By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - New Fallout 3 Screens

rocketpig on 08 April 2008

You should like ME, Naz. It's easily my favorite WRPG since KOTOR. It's more structured, the characters are interesting, and there are consequences to your actions (though not in the extreme like Fallout). It's a little restricted simply because it's the first in the series and has to set up two more games. The last two or three hours really kick ass, though.

As for Oblivion, I think it really could have been great. All Bethesda needed to do was:

- Lose the scaling creatures. Lame. Just lame.
- Tighten up the story (or actually just putting one in there would have been a start)
- Add real consequences to actions. Rape a town and prepare for hell to break loose for your character. This easily could have tied into the guild system as a safety net for unruly players.
- Limit the player a bit and make him/her make real choices (Am I a thief, assassin, fighter, or what? Not all of them)

Really, other than the story, those things are just gameplay tweaks and wouldn't have been much more difficult to create than what Bethesda ending up going with. I saw a lot of potential in Oblivion and not a lot of intelligent execution.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
blaydcor on 08 April 2008
BCNR34 said:
that dog looks terrible

Man, when I was growing up, dogs in videogames looked like this:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_A5FLMSyGX4M/R1I1iVmguwI/AAAAAAAAAGo/j5CtjHsGq18/s320/DuckHuntDog.jpg%3Cbr">>

That is not, by any mean, a bad dog. People are too anal about graphics these days.

 



Crusty VGchartz old timer who sporadically returns & posts. Let's debate nebulous shit and expand our perpectives. Or whatever.

naznatips on 08 April 2008
rocketpig said:
You should like ME, Naz. It's easily my favorite WRPG since KOTOR. It's more structured, the characters are interesting, and there are consequences to your actions (though not in the extreme like Fallout). It's a little restricted simply because it's the first in the series and has to set up two more games. The last two or three hours really kick ass, though.

As for Oblivion, I think it really could have been great. All Bethesda needed to do was:

- Lose the scaling creatures. Lame. Just lame.
- Tighten up the story (or actually just putting one in there would have been a start)
- Add real consequences to actions. Rape a town and prepare for hell to break loose for your character. This easily could have tied into the guild system as a safety net for unruly players.
- Limit the player a bit and make him/her make real choices (Am I a thief, assassin, fighter, or what? Not all of them)

Really, other than the story, those things are just gameplay tweaks and wouldn't have been much more difficult to create than what Bethesda ending up going with. I saw a lot of potential in Oblivion and not a lot of intelligent execution.

You forgot a "not unbelievably bad" combat system. >_>



Kasz216 on 08 April 2008
rocketpig said:
Oblivion had some strong points and with a little tweaking, could have been a definitive RPG.

I just think that Bethesda went over the top with the options. I really dislike the idea of becoming guild leader for every guild and basically walking through the game with few consequences for your actions. Take Fallout 2, for example. One of my favorite things about the game were the consequences and labels like "Child Killer" and "Slaver". Fuck around too much and the game slaps you hard for it.

In Oblivion, there was too little direction and too few repercussions for doing things like killing an entire town. They throw you in jail... Whoopee... Do that in Fallout and you might have to start the game over because you can't go anywhere without a fight. A little extreme, yes, but completely rewarding.

Huh. So they toned that down from Morrowind eh? If the town guards saw you kill someone in obivion they just wasted your ass i believe.

Though it was lacking as far as "investigating" went. It was too easy to pull off the "perfect" crime by just killing someone indoors or something... and if you did get good enough to where you could handle a guard or two nobody came after you.

Still it was fun turning into a werewolf, killing and feeding on people then darting out of town to transform back so you weren't branded a murderer.

Still the Elder Scroll games are like GTA games.  You end up spending most of your time screwing around rather then doing missions. 



Words Of Wisdom on 08 April 2008
naznatips said:
rocketpig said:
naznatips said:

Truly my biggest fear is that it will have the same major faults of Oblivion:

1) Repetitive dungeon design.
2) Unbelievably dull and simplistic combat.
3) Hours of nothing. (lots of content-less land)

They kept talking about how desolate the world of Fallout is and how there shouldn't be that much in it, but that's ridiculous. Fallout and Fallout 2 were stuffed full of content. You never wandered aimlessly like you did in Oblivion, because there was tons of interesting stuff to explore (as opposed to millions of rocks, tress, and hills).


Don't forget about the wolves. You couldn't walk down a path without tripping over three of the bastards.


They are part of the crappy world design. Heh, you mentioned Oblivion could have been a defining WRPG. I think it is a defining WRPG, as it stands out as such a piece of crap in a once glorious genre. I miss the days of Diablo 2, Baldur's Gate 2, Fallout 2, Deus Ex, KOTOR, and System Shock 2.

I see most WRPGs in the last 5 years as signs of massive decay in the genre, and it makes me sad. In the late 90s and early part of the decade it was easily my favorite genre, but now I'm trying to find a reason not to hate it. Here's to hoping Mass Effect gives me at least a glimmer of hope when I buy it on PC soon.


Did you really just put Diablo 2 along side the likes of BG2, FO2, and KotOR?   I'm sorry but that's even less of an RPG than Zelda.



Around the Network
rocketpig on 08 April 2008
naznatips said:
rocketpig said:
You should like ME, Naz. It's easily my favorite WRPG since KOTOR. It's more structured, the characters are interesting, and there are consequences to your actions (though not in the extreme like Fallout). It's a little restricted simply because it's the first in the series and has to set up two more games. The last two or three hours really kick ass, though.

As for Oblivion, I think it really could have been great. All Bethesda needed to do was:

- Lose the scaling creatures. Lame. Just lame.
- Tighten up the story (or actually just putting one in there would have been a start)
- Add real consequences to actions. Rape a town and prepare for hell to break loose for your character. This easily could have tied into the guild system as a safety net for unruly players.
- Limit the player a bit and make him/her make real choices (Am I a thief, assassin, fighter, or what? Not all of them)

Really, other than the story, those things are just gameplay tweaks and wouldn't have been much more difficult to create than what Bethesda ending up going with. I saw a lot of potential in Oblivion and not a lot of intelligent execution.

You forgot a "not unbelievably bad" combat system. >_>


I didn't hate the combat system as much as you did. I think it was definitely uninspired and quirky but I didn't despise it. Didn't like it much, either. The part I hated most was the first person perspective and the third person perspective's animations were broken.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

largedarryl on 08 April 2008
Onepiece said:
I love Oblivion....I never played a Fallout game what is the difference between Fallout/Oblivion?

Fallout in modern time....Oblvion in medieval times?

Comments like this make me cry inside.  Fallout 3 will be like Oblivion in a post-apacalyptic world.  The original Fallouts have nothing in commen with the original Elder Scrolls.



naznatips on 08 April 2008
Words Of Wisdom said:

Did you really just put Diablo 2 along side the likes of BG2, FO2, and KotOR? I'm sorry but that's even less of an RPG than Zelda.


So you're basically saying you have no idea what an RPG is?

Diablo has the one thing that all RPGs must have: An adjustable stat increase system influenced by some sort of leveling up.  But it also has dungeons, equipment, and pretty much every other WRPG stereotype.   



rocketpig on 08 April 2008
naznatips said:
Words Of Wisdom said:

Did you really just put Diablo 2 along side the likes of BG2, FO2, and KotOR? I'm sorry but that's even less of an RPG than Zelda.


So you're basically saying you have no idea what an RPG is?

Diablo has the one thing that all RPGs must have: An adjustable stat increase system influenced by some sort of leveling up. But it also has dungeons, equipment, and pretty much every other WRPG stereotype.


While I can't think of another RPG quite like Diablo and its oddities, I definitely consider it an RPG.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

naznatips on 08 April 2008
rocketpig said:
naznatips said:
Words Of Wisdom said:

Did you really just put Diablo 2 along side the likes of BG2, FO2, and KotOR? I'm sorry but that's even less of an RPG than Zelda.


So you're basically saying you have no idea what an RPG is?

Diablo has the one thing that all RPGs must have: An adjustable stat increase system influenced by some sort of leveling up. But it also has dungeons, equipment, and pretty much every other WRPG stereotype.


While I can't think of another RPG quite like Diablo and its oddities, I definitely consider it an RPG.


It's not really that unique in it's design overall. There were a lot of games with similar style like the Might and Magic games. They were basically the same thing minus the 3rd person perspective (and with less cool powers). Not to mention...

Every website I've seen lists it as an RPG.