JemyM
Okay, now roll sanity.
- Joined
- October 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
This will be a rant. I will play the devils advocate for a moment and I will even be so blasphemous that I dare to openly criticize a developer to which I confess I am a complete fanboy.
I cannot subscribe to comparing Fallout 3 to Morrowind/Oblivion and frankly I consider that comparison blind, unfair and maybe even biting the hand that feeds you. Let me play the devils advocate and change perspective for once.
First up, Fallout 3 and Oblivion will have essentially the same amount of similarities that Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire had, or why not Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale? Reusing the same engine is only natural and if there are any rule about developing a game, it's that the second game using the same engine will ultimately be better than the first one. In the end, the game is in the game, not in it's engine!
Now. A Role-playing game to me have nothing to do about the interface. That's a point in which I know many will disagree, but it wont give you the rights to claim that real cRPG's cannot be played in First-Person. First-person feels absolutely right for me for a roleplaying game, a perspective I have had since Ultima on C64. The first era of RPG's were almost ALWAYS in first-person, from Wizardry, to Dungeon Master, To Might and Magic to Eye of the Beholder. It feels right because it means you are your character and you see the world through your characters eyes. Play a game like Deus Ex and System Shock 2 and tell me that first-person isn't natural for a roleplaying game. First-person is simply great if you wish to build immersion, just watch this trailer about Far Cry 2 and you will see what I talk about.
I also am not bothered by an FPS mode. I loved Deus Ex and System Shock 2, and I loved Vampire: Bloodlines which is highly regarded by most cRPG fans that I have encountered. I also loved S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and BioShock. I haven't seen that many complain about Mass Effect that can be played just like a shooter if you want to.
I had enough about turn-based in Pools of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor. A pause-function to execute commands is ok, but suffering through a whole battle turn-based is just one thing that I wish to leave in the past. I didn't see anyone complain about the lack of turnbased in Mask of the Betrayer or Planescape Torment.
Now let me allow myself to be critical against Bioware/Obsidian (who to me are the spiritual remains of Black Isle, unless you count Troika who now are dead) and explain what Bethesda do right!.
First; what does Fallout have IN COMMON with Oblivion and Morrowind? They are free-roaming, open-ended and non-linear. I have always preferred that style of roleplaying games (Gothic, Arcanum etc) and I even enjoyed First-Person Shooters that offers that sense of freedom, such as Far Cry and Crysis. Now if we would have a new Fallout from Obsidian or Bioware today, it would have been strictly scripted and static, with a great story but with severely dumbed down mechanics.
Second; Fallout 3 will be the first roleplaying game in ages with multiple social skills. Suck on that for awhile... The original Fallout came out in the 90'ies... but how many sucessful roleplaying games during the recent years can you mention that have multiple non-combat skills? Mass Effect had two, and they had essentially the same usage, simply aligned to the path you took through the game. You were usually offered to use both skills in the same situations and the outcome were almost always the same. Neverwinter Nights 2 had a wider range of possibilities for your characters, but how successful was the game among fans of cRPG's? Many still consider it a "terrible game".
If Bethesda manages to convince mainstream that social skills are fun, then maybe a new era in roleplaying games can be born. This might, however be the last chance ever that a "social" RPG's is made by a large developer. If reviewers complains over the social skills, then it's game over for the whole genré. No large developer will ever give them a chance again.
Finally; Fallout 3 seems to contain real moral choices. Bioware/Obsidian have now boiled themselves down to "Good/Evil", an option that I find completely uninteresting and usually boils down to "forgive everything that threatens you" to "burn everybody who supports you[/b]. Real moral choices have no obvious "right" answer. In fact, the old perspective "chaotic/lawful" was more interesting than good/evil. I do not even believe in good/evil anymore.
So there you go. To summarize, the complaints against Fallout 3 is counter-productive and most of them hypocritical considering that pretty much everything people complains about have already been successfully tried by other developers and then met with praise. Fallout 3 actually reintroduces several aspects which most RPG developers wouldn't even consider today. A rather daring move in a changed market.
