|
On June 23 2015 23:23 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 23:15 FeyFey wrote:
maybe because it had fps elements ? Warcraft 3 was heavily criticized for its rpg elements. Thats what happens if a game goes really heavily into another genre. People that fear change will be really vocal about them.
Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are extremely highly regarded in the RPG community. Aversion to first person shooter gameplay is a really poor argument here.
Completely agreed. Also sales numbers are not a good indicator on how good an RPG game is. Fallout 3 introduces 3D first person view of Fallout universe which is it's strong point. But this requires a decent engine which is not even remotely connected with a good RPG game. RPG games tend to endure time(T. Cain's words not me) and graphics begin to decay as the game releases, the RPG core stays over time. Fallout is failed in that aspect imo.
|
Is good RPG basically code for “An RPG that appeals to my tastes”? As an avid player of table top RPGs, there are all favors of RPG games out there and it’s all about what you are looking for.
|
On June 23 2015 22:58 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 22:05 Plansix wrote:
The same could be said for people who dislike Fallout 3. Most people love that game. I don't have the numbers but I know F3 is heavily criticized and mostly not received well in RPG community.
Well, apparently that "RPG community" (or rather, the part of it that makes up the rabid fanbase of the first two fallout games) must have been so small that Bethesda could just pretend it didn't exist and persue their own vision of what makes both a good Fallout game and a game that will sell well.
Developers have no obligation whatsoever to the people who played a game franchise when it was in its infancy. If you don't like a game, just don't play it and ignore it. Complaining about how Fallout 1 and 2 were superior in every conceivable way in your opinion is quite pointless. It's not as if Bethesda executives will happen upon the Fallout 4 thread on teamliquid.net, read the comments of the fans of the first two games and "mend their ways".
|
Even though I agree RPG is not a well defined taste, bad RPG is a topic relatively can be agreed upon.
If you think this This kind of story telling appeals you more instead of this, probably we think very very differently.
If you are an avid pnp RPG player, you already knew that a good GM is one of the key factors of creating a good RPG experience. I don't think Bethesda is a good GM, it is below mediocre imo.
|
On June 23 2015 23:40 Plansix wrote:
Is good RPG basically code for “An RPG that appeals to my tastes”? As an avid player of table top RPGs, there are all favors of RPG games out there and it’s all about what you are looking for.
I agree with you; I think the problem here is that there are two classes of RPG gamers, and one will prefer the Bethesda dialogue while others will prefer Deus Ex-type (or early Fallout) dialogue. And beyond that the casual gamers will want to play a more relaxed game, in that you have more goofy situations, you don't have to think too hard about how to develop your character, etc. I think its best if everyone just recognizes that; one group enjoys the simpler experience, another wants something more, and there isn't anything "wrong" with either camp. But often it is assumed in these conversations that the group that prefers deep dialogue is the 'correct' group, which isn't necessarily justified.
|
Oh, you know, games are mainstream nowadays, there is no excuse for RPG to have subpar story or writing. If the guy that is doing story writing for you is cousin of your friend who used to love reading books and even wrote a novel and you found him perfectly viable for the job 10 years ago, things have QUITE changed.
There is no excuse anymore, same as you can criticize movies for doing stupid shit and having terrible plots, same thing can be applied to games. It's the mainstream.
Also this "stop criticizing games if you don't like em!". Erm, what. This is discussion board, i'm feeling very entitled to criticize something i paid for and felt quite dissapointed with. If companies decide to ignore it, it's of course perfectly fine, i will just buy the game at sale 1 year later for 75% less cash instead of paying full price at relase.
|
I think the main reason this topic has come up is any thread for a new fallout game gets detailed by people proclaiming their love for the previous games and shitting on the new ones. I'm all for people having their opinions on Fallout 3, but maybe they should pick a different venue.
Then again, this isn't a terrible discussion about personal taste being subjective.
|
On June 24 2015 00:32 Narw wrote:
Oh, you know, games are mainstream nowadays, there is no excuse for RPG to have subpar story or writing. If the guy that is doing story writing for you is cousin of your friend who used to love reading books and even wrote a novel and you found him perfectly viable for the job 10 years ago, things have QUITE changed.
Sure there is. Game writing is hard, and most of the audience doesn't care whether the writing is good or not. It's a lot more effort than it's actually worth to produce a well written game.
On June 23 2015 23:40 Plansix wrote:
Is good RPG basically code for “An RPG that appeals to my tastes”? As an avid player of table top RPGs, there are all favors of RPG games out there and it’s all about what you are looking for.
Well it's really just the same as how people will defend Starcraft as the best RTS/esports game ever made, or call DotA the best moba on the market.
