RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Comments (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Fallout 3 - Preview @ The Escapist (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2210)

Dhruin July 13th, 2007 16:50

Fallout 3 - Preview @ The Escapist
 
The Escapist's preview enthuses that Fallout 3 is really, really, really the same as Fallout but much better:
Quote:

It's been a decade since the original Fallout was released, and so much has changed about gaming, and games, that a new Fallout made like the originals would be largely unplayable, and deeply disappointing. And before you start saying "Van Buren" remember that that game, too, was made almost ten years ago. It would not be the same game today.
More information.

Brother None July 13th, 2007 16:50

And remember, kids, that preview by the escapist was written in 2013, going on its remark that Van Buren was 10 years ago.

Escapist is so odd when it comes to talking about Bethesda.

Role-Player July 13th, 2007 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother None (Post 35527)
Escapist is so odd when it comes to talking about Bethesda.

And a complete dunce when talking about Fallout.

Morbus July 13th, 2007 17:05

Hugh… Really… -_-

bjon045 July 13th, 2007 18:08

"Not the same game today", WTF is that supposed to mean?!? I am pretty sure it was the same game when I replayed it a few months ago, just as enjoyable as it was when I first played it. Can't these f*%^'ing kids stay on their consoles with their Madden '08?

The rest of the preview is exactly the same thing I have read countless times in the past few weeks apart from that asinine comment.

Lucky Day July 13th, 2007 19:35

To be fair Van Buren looked 10 years old. I have to agree with the sentiment FO is virtually unplayable its so old now and Van Buren looked like a rehash.

That said I doubt I'm buying the new one but because of its (im)mature content and the likely inability to turn it off. He's fixed his comment

Quote:

Fixed the misplaced 2072 reference. Good catch Brother None. The war (according to Bethesda) was in 2072. Fallout 3 is set two hundred years after that.

Brother None July 13th, 2007 19:40

Fallout, in a strictest sense, is of course very inaccessible for many gamers. Van Buren, as a rehash, would have been pretty accessible when finished (not in the state of the tech demo or screens released). Not as shiny as oblivious, but that doesn't make it unplayable by definition

Gallifrey July 13th, 2007 19:55

Fallout 1 and 2 are just as playable now as they ever were. I really do not get the statements that argue the game is no longer playable. Some old games aren't as good now as they were way back when, but there's noting in Fallout that condemns it to being an artifact of the past.
The only complaint I can understand is that the game engine isn't as agile or flexible as more modern games, but that takes not even 10 minutes worth of getting used to, and there's so much good stuff that outshines most, if not all, modern games, so that some awkward engine or interface issues really pale in comparison.

The Van Buren tech demo was pretty rough, and far more unplayable than FO1 and FO2, but with polish and refining that comes with the development process, I'm pretty sure it would've done quite well as a game.

Guest Dude July 13th, 2007 20:20

I convinced a first-timer to play Fallout 2 last week. His only complaint? "The dialogue window is too small."
Anyone who says F1 and F2 are too dated to be enjoyed now probably has never actually played through them completely.

Tannhauser July 13th, 2007 20:42

I really do not see how Fallout is unplayable in the modern age. There are legitimate complaints to be made, such as the cumbersome inventory system, but nothing that I see makes the game "unplayable" for a modern gamer.

Squeek July 13th, 2007 20:46

How does a game become unplayable? I'm trying to imagine how that would be possible. Maybe if it required the stars to be aligned a certain way….

Did Fallout have any special requirements like that?

Software that was written for one platform can be written to run on another, can't it? How would it be impossible to do that? What am I missing?

Sometimes people form opinions about games or software that they know will be controversial. They can get pretty creative, trying to justify their point of view.

Brother None July 13th, 2007 20:47

Well, users have been asking (more or less politely) for Russ to clarify what he meant by that remark, but he hasn't.

Look like it was just a grab at empty air

Gallifrey July 13th, 2007 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeek (Post 35552)
How does a game become unplayable? I'm trying to imagine how that would be possible. Maybe if it required the stars to be aligned a certain way….

Did Fallout have any special requirements like that?

Software that was written for one platform can be written to run on another, can't it? How would it be impossible to do that? What am I missing?

Both Fallout 1 and 2 even run on XP!

