111 réponses à ce sujet

[Chromie]

Jozape wrote...
I don't think any Fallout fan can rationally consider Fallout 3 a disappointment.

A lot of Fallout 1/2 fans don't like FO3 just head over to No Mutants Allowed.

This is the Fallout 3 I wanted.

Modifié par Skelter192, 18 juin 2012 - 02:25 .

[wsandista]

Skelter192 wrote...

This is the Fallout 3 I wanted.

This makes me cry, a damn shame it got cancelled.

[android654]

Other than the visual style, I'm not seeing what's different between that FO3 and Bethesda's.

[termokanden]

wsandista wrote...

"FO3 may not have been perfect, but it was sure better than Oblivion"

That statement sounds similar to "Step up from Oblivion"

Still misquoted, and it isn't the same. Let me elaborate then: Oblivion was a huge disappointment to me. Fallout 3 wasn't exactly what I expected, but I found it enjoyable all the same. That's actually a big difference. Anyway...

The flak is quite well deserved, just like DA2 gets flak for not being like DAO. If you market a game as a sequel and it is not extremely similar to it's predecessors, it will be hammered.

I agree that it deserves flak for that. But on the other hand, I think it's a good game in its own right and isn't necessarily useless just because it isn't Fallout fans were expecting. I see where you're coming from, I really do. But I've often see people disregarding the game entirely not because it isn't good, but just because it wasn't as expected. I do realize not everyone likes the game as it is either, but that's another story.

Why does every Bethesda game have to be a sandbox though? I like some, but I don't want every game I play to turn into a sandbox with action combat.

It's Bethesda's specialty. I see nothing wrong with them focusing on their strengths.

Fallout(2) were some of the best games I've ever played. Very few recent games come close, and the new releases are looking bleak with a few gleaming exceptions(Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns). Fallout was not improved by the shift to sandbox.

I guess the older RPGs would be considered too nerdy by current standards. I miss them too. Not just the old RPGs. Turn-based strategy, old-school adventure games, that kind of thing. Doesn't mean I won't enjoy a good new game if they make one. 

Modifié par termokanden, 18 juin 2012 - 03:59 .

[Megaton_Hope]

Also, Pokemon's got a rather modern setting. Computers, monorails, skyscrapers.

[Kappa Neko]

Resonance of Fate (JRPG)

Never played it myself but they use modern guns and it's set in a future world. Not much story, though, I heard....

[wsandista]

termokanden wrote...

Still misquoted, and it isn't the same. Let me elaborate then: Oblivion was a huge disappointment to me. Fallout 3 wasn't exactly what I expected, but I found it enjoyable all the same. That's actually a big difference.

Much better.

I agree that it deserves flak for that. But on the other hand, I think it's a good game in its own right and isn't necessarily useless just because it isn't Fallout fans were expecting. I see where you're coming from, I really do. But I've often see people disregarding the game entirely not because it isn't good, but just because it wasn't as expected. I do realize not everyone likes the game as it is either, but that's another story.

It just isn't what they want in a Fallout game. To use a BW game as an example, there were quite a few people who didn't bother with DA2 because it didn't play like DAO. Even if DA2 had been good, those people who wanted DAO2 would not have gotten what they wanted. The point is that a sequel should only have minor tweaks from previous titles, otherwise it wil ****** people off.

It's Bethesda's specialty. I see nothing wrong with them focusing on their strengths.

What about the appeal of Fallout(original)? Fallout worked perfectly as it did and Bethesda already has TES for that kind of game.

I guess the older RPGs would be considered too nerdy by current standards. I miss them too. Not just the old RPGs. Turn-based strategy, old-school adventure games, that kind of thing. Doesn't mean I won't enjoy a good new game if they make one. 

Haven't RPGs always been the "nerdy" genre?

Anyways, part of the backlash against the modern RPGs(action) is that they are abandoning their roots. That is probably why Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns have had such success with their kickstarter, people want those games back.

[bussinrounds]

termokanden wrote...


I guess the older RPGs would be considered too nerdy by current standards.

   Too nerdy = not a FPS/TPS or action game

[Zanallen]

Less RPG and more adventure game, but the Tex Murphy games are set in the future. You could also try some JRPGs like Valkyria Chronicles.

[android654]

Tex Murphy I will check out! It's adventure and not an RPG, reminds me of the Bladerunner game from the late 90's. God I spent so much time playing that.

I looked at Kingdom Hearts... I'm sorry, but I can spend 20+ hours running around with Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. Resonance of Fate looks cool but seems to suffer from the same Japanese goofiness that Kingdom Hearts does. Delivering presents dressed as Rudolph? I don't think so. The only other non medieval or fantasy RPG seems to be Star Ocean. But seems a bit juvenile for my tastes.

[Chromie]

android654 wrote...
I Resonance of Fate looks cool but seems to suffer from the same Japanese goofiness that Kingdom Hearts does.

If you don't minds omething old than Anachronox developed by Ion Storm the guys who made the original Deus Ex.

[Zanallen]

android654 wrote...

Tex Murphy I will check out! It's adventure and not an RPG, reminds me of the Bladerunner game from the late 90's. God I spent so much time playing that.

I looked at Kingdom Hearts... I'm sorry, but I can spend 20+ hours running around with Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. Resonance of Fate looks cool but seems to suffer from the same Japanese goofiness that Kingdom Hearts does. Delivering presents dressed as Rudolph? I don't think so. The only other non medieval or fantasy RPG seems to be Star Ocean. But seems a bit juvenile for my tastes.

The Tex Murphy games are awesome and a new one is on Kickstarter. Valkyria Chronicles is set during a quasi WWI or WWII era. The combat takes some getting used to. It is like a turn-based cover shooter where each party member has a set number of action points you can spend to move them into position and fire on your enemies.

[android654]

[quote]Zanallen wrote...

[quote]android654 wrote...

Tex Murphy I will check out! It's adventure and not an RPG, reminds me of the Bladerunner game from the late 90's. God I spent so much time playing that.

I looked at Kingdom Hearts... I'm sorry, but I can spend 20+ hours running around with Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. Resonance of Fate looks cool but seems to suffer from the same Japanese goofiness that Kingdom Hearts does. Delivering presents dressed as Rudolph? I don't think so. The only other non medieval or fantasy RPG seems to be Star Ocean. But seems a bit juvenile for my tastes.[/quote]

The Tex Murphy games are awesome and a new one is on Kickstarter. Valkyria Chronicles is set during a quasi WWI or WWII era. The combat takes some getting used to. It is like a turn-based cover shooter where each party member has a set number of action points you can spend to move them into position and fire on your enemies.

[/quote]

Valkyria Chronicles doesn't look that bad. It does look very different from other JRPGs I've seen.



[quote]Skelter192 wrote...

[quote]android654 wrote...
I Resonance of Fate looks cool but seems to suffer from the same Japanese goofiness that Kingdom Hearts does.[/quote]

If you don't minds omething old than Anachronox developed by Ion Storm the guys who made the original Deus Ex.

[/quote]

And it shows[/quote] I don't mind old games. Every now and again I still play OoT or Jade Empire. There should be more games like this. Then again I suppose what makes them stand out is that there aren't many like it.

Modifié par android654, 19 juin 2012 - 01:33 .

[termokanden]

bussinrounds wrote...

termokanden wrote...


I guess the older RPGs would be considered too nerdy by current standards.

   Too nerdy = not a FPS/TPS or action game

Well, that's what I think it is. Too complex systems, too much dialogue, and particularly turn-based combat. It just doesn't have the same broad appeal.

I grew up playing pen and paper RPGs and old-school CRPGs, so I love that kind of thing, But there are more people who don't. I think there's a market for old-school RPGs. Just not as much money in it I guess.

[wsandista]

termokanden wrote...

Well, that's what I think it is. Too complex systems, too much dialogue, and particularly turn-based combat. It just doesn't have the same broad appeal.

I grew up playing pen and paper RPGs and old-school CRPGs, so I love that kind of thing, But there are more people who don't. I think there's a market for old-school RPGs. Just not as much money in it I guess.

Dude big fish, little pond.

RPGs(old-school) have a very small amount of producers, especially when compared to more "mainstream" genres. Taping into that market is hardly a bad idea.

[Jozape]

wsandista wrote...

]I can and do consider Fallout 3 to be a disappointment.

I wanted Fallout 3, instead I got TES: post-apocalyptic.

Skelter192 wrote...

Jozape wrote...
I don't think any Fallout fan can rationally consider Fallout 3 a disappointment.

A lot of Fallout 1/2 fans don't like FO3 just head over to No Mutants Allowed.

This is the Fallout 3 I wanted.