I cannot subscribe to comparing Fallout 3 to Morrowind/Oblivion and frankly I consider that comparison blind, unfair and maybe even biting the hand that feeds you. Let me play the devils advocate and change perspective for once.
First up, Fallout 3 and Oblivion will have essentially the same amount of similarities that Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire had, or why not Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale? Reusing the same engine is only natural and if there are any rule about developing a game, it's that the second game using the same engine will ultimately be better than the first one. In the end, the game is in the game, not in it's engine!
Now. A Role-playing game to me have nothing to do about the interface. That's a point in which I know many will disagree, but it wont give you the rights to claim that real cRPG's cannot be played in First-Person. First-person feels absolutely right for me for a roleplaying game, a perspective I have had since Ultima on C64. The first era of RPG's were almost ALWAYS in first-person, from Wizardry, to Dungeon Master, To Might and Magic to Eye of the Beholder. It feels right because it means you are your character and you see the world through your characters eyes. Play a game like Deus Ex and System Shock 2 and tell me that first-person isn't natural for a roleplaying game. First-person is simply great if you wish to build immersion, just watch this trailer about Far Cry 2 and you will see what I talk about.
I also am not bothered by an FPS mode. I loved Deus Ex and System Shock 2, and I loved Vampire: Bloodlines which is highly regarded by most cRPG fans that I have encountered. I also loved S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and BioShock. I haven't seen that many complain about Mass Effect that can be played just like a shooter if you want to.
I had enough about turn-based in Pools of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor. A pause-function to execute commands is ok, but suffering through a whole battle turn-based is just one thing that I wish to leave in the past. I didn't see anyone complain about the lack of turnbased in Mask of the Betrayer or Planescape Torment.
Now let me allow myself to be critical against Bioware/Obsidian (who to me are the spiritual remains of Black Isle, unless you count Troika who now are dead) and explain what Bethesda do right!.
First; what does Fallout have IN COMMON with Oblivion and Morrowind? They are free-roaming, open-ended and non-linear. I have always preferred that style of roleplaying games (Gothic, Arcanum etc) and I even enjoyed First-Person Shooters that offers that sense of freedom, such as Far Cry and Crysis. Now if we would have a new Fallout from Obsidian or Bioware today, it would have been strictly scripted and static, with a great story but with severely dumbed down mechanics.
Second; Fallout 3 will be the first roleplaying game in ages with multiple social skills. Suck on that for awhile... The original Fallout came out in the 90'ies... but how many sucessful roleplaying games during the recent years can you mention that have multiple non-combat skills? Mass Effect had two, and they had essentially the same usage, simply aligned to the path you took through the game. You were usually offered to use both skills in the same situations and the outcome were almost always the same. Neverwinter Nights 2 had a wider range of possibilities for your characters, but how successful was the game among fans of cRPG's? Many still consider it a "terrible game".
If Bethesda manages to convince mainstream that social skills are fun, then maybe a new era in roleplaying games can be born. This might, however be the last chance ever that a "social" RPG's is made by a large developer. If reviewers complains over the social skills, then it's game over for the whole genré. No large developer will ever give them a chance again.
Finally; Fallout 3 seems to contain real moral choices. Bioware/Obsidian have now boiled themselves down to "Good/Evil", an option that I find completely uninteresting and usually boils down to "forgive everything that threatens you" to "burn everybody who supports you[/b]. Real moral choices have no obvious "right" answer. In fact, the old perspective "chaotic/lawful" was more interesting than good/evil. I do not even believe in good/evil anymore.
So there you go. To summarize, the complaints against Fallout 3 is counter-productive and most of them hypocritical considering that pretty much everything people complains about have already been successfully tried by other developers and then met with praise. Fallout 3 actually reintroduces several aspects which most RPG developers wouldn't even consider today. A rather daring move in a changed market.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027