Quote:

Sometimes people form opinions about games or software that they know will be controversial. They can get pretty creative, trying to justify their point of view.
A fair summary of on-line game discussion.

BillSeurer July 13th, 2007 21:03

Some older games have held up pretty well graphically, Fallout and Fallout 2 are two of them. Some others haven't, like XCom and MoM. Yeah, the gameplay is more important than the graphics but after a certain point, dang, that's sure ugly. I recently re-tried both XCom and MoM and MoM especially just hurt to look at.

xSamhainx July 13th, 2007 21:13

maybe he meant un-sellable

Brother None July 13th, 2007 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSeurer (Post 35556)
Some older games have held up pretty well graphically, Fallout and Fallout 2 are two of them. Some others haven't, like XCom and MoM. Yeah, the gameplay is more important than the graphics but after a certain point, dang, that's sure ugly. I recently re-tried both XCom and MoM and MoM especially just hurt to look at.

In a lot of ways, well-drawn 2D bitmaps like Fallout and Planescape:Torment are more durable than the early attempts at 3D graphics. "Good" and "shiny" graphics have always been seperate, tho', there's a difference between awesome artistic direction, like the otherwise ugly Pathologic or Bioshock, and just a shiny game that'll look laughably bad in a few years, like Oblivion.

Gallifrey July 14th, 2007 00:10

I like more style and artistry to game graphics than a generic as-close-to-realistic-as-possible look. So the Fallout games look great to me, even 10 years on. If a game came out now with Fallout-style graphics I'd be quite happy. It's just as Brother None points out, games with great artistic direction age a lot better than 3D attempts at realism. Looking at some early 3D games now is really painful, they're so poorly done and super-bland.

Maylander July 14th, 2007 00:45

Surprisingly I actually agree a bit with the writer. The reason isn't graphics or any such thing, it's the gameplay. What can possible be wrong with FO gameplay? After years and years of playing RPGs, I've grown accustomed to fastpaced games, that still have a tactical element (such as BG2, NWN2 etc) - the combat in FO just becomes too tedious for me. Even when you put speed on maximum and go through the turns as fast as you can, it still becomes a timesink more than an actual challenge. And don't tell me it requires more tactics just because it's turn based - most fights can be won just by attacking the enemy and clicking through turns (if your character is combat based at least).

I just don't see a game with such slow gameplay win a big crowd today. As an indie game it would probably be a huge hit, but as a large production? I doubt it, and it wouldn't be possible to do it as an indie game - no developer doing indie games could ever afford a license like Fallout. It needs to be a million dollar production, and it needs to sell millions of copies, or the license itself would be too expensive. If it was possible to pull this off as an indie game, I assure you that there are more than enough indie developers out there that would've done it ages ago.

I do agree that 2D games tend to age better though, graphically. Heroes of Might and Magic 3, for example, still looks decent today, but oldschool FPS games are simply horrible to look at.

PS. Yes, I do know that the old fans will probably flame me for the comments above. I am such an old fan myself, but I do try to be realistic about things. You can't expect the buyer of a game today to have played the prequel made 10 years ago, so the game must be appealing to a new audience as well as the old one.

Corwin July 14th, 2007 02:09

Well FO2 is currently on my HD and I've been playing it very recently. It's still the great game it was when I bought it on release!! I hate 'fast paced' action games!!!!

Incendiary Lemon July 14th, 2007 04:28

The Escapist has been on my reading list for ages now, they've run some great articles in the past. I was surprised by the Editorial though. The author appears to be unfamiliar with the ground he arguing on and is unwillingly to accept legitimate criticism. I'm not bothered by his argument but he could have been far more straight forward in his method*. He did fix a dating issue in the piece but he made no note of it outside the comment thread. That seems to me poor form. I was taught corrections should be visible to the reader but then the internet isn't print media.


* I suppose I should explain that. You express your fondness of thing or topic to gain legitimacy but then use that credibility to take it apart. Done well it can be persuasive but done badly it reduces the credibility of the author. I believe his piece would have been far stronger if he'd tacked the other direction and pointed out the genuine advantages to doing Fallout in the Bethesda mode. Something on the order of "Its not Fallout as you knew it but it can stand on its own." I for one love the idea of exploring a ruined Washington DC. I do think it would be fun to see the vault door roll open. Neither though diminish the merit of the previous two titles which was his assertion.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:23.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch