Duck and Cover

Since bethsoft havent really made any pure RPG's (that I am aware of) but rather hack & slashish rpg hybrids I do feel that this is a topic which should be adressed.
I do suppose that most of us want FO3 to be a rpg like its prequels, but I am worried seeing how bethsoft interpret the term RPG.
Will they manage, or is the FO3 we will face merely flotsam on a sea of bethesdian generic insanity?
As I gather my thoughts and contemplate this for a moment I realize that no reassurance is to be had, no soothing words. No safety.
All we will be offered in the way of an explaination is: "we will talk about it when its finished."
A shrug will make the aids go away, but some things tend to linger. The foul taste of being mouthraped by some PR representative.
They say that to every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. What will the reaction be to the decline in quality RPG games? And so the bell tolls.
Input.

I can see it now...

"Coming to next gen consol... Fallout 3, the story of Mervin the misfit resident of Vault 36. Come and follow Mervin through his predetermined misadventures as he steers you through the marvels of the wasteland in search of the Prince of Northern California. Watch as Mervin rescues the Prince from the dreaded wasteland Dragon so that he may take his rightful place on the throne and bring order to the mutant hordes."

It's gonna be GREAT.



Please forgive me for my sarcasm as I have.

As long as there's SOIL EROSION, I'm happy.

Now, assuming the Oblivion engine doesn't do isometric and turn-based, we'll see something very similar to Oblivion, but with less trees and more sand. There's a fundamental problem with implementing RPG elements to a first-person viewpoint. Firstly, this practically rules out turn-based combat and instead features a real-time combat mostly based on your reflexes, which removes the tactical aspect of combat(unless you think neato combo moves is tactical). The fact that you are yourself directly in control of your character moves the gameplay closer to an 'action simulator' than a role-playing game. SPECIAL would only have a supporting role in combat. I could go on about the combat, but I've written about this so many times before and all you really have to do is try the combat in any other real-time RPG. The combat in Deus Ex and Bloodlines wasn't fun. In fact, it was worse than in pure FPS's. Its only purpose was to slow down the player instead of giving the player something to think about in form of tactical combat. Combat length is compensated with more combat situations.

Secondly, the viewpoint in itself doesn't add anything to the immersion. I don't have any trouble immersing in isometric or top-down RPGs, as long as they have a well-designed, believable gameworld. Thirdly, an isometric fixed viewpoint isn't as resource intensive as a fully 3-dimensional first-person view, which requires a lot more detail in character models etc. Yes, players with XBOX360 or top-end computers wont notice this, but it's still something to be considered unless you want to wait 2 years for the standard to catch up when there's already better games available. I'll leave the console rant til later.

Then there's other important role-playing aspects Bethesda has failed to deliver in their previous titles, such as quality quests, well-written dialogue and activating the player... but these are all repairable in one way or another. But still, I'm very afraid. Bethesda are very talented in producing technology, but they lack capable writers and designers.

Seeing how the term RPG has degenerated into just stats, they'll have no problems marketing it as an RPG. But TES fans will be happy about Fallout 3 and there's nothing Bethesda wouldn't do for its fans, I guess.

Seeing how the term RPG has degenerated into just stats, they'll have no problems marketing it as an RPG. But TES fans will be happy about Fallout 3 and there's nothing Bethesda wouldn't do for its fans, I guess.

but, since fallout is now in bethesdas hand, should we not be considered bethesda fans? Or are we merely a nuisance, angry and steaming.
I do get a feeling that whatever we say is met by the bethesda employees with a shrug and: "there's no pleasing some people."

I do hope that they manage to rise to the occasion and deliver a real RPG for once, but they probably wont.

Yeah we're screwed.

Okay, well I'm probably gonna get lynched for this, but from what I've played of Oblivion it isn't that bad. And actually, I can easily see how the engine and the play mechanics could be altered to make a Fallout game that's true to the content and spirit of the original, if not the form.

I'll say right off of the bat that our getting a turn-based system really doesn't look very good at all. Maybe a partial turn based in the sense of the Bioware games, but not a round for round thing and not on a hex grid.
The combat though, could be very interesting in its current form if they threw guns into it. As it stands, the combat as pretty frantic and has a touch of the brutality that Fallout had, and when introducing the idea of ranged weapons and more advanced cover, combat could be very entertaining while still maintaining a tactical element.

The engine is, as we've all been told, quite lovely, but there are a few things to it that I really like that would work well in a Fallout game. Partially it's the isometric chase-cam view, which can be adjusted for distance and still allows for full functionality with the character. Mostly though, it's the bloom lighting effect, which when put into a post-apocalyptic setting would realy help to add to the washed out feel of the wasteland. Also, when presented with the idea of having to create a more textured world rather than a lush, forest covered one, the engine could easily capture the look and feel of the Fallout world without the really high-end graphical requirements, and have bigger areas/shorter load times than Oblivion.

Also of note is that the facial morphing engine is so complex that we can have talking heads for every NPC (The game automatically zooms in on the person's face during dialogue), all of which look different. Also, with a bit of tweaking, the dialogue system could be made less free-form and more specific, so we get those wonderful bits of dialogue we all enjoy so much.

That's about it for now, if I come up with anything else that could potentially be relevent I'll put it up here. From what I have seen of Oblivion so far though, it's gone a long way towards giving me hope of a good Fallout 3, which may not be the same old formula we love, but will probably have most of the character, fell, and setting.

-Dracos

Damn, well, uhh....

say you get a real, uh ... "real" body in the game...

with fatigue, disease, toxins, scars, limps, etc.

and you die easy like in CS:S/etc.

But the AI is not omniscient...

Allow for traps, anonymous sniping, disguises, alter egos, etc.

