RPG elements. That's not an insult, btw, I loved the System Shock games.

As for you saying BG games were never good for role playing, I have to disagree completely, especially when it comes to BG2.

They aren't. There's barely any actual role-playing involved. They may provide you with a few options in dialog, but it mostly boils down to:

1. - Polite

2. - Evil (because you ask for money in return, which is a prime example of how little you can actually define your motivations in the BG games)

3. - Bye

Also, barely any quest can be solved in more than one way and both games reek of extreme munchkinism and an unbearable linearity. Not to mention that the Infinity Engine is just plain awful.

Anyway, the more I hear from you and your weird definition of role-playing, the more I'm conviced you'd be better off playing dating sims and adventure games.

reply

[–] afulop5195 17 years ago

What the hell is your problem? Why ar eyou trying to pick a fight?

Stats are only important if they do things like determine what you can or can't say thereby forcing you into the role you've decided to play. So in Fallout I agree, many of the skills and stats did that and so they were useful for roleplaying purposes.

HOWEVER, they arne't the be all and end all. For example, let's say you are playing an RPG and central to the game itself your character has to have a certain level of knowledge about a particular area of expertise and a certain level of intelligence. If that's the case, there's no need to have a stat for it. It doesn't mean you don't define your characters personality traits. How you define personality and motivation typically has little to do with intelligence in an RPG.

As for BG being linear, only the main plot is. NONE of the side quests are. The very fact that all side quests are 100% optional and the fact that taking some makes it impossible to take others means they are non-linear. They are a branching tree structure. Since true freedom is impossible with current technology (though some games are making headway; Stalker supposedly contains an AI system which would be the step in the right direction for true freedom), a tree structure is the best we've got. Even Planescape: Torment had a tree structure. Additionally, Planescape: Torment had a linear plot; the final encounter is the same encounter no matter what you do during the game. You always end up at the same point, confronting the same entity. Honestly the only game I've ever seen that really truly did take you in a totally different direction based on your actions was Blade Runner. But the gameplay sucked, and it was too easy to hose yourself without knowing it (i.e. do an action which prevents you from continuing but you aren't told that so you save your game, only later to find out you have to start all over again).

Anyway, it just seems your hung up on a certain formula. For you RPG means you have to have a bunch of stats and you have to have turn based combat. Fine, that's your definition. But it isn't mine, so we're really comparing apples and oranges.

Oh and I hate the Sims. But some adventure games can be fun.

reply

[–] Roddenhyzer 17 years ago

What the hell is your problem? Why ar eyou trying to pick a fight?

It may appear that way, but this is just a subject that gets me riled up rather easily. It's nothing against you and I'm honestly not trying to provoke a flamewar.

The very fact that all side quests are 100% optional and the fact that taking some makes it impossible to take others means they are non-linear. They are a branching tree structure. Since true freedom is impossible with current technology...

Play BG and its sequel, then play Arcanum and compare its level of freedom to BioWare's former cash cows ;) By the way, since you seem to think that non-linearity has something to do with having different end locations/plot resolutions, you should replay Fallout. You could finish that game in (at least) two entirely different ways.

For you RPG means you have to have a bunch of stats and you have to have turn based combat.

The way you describe it, it always sounds like I'm advocating stats just for the sake of it. I've already explained why they are essential. You can't even have a situation as simple as failing to tell a convincing lie, without having stats to determine the outcome, unless of course your options look like this:

1. - I think you're awesome! I will help you! [TRUTH]

2. - I think you're awesome! I will help you! [SUCCESSFUL LIE]

3. - I think you're awesome! I will help you! [UNSUCCESSFUL LIE]

I hope you agree that such an approach to dialog would be f'cking retarded. And this goes for all skill checks. How do you fail at picking a lock without a skill? Oh right, a reflex based lockpicking minigame. Fantastic.

And by the way, when did I bring up turn based combat? Just because combat is real time doesn't make it completely reflex based. Sure, I personally prefer turn based games, but some action RPGs have decent realtime combat, too. Not even the Infinity Engine games were turn based, but their combat outcomes relied entirely on stats.

Fine, that's your definition. But it isn't mine, so we're really comparing apples and oranges.

Maybe that's why I'm so angry all the time. Your definition is obviously the future of the genre, which is just plain depressing.

reply

[–] afulop5195 17 years ago

How do you fail at picking a lock without a skill? Oh right, a reflex based lockpicking minigame. Fantastic.

Actually a hybrid of the two I think would be more entertaining. Return to Krondor had a cool lockpicking system (most of the game however sucked; and talk about linear!). It melded your character's lockpicking skill with reflexes, and wound up being pretty fun. You had to figure out what tools to use and how to use them, difficulty would be higher based on the lock itself as compared to your character's lockpicking skill. Though personally I think lockpicking should only be a skillcheck at all if and only if it isn't assumed your character will have that skill. For example, let's say you are playing an RPG where the main character is a thief and the whole plotline revolves around that fact. There would be no point in having a "lockpicking" skill since it is already assumed your character has that skill.

That's why I'm saying it isn't always necessary to have skill checks and stats in every RPG. It depends on the setting.

Far more essential to a good RPG is allowing you to define your personality rather than your character's skillsets. Personally I think stats take away from immersion because you inevitably keep thinking about them. When you don't have them, the only thing you think about are your actions and the actions of those around you in the game.

reply

[–] DoctorOsterman 15 years ago

"HOWEVER, they arne't the be all and end all. For example, let's say you are playing an RPG and central to the game itself your character has to have a certain level of knowledge about a particular area of expertise and a certain level of intelligence. If that's the case, there's no need to have a stat for it. It doesn't mean you don't define your characters personality traits. How you define personality and motivation typically has little to do with intelligence in an RPG."

Then how is your character any different from any other character? The whole point of an RPG is taking the role of the character, including that person's knowledge, skillset, etc, and being able to change and develop those characteristics over time. If there are no stats, then everyone is the same. If that happens, the game becomes a tactical strategy game or an FPS, depending on whether it's real-time or turn based and what-have-you.

That's why people think RPGs are based on stats; because if each character doesn't have stats that can significantly change gameplay, then then the RPG aspect is really just in the various choices only.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dirkgently123 17 years ago

The Van Buren-screenshots look terrific and true to the original and it´s sequel. I´m afraid that the new developers will do some radical changes like introducing real-time combat or something like that. It would destroy everything. Fallout isn´t about it´s story in the first hand... it´s about it´s gameplay. Without it it isn´t Fallout any longer.

reply

[–] Dirkgently123 17 years ago

Turn-based combat is one of the major aspects of the game. They must not change that.

reply

[–] MessiahMan 17 years ago

I've no doubt that hey WILL change it, though. Easier for the console kiddies and such. Might as well become married to the idea.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]