People will adamantly defend their subjective preferences as objective truths. That said, there are established RPG communities that are as well-versed in the genre as TL is on Starcraft, and consider their vision of the genre to be more valid because of it. And for the same reason TL is considered to a bastion of all things Starcraft, there is at least some validity to that.
Though really, most of the established RPG communities that dislike Bethesda Fallout realized they dislike Bethesda years ago, lol.
On June 24 2015 00:02 maartendq wrote:
Well, apparently that "RPG community" (or rather, the part of it that makes up the rabid fanbase of the first two fallout games) must have been so small that Bethesda could just pretend it didn't exist and persue their own vision of what makes both a good Fallout game and a game that will sell well.
Yes, that's true. And it's true of every other mainstream game genre as well.
Teamliquid whining about E-sports and whether or not Blizzard chooses to listen also probably had zero impact on the bottom line for SC2 as well. Niche interest groups being niche doesn't invalidate their perspective on the game and the genre.
|
On June 24 2015 00:02 maartendq wrote:
(or rather, the part of it that makes up the rabid fanbase of the first two fallout games) must have been so small that Bethesda could just pretend it didn't exist
Do you honestly not "get" that this "inconsequential, rabid, butt-hurt handfull of fanboys" is the reason bethasde bought the Fallout name in the first place ? See how that's kinda fucked ?
Also, *cue icecream-shitting taco* "What if we took gamers from all different games, and put them together, in the same game ? Great threads, right ?!?" 
|
On June 24 2015 02:01 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2015 00:02 maartendq wrote:
(or rather, the part of it that makes up the rabid fanbase of the first two fallout games) must have been so small that Bethesda could just pretend it didn't exist Do you honestly not "get" that this "inconsequential, rabid, butt-hurt handfull of fanboys" is the reason bethasde bought the Fallout name in the first place ? See how that's kinda fucked ? Also, *cue icecream-shitting taco* "What if we took gamers from all different games, and put them together, in the same game ? Great threads, right ?!?"
I am sure it had nothing to do with them being fans of the game in the first place and wanting to work on it. Interplay sold it in a fire sale when they were close to bankruptcy. The fanbase was not what made that purchase appealing.
|
Well Bethesda was willing to pay more than Troika was at the very least.
|
On June 24 2015 02:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2015 02:01 HeatEXTEND wrote:On June 24 2015 00:02 maartendq wrote:
(or rather, the part of it that makes up the rabid fanbase of the first two fallout games) must have been so small that Bethesda could just pretend it didn't exist Do you honestly not "get" that this "inconsequential, rabid, butt-hurt handfull of fanboys" is the reason bethasde bought the Fallout name in the first place ? See how that's kinda fucked ? Also, *cue icecream-shitting taco* "What if we took gamers from all different games, and put them together, in the same game ? Great threads, right ?!?" I am sure it had nothing to do with them being fans of the game in the first place and wanting to work on it. Interplay sold it in a fire sale when they were close to bankruptcy. The fanbase was not what made that purchase appealing.
But they named the game Fallout 3 and crammed it full of "nostalgia" ? C'mon now.
|
On June 24 2015 02:49 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2015 02:05 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2015 02:01 HeatEXTEND wrote:On June 24 2015 00:02 maartendq wrote:
(or rather, the part of it that makes up the rabid fanbase of the first two fallout games) must have been so small that Bethesda could just pretend it didn't exist Do you honestly not "get" that this "inconsequential, rabid, butt-hurt handfull of fanboys" is the reason bethasde bought the Fallout name in the first place ? See how that's kinda fucked ? Also, *cue icecream-shitting taco* "What if we took gamers from all different games, and put them together, in the same game ? Great threads, right ?!?" I am sure it had nothing to do with them being fans of the game in the first place and wanting to work on it. Interplay sold it in a fire sale when they were close to bankruptcy. The fanbase was not what made that purchase appealing. But they named the game Fallout 3 and crammed it full of "nostalgia" ? C'mon now.
I am going say something crazy here: maybe they cared about Fallout and wanted to make a new version of it. And I am not saying the fans of Fallout were not important, just not the be all end all.
|
On June 24 2015 02:01 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2015 00:02 maartendq wrote:
(or rather, the part of it that makes up the rabid fanbase of the first two fallout games) must have been so small that Bethesda could just pretend it didn't exist Do you honestly not "get" that this "inconsequential, rabid, butt-hurt handfull of fanboys" is the reason bethasde bought the Fallout name in the first place ? See how that's kinda fucked ? Also, *cue icecream-shitting taco* "What if we took