What
you like/want is not what you should expect. I'd rather have
gotten an isometric or similar view of my character as well, but that's
not what Bethesda does in their games.

[android654]

When Bethesda decided to bring it over to consolses, clearly there had to be a change. The original iso camera, with the top/down view and click-to-move directioning would simply not work. Other than that the game Bethesda put out seems like an honest successor.

[bussinrounds]

android654 wrote... Other than that the game Bethesda put out seems like an honest successor.

     Your kidding right ?

[android654]

Do you have some real criticism? What did they do besides changing the view and the art style that was completely different from what interplay was going to do with their Fallout 3?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

So, we got art style, perspective, what about combat? Van Buren is an optional turn based/real time hybrid (Arcanum provides the closest comparison) which is nothing like F3's action combat with VATS. Map system (i.e cut into sections on an overworld map ala F1/2), then there's the actual story.

So, gameplay, world, story, art style and perspective are radically different, and there are more things I can't think of at the moment. Yep, exactly the same!

Seriously, expecting Bethesda to follow in the direction of the original two games is silly, it was never going to happen. But by that token, Fallout 3 is nothing like F1/2 except in name and universe. Not to say it's a horrible game or whatever, but it's much closer to a series reboot of the X-COM variety than a genuine sequel.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 19 juin 2012 - 02:35 .

[android654]

Thank you. Everyone's been complaining about it but no one's really pointed out what they've done that's so "bad." I still think it was the logical progression for both both 3 and NV. There's no way to play a game styled like Fallout 1 or 2 on consoles, which I'm convinced was their main reason for doing so.

What's so different between the two sets of stories?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The reason Fallout 3 is made like it is, is because it's the one type of game Bethesda makes. The Oblivion with Guns line has been toted in certain places. I think Fallout 3 is a massive step up from Oblivion, but that's what it is. Not because of consoles or whatever. The perspective and controls may have been changed, but the gameplay could've easily stayed true to the originals. Plenty of turn based JRPGs out there.

Van Buren's story was the tale of an evil scientist trying to purify the earth of filth using nukes. Some elements, locations and names made it into New Vegas (albeit altered).

Fallout 3's in comparison was as if they copypasted the key points of F1/2 story together randomly, even when it didn't make much sense. Mutants! FEV! Enclave! Water! Also hard to decide whether the Trouble on the Homefront scene with Amata is a homage or a rip off of F1.

Have you played the original two games, btw?

Modifié par CrustyBot, 19 juin 2012 - 02:50 .

[android654]

No I haven't. I will though since Skelter recommended it. I have seen a bit from the first two and from that I couldn't discern what people were up in arms about. I guess I'll find out firsthand in a little bit.

Modifié par android654, 19 juin 2012 - 02:52 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

CrustyBot wrote...

The reason Fallout 3 is made like it is, is because it's the one type of game Bethesda makes. The Oblivion with Guns line has been toted in certain places. I think Fallout 3 is a massive step up from Oblivion, but that's what it is. Not because of consoles or whatever. The perspective and controls may have been changed, but the gameplay could've easily stayed true to the originals. Plenty of turn based JRPGs out there.

Van Buren's story was the tale of an evil scientist trying to purify the earth of filth using nukes. Some elements, locations and names made it into New Vegas (albeit altered).

Fallout 3's in comparison was as if they copypasted the key points of F1/2 story together randomly, even when it didn't make much sense. Mutants! FEV! Enclave! Water! Also hard to decide whether the Trouble on the Homefront scene with Amata is a homage or a rip off of F1.

Have you played the original two games, btw?

I will be p*ssed off if NWN 3's gameplay be like Skyrim ( like your example of fallout)

[Gatt9]

android654 wrote...

Do you have some real criticism? What did they do besides changing the view and the art style that was completely different from what interplay was going to do with their Fallout 3?

Just off the top of my head...

-Magical healing water
-Magical healing water in toilets that technically should kill you.
-Trivialized nuclear weapons so their shooter had a BFG
-While ignoring the fact that a nuclear explosion at that range would be fatal
-Gasoline sword,  a couple of hundred years after gasoline would've become inert
-Removed choice and consequence
-Removed most of attribute's effects
-Turned lockpicking and hacking into a minigame instead of using the character's skills

I can keep going if you want?  That thing is not a Fallout game,  it was intended from the begining to be Oblivion with Guns,  they never intended to do anything but make Oblivion with Fallout graphics.