Would you buy Fallout 3 if...

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by DarkUnderlord, May 15, 2002.

  1. DarkUnderlord

    DarkUnderlord Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Apr 6, 2003
    Let's say you're browsing your local software store and there, sitting on the shelf, is "Fallout 3". Now, would you buy it if:

    1. It had EXACTLY the same graphics and engine as Fallout 1 & 2
    2. It was turn-based (no real-time option)
    3. There was NO multi-player capability (as in FO1 & 2)
    4. The story was set in a time about 10 years before FO1
    5. The story wa set in a COMPLETELY different place from FO1 & FO2
    6. The story has NO reference to FO1 or FO2
    7. There were about the same guns as FO1, not the over-done (IMO) amount as in FO2

    The question is, would you buy it or would you ignore it?

    [link:users.senet.com.au/~dbschah/|DarkUnderlord]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://server3003.freeyellow.com/darkunderlord/images/signature_cow.gif
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moo..... Moo.... I'm an Interplay Cow. (Ready to be milked with a Fallout style MMORPG with aliens!)
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Positives and Negatives associated with the proposed idea.

    1. The exact same graphics engine as FO1/2 would be a mistake because they could just as easily take the one from FOT which is better. This would be a definite negative but would not be so detrimental as to warrant ignoring it.

    2. No real-time option. SO WHAT. The option to go real time was of almost no use what-so-ever in FOT. I only used it with turrets. And that was just to either A. Run past them. B. Fire at them from long range with my sniper who could attack them without fear of being attacked back. C. SO it was basically a wasted option used only as a time saver in what otherwise be a protracted event in turn based. Not having it in the game would be a positive because then the game would be designed around not having its existence.

    3. No multi-player capability. Ahhh... too bad. Multi-player isnt all that great in its current form so big deal.

    4-5. 10 years before FO1 where. Like maybe east coast might be interesting to see what was developing there. But if it were South East Asia, I'm sorry it just wouldnt seem like a Post Apocalyptic game there. So it is a toss-up as to whether good or bad. Probably good.

    6. No reference to either FO might not be such a bad thing. If the place is so different as that there realistically should be no contact then I do not forsee any reason for that to be a detrimental factor to the game.

    7. The same guns as FO1 I might have a problem with. In all of the FO's except Tactics, Big Guns was basically a useless skill. I would like to see more ability to use Big Guns because 1. Flame Throwers and the like are COOL and 2. Big Guns realistically take shit apart big time. So if it were the same guns but the big guns were changed to be more useful then sure, but in their current forms no.

    All in all positive weighed against negative, I certainly would not ignore the game. I might wait and see how the gamers recieve the game before I buy it, but I would definitely not ignore it.
     
  3. Roshambo

    Roshambo Antediluvian as Feck

    Apr 3, 2003
    [font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON May-15-02 AT 06:49PM (GMT)[p]>1. The exact same graphics engine as FO1/2 would be a mistake because they could just as easily take the one from FOT which is better. This would be a definite negative but would not be so detrimental as to warrant ignoring it.

    No, using the FOT engine would be a mistake.

    1. Buggy as hell. Crash-happy.
    2. Broken game-mechanics or flaws in them.
    3. "Balance" is the biggest joke I've heard all year.
    4. The engine is sadly limited.
    5. Not much of an improvement, overall, for the flaws it has.
     
  4. APTYP

    APTYP Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Apr 2, 2003
    [font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON May-16-02 AT 02:47AM (GMT)[p]I'm a smart one - I will wait until others buy it, then wait for couple of months and see what they say about that game. But I seriously doubt I will buy any game, let alone anything from Fallout franchise.

    And just some personal opinion here - I think the "feature-thinking" approach is a bad thing. You could have a shitty storyline, but if it falls in synch with the rest of the game, it served its purpose just as good as the one from Planescape:Torment. It's all about the big picture.
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ok sorry Rosh, Maybe should have been more clear about what would be necessary. The graphics for FOT were clearly better than that of FO1/2. Sure there were scripting errors and errors in the coding but that can be changed.
     
  6. Roshambo

    Roshambo Antediluvian as Feck

    Apr 3, 2003
    >Ok sorry Rosh, Maybe should
    >have been more clear about
    >what would be necessary.
    >The graphics for FOT were
    >clearly better than that of
    >FO1/2. Sure there were
    >scripting errors and errors in
    >the coding but that can
    >be changed.

    Only through a miracle or two and an assload (more than a year with a full dev team, at least) of work on it. When I mentioned limitations, I wasn't being mild in that statement. I'm referring to the quest ability being not much more than that of Darkstone, and the engine is sloppy and a sleazy hack. Matters like speech tree support and much more would take an incredible amount of time. Fallout's engine was made specific and did the job good for what it was for, the re-hack of Fallout 2 was quite sloppy in parts.

    It might look pretty, but that's about the only good thing of note you can say for it. First you'd have to un-screw everything that was half-assed to begin with, THEN you would have to work on new items. You'd have much better results using the engine from Jagged Alliance 2, licensing would probably be not too much of a problem given Sir-Tech's state of affairs. At least that bit of code works right, and isn't a nightmate to go through (since it had a REAL development time of about 3 years). For a team to go through the Phoenix Engine's code and try to learn that nightmare and then build upon that, good luck. I haven't taken a look at the source of the Phoenix Engine, yet I can tell you that it's a real sleazy hack, possibly due to MicroForte using FOT to get some money for their BigWorld project and also cull off some MicroForte employees at the same time.
     
  7. [PCE]el_Prez

    [PCE]el_Prez Vault Fossil

    Apr 25, 2003
    you could always do the next best thing.. pirating....MUAHHAAHAHAHAHA
     
  8. Daemon Spawn

    Daemon Spawn Guest

    I would buy three copies on the spot.
     
  9. Daemon Spawn

    Daemon Spawn Guest

    I would buy three copies on the spot.
     
  10. DarkUnderlord

    DarkUnderlord Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Apr 6, 2003
    >I would buy three copies on
    >the spot.
    Is that why you posted twice? :)

    [link:users.senet.com.au/~dbschah/|DarkUnderlord]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://server3003.freeyellow.com/darkunderlord/images/signature_cow.gif
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moo..... Moo.... I'm an Interplay Cow. (Ready to be milked with a Fallout style MMORPG with aliens!)