Fallout 3/Oblivion Comparison

[dtuner]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Fallout 3 has become pretty much the horror for Fallout fans, so such a question isn't as odd as it seems at first.

As a Fallout fan, I just do not understand people like this.
Has anyone played Mass Effect?
Mass Effect didn't live up to everyone's expectations (including mine), but it's still a fantastic 3rd-person view RPG. The combat is exiting and very immersive. There is a ton of strategy that goes into winning a battle.

I just don't get the hate.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by dtuner

<snip>
From what I've seen so far, all of the elements which make Fallout will be there in the new 3D version. The 2D, Iso-linear perspective isn't what "makes" Fallout. Saying that actually takes-away from the series, and is an outrage.
The storyline, art, perk system, the witty/dark humor, the post-apocalyptic violence, the vaults and mutants, the weapons and items, etc. These are the things that make Fallout what it is. <snip>

Which almost none of it so far have seemed to make it into the game from the (sparse) previews of the game.

Originally Posted by dtuner

<snip>
Now just imagine that Fallout world in 3D, and as vast and free-roaming as Oblivion!! Oh man... I for one cannot wait to immerse myself in that new world. I've loved the idea of post-apocalyptic survival since watching MAD MAX. And with this new itieration of Fallout, I'll be able to do just that!

3D doesn't mean first person view or "over the shoulder" type third person view.
Whether the graphics is 2D or 3D doesn't mean anything for view point. You could have 3D with isometric view point just as well.

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by dtuner

I just don't understand the people who are waving their fists at Bethesda for making the new Fallout3 in 3D. What did you expect to otherwise be the natural progression of modern gaming?

"Natural progression"? What is this, evolutionary theory 101? There is no "natural progression" in game design, that's nonsense.

And nobody objects to Fallout 3 being 3D. Van Buren was 3D, everyone was fine with that.

Originally Posted by dtuner

Saying that actually takes-away from the series, and is an outrage.
The storyline, art, perk system, the witty/dark humor, the post-apocalyptic violence, the vaults and mutants, the weapons and items, etc. These are the things that make Fallout what it is.

Barring post-apocalyptic violence (not sure what that is) and the vault design, none of those things have been seen in Fallout 3 so far. I certainly didn't see them in the demo.

[dtuner]

Originally Posted by Xandax

Which almost none of it so far have seemed to make it into the game from the (sparse) previews of the game.

You just said it yourself... What the heck do you, or anyone else know about what is or is not included in the game, since we've barely seen anything more than artist renderings and half-a-dozen screenshots???
Relax man.

3D doesn't mean first person view or "over the shoulder" type third person view.
Whether the graphics is 2D or 3D doesn't mean anything for view point. You could have 3D with isometric view point just as well.

Please explain yourself here.

[dtuner]

Originally Posted by Brother None

"Natural progression"? What is this, evolutionary theory 101? There is no "natural progression" in game design, that's nonsense.

Of course there is! Don't just argue for the sake of fanboy arguing. The course of progression is from the original medium for games in the world >
2 dimensional boards played with pieces representing 2 dimensional points on that board. In gaming this would translate to the Atari-style of gaming we used to love.
The ultimate goal of a game is to immerse you into the game's world, yes?
Well the ultimate level of immersion would be to actually put you in the game, ala Virtual Simulation (ex: Lawnmover Man).
The Oblivion/Mass Effect style games bring us closer to this point of view. In fact they seem to immerse you into the game world, even moreso than FPS games do.

[dtuner]

Originally Posted by Brother None

Barring post-apocalyptic violence (not sure what that is) and the vault design, none of those things have been seen in Fallout 3 so far. I certainly didn't see them in the demo.

What Demo???? The Bus teaser video?
*sigh* These few posts were my first attempt at giving my opinion on Fallout 3.
NOW I understand how difficult people can be about a 15 year-old gaming style.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by dtuner

You just said it yourself... What the heck do you, or anyone else know about what is or is not included in the game, since we've barely seen anything more than artist renderings and half-a-dozen screenshots???
Relax man.
<snip>

Well, given all logical sense it would be much wiser to judge content on what we can see, rather then what you assume is there. And so far content has been shown to be lacking the elements you mention outside names, whereas you just assume it is there because Bethesda "says" so.

Originally Posted by dtuner

<snip>
Please explain yourself here.

Easy.
2D and 3D is a technology with dimensions - aka 2 dimension (x and y axis) compared to 3 dimension (x, y and z axis)
Viewpoint is how you view the game, meaning perspective.

The 2 are different aspects of a game and not relates outside the fact that many people seem to think that first person view (or third person over the shoulder) equals 3D - however that is not the case by far.

You can have 2D first person view point (as have been done multiple times in the past) just as well as you can have isometric 3D view point.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by dtuner

Of course there is! Don't just argue for the sake of fanboy arguing. <snip>

This is me putting on my moderator hat.
Don't go throwing around "fanboy" as a derogatory term simply because you a) do not understand the argument or b) disagree with it.
People are entitled to their opinions as long as they are conveyed in a respectful manner, even if you do not agree with them.


