View Single Post

Default 

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.
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#18

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,564
Send a message via MSN to Maylander