Have the stats act as a sort of BOT to enhance your reflexes(including
scripts, even situationally-specific ones)...

then speech and choices and stealth would be really important.
(unless you're a tard and you want stats to "BOT" your dialogue-
adding options due to stats is ok, but no more than that. please)


It would be ok, even brilliant.

Ugh

I'll just wait and see. And continue fueling Jesus with my worship.

Pray for the game MadBill...

Pray for Fallout 3.


Zetura Dracos made a few good points about why BethSoft might make...

Zetura Dracos wrote: a good Fallout 3, which may not be the same old formula we love, but will probably have most of the character, fell, and setting.

... but the question still lingers. Is it going to be a good RPG (emphasis on the RP part)?

Jesus Christ wrote:... but the question still lingers.

You're fucking blind, aren't you ? AREN'T YOU ?

The requisite information with which to see The Truth, all of it, is readily available at the time of writing. Answered questions should not linger, do not linger.

Jesus Christ wrote:Is it going to be a good RPG (emphasis on the RP part)?

No (emphasis on the 'What part of reality did you take leave of/overlook entirely ?' part).

Your decidive standpoint is what saved this thread, Blargh. Thanks you.

Zetura Dracos wrote:Okay, well I'm probably gonna get lynched for this, but from what I've played of Oblivion it isn't that bad.

We're screwed.

Redeye wrote:Damn, well, uhh....

Yeah, we're screwed.

MadBill wrote:I'll just wait and see.

You don't have to really, we're screwed. That's that.

Jesus H. Christ wrote: Is it going to be a good RPG (emphasis on the RP part)?

You should be asking "Durrh, will it be a good Fallout?", but in all honesty, why bother asking? We're screwed.

Zetura Dracos wrote:Okay, well I'm probably gonna get lynched for this, but from what I've played of Oblivion it isn't that bad. And actually, I can easily see how the engine and the play mechanics could be altered to make a Fallout game that's true to the content and spirit of the original, if not the form.

Are you past the 'Wow! The orks look the awesomest!!!" phase yet? Don't you think it's still a bit too early to give a game experience review.

I'll say right off of the bat that our getting a turn-based system really doesn't look very good at all.

Add some arguments in your next post so I can comment on them.

partial turn based in the sense of the Bioware games

The combat though, could be very interesting in its current form if they threw guns into it. As it stands, the combat as pretty frantic and has a touch of the brutality that Fallout had, and when introducing the idea of ranged weapons and more advanced cover, combat could be very entertaining while still maintaining a tactical element.

First, the combat in Oblivion is not tactical in any way. You can choose when you want to consume your health potions, but that's about it. Otherwise you use the very same tactic against every enemy and since the point of impact doesn't matter, all you have to do is time your attacks so that you maximize your hits and minimize enemy hits, for example by using shield or backing off. Secondly, since combat is about reflexes and your own 'skills' only, you're not playing the role of a character, but rather acting it out yourself. The dull ranged combat in Deus Ex and Bloodlines are good enough examples showing the dilemma with combining ranged combat with character skills, unless you go for pure FPS combat, of which Bethesda doesn't know a jack shit about. Also, shorter combat sessions is compensated with more combat occasions thus making it more FPS-like, that is combat intensive.

Do you honestly think the combat in Oblivion isn't simple and monotonous?

The engine is, as we've all been told, quite lovely, but there are a few things to it that I really like that would work well in a Fallout game. Partially it's the isometric chase-cam view, which can be adjusted for distance and still allows for full functionality with the character. Mostly though, it's the bloom lighting effect, which when put into a post-apocalyptic setting would realy help to add to the washed out feel of the wasteland. Also, when presented with the idea of having to create a more textured world rather than a lush, forest covered one, the engine could easily capture the look and feel of the Fallout world without the really high-end graphical requirements, and have bigger areas/shorter load times than Oblivion.

Yeah, sand really looks that different in first-person than isometric.

I don't think the exploration and nice scenery aspects of Oblivion would be in such important role in a post-apoc setting than in a more fantasy-romantic and diverse gameworld. One could even say the rough and unpolished look of the original Fallout fit well to the setting.

Also of note is that the facial morphing engine is so complex that we can have talking heads for every NPC (The game automatically zooms in on the person's face during dialogue), all of which look different. Also, with a bit of tweaking, the dialogue system could be made less free-form and more specific, so we get those wonderful bits of dialogue we all enjoy so much.

What, are you telling me Fallout already didn't have animated character heads?

To this day, Bethsoft hasn't produced a single line of wonderful dialogue and I don't think they learn to do so before Fallout 3. This is a fact. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking and we all know what wishful thinking leads to.

Gonorrhea.

Bethesda sucks... If they make a crappy Fallout game I will be so pissed, and I know they are going to. I don't want to be a nay-sayer but I recently meditated on Fallout's future and tried to be optimistic, but for God's sake! I have played Morrowind and it blows. Mix a double feature of The English Patient & Gone With the Wind with a rectal exam and that's how I felt after playing that game. Anyone who refers to that piece of crap game as an RPG is a liar and a fraud and has no business playing or making videogames. And now these lunatics have their hands on the GREATEST RPG of all time! This is a travesty! More is not always better Bethesda and first-person sword fighting is a joke. I could make a list of great things that Bethesda should put in the new Fallout... but I think I'll just cry for the years wasted waiting for a great new Fallout title. Screw you Interplay and likewise to Bethesucks

The fans made a great list of what to put in FO2 and see what happened.

Bethsoft's FO3 will be an RPG in the same way that GTA: San Andreas was an RPG

In other words

No

Well we at least better be able to kill kids in FO3. To make a first-person Fallout and exclude the ability to kill starving, dirty bastard children would be a sin!

I want a "Kill 100 kids in less than 10 minutes!" quest

How about "Kill 10 'special' kids and collect their scales." ?