__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

[dtuner]

Originally Posted by Xandax

This is me putting on my moderator hat.
Don't go throwing around "fanboy" as a derogatory term simply because you a) do not understand the argument or b) disagree with it.
People are entitled to their opinions as long as they are conveyed in a respectful manner, even if you do not agree with them.


__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

When a moderator takes sides in a discussion, that's when I realize there's no way to get through to the old generation of Fallout players, no matter what point you try to make.
While the Fallout geriatrics argue, and comment, and fight over this detail and that, I'll be purchasing Fallout3 the day it is released (and so will you) and enjoying it to it's fullest.
These forums are just a waste of time, and a place for complainers to do what they do best, from the safety of their keyboards, where nobody can get get them in that big scary place called life.

I'm done.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by dtuner

When a moderator takes sides in a discussion, that's when I realize there's no way to get through to the old generation of Fallout players, no matter what point you try to make.
While the Fallout geriatrics argue, and comment, and fight over this detail and that, I'll be purchasing Fallout3 the day it is released (and so will you) and enjoying it to it's fullest.
These forums are just a waste of time, and a place for complainers to do what they do best, from the safety of their keyboards, where nobody can get get them in that big scary place called life.

I'm done.

Again you go after the person instead of the argument.
In case you hadn't noticed, one can have an opinion and still be a moderator and keep the two roles separate.
My opinion of Fallout aside, if you can't argue/debate with people without getting personal, then perhaps a forum isn't the place for you to be to begin with.

Now, if you want to debate the moderating you can take it to the Private Messages either with myself or BuckGB.
Regardless, this thread should go back on topic and subsequent "off topic" posts, or further disrespectful posts towards the person instead of the arguments (with counter arguments) will be removed.

__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by dtuner

Of course there is! Don't just argue for the sake of fanboy arguing. The course of progression is from the original medium for games in the world >
2 dimensional boards played with pieces representing 2 dimensional points on that board. In gaming this would translate to the Atari-style of gaming we used to love.

That's good, but it doesn't show some kind of "natural progression". My problem with that concept is that it defines game development that is on some kind of mono-linear track, with every game heading in the same direction. That's asinine, why would all games have to develop the same way? Why wouldn't there be alternative, creative styles of development?

Originally Posted by dtuner

The ultimate goal of a game is to immerse you into the game's world, yes?
Well the ultimate level of immersion would be to actually put you in the game, ala Virtual Simulation (ex: Lawnmover Man).

This is highly debatable. Some games have a pure purpose to immerse you, yes, but why should all games try to do only that? Do you have a problem with other people preferring other play-styles?

Originally Posted by dtuner

What Demo???? The Bus teaser video?
*sigh* These few posts were my first attempt at giving my opinion on Fallout 3.
NOW I understand how difficult people can be about a 15 year-old gaming style.

The 45-minute press demo, I saw it at GDC. It showed few of the elements you named. That doesn't mean they won't be in the game per definition, it just means they haven't been spotted yet.

And I don't see anyone being difficult, really.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

Originally Posted by Brother None

This is highly debatable. Some games have a pure purpose to immerse you, yes, but why should all games try to do only that? Do you have a problem with other people preferring other play-styles?

I agree that not all games try to do that. But when it comes to RPGs, the better ones will indeed feel immersive to the player, even if the game isn't trying. I know this is just a matter of preferences and I have just stated mine, for all it's worth.

Originally Posted by dtuner

These forums are just a waste of time, and a place for complainers to do what they do best, from the safety of their keyboards, where nobody can get get them in that big scary place called life.

If that is indeed true, why did you end up joining in the first place? Not to mention go after gamers trying to make a point... Moderators are people too, and they have the right to have thier own opinions, no?

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by Loki[D.d.G]

I agree that not all games try to do that. But when it comes to RPGs, the better ones will indeed feel immersive to the player, even if the game isn't trying.

Sure, but should they then all try to feel immersive with the same methods?

It's this mono-linear, "all games must be designed like this" attitude that I never get. What is it with the mainstream fear of what's different? Why the aversion to change?

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by Brother None

Sure, but should they then all try to feel immersive with the same methods?

It's this mono-linear, "all games must be designed like this" attitude that I never get. What is it with the mainstream fear of what's different? Why the aversion to change?

It's actually easy to answer to that question: The fear comes from the fact that with everything new, there is higher possibility that the the big audience doesn't like it. Thus, the sale would be lower. But if the method, way of development or anything else has already been tried, and noted to be succesfull and increasing the sale, the risks are lower to use.

So, everything new contains big risk, and not many developer team wants such risk when there is other ways to get "easy" money. The sale, after all, means much more to them.

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by Kipi

It's actually easy to answer to that question: The fear comes from the fact that with everything new, there is higher possibility that the the big audience doesn't like it. Thus, the sale would be lower. But if the method, way of development or anything else has already been tried, and noted to be succesfull and increasing the sale, the risks are lower to use.

So, everything new contains big risk, and not many developer team wants such risk when there is other ways to get "easy" money. The sale, after all, means much more to them.

Well, yes, that covers the develop side. But the consumers also seem to have problems with it. Why is there such a huge consumer group that reviles the idea of games not being first person or real-time? Do they have problems with products being made that they wouldn't enjoy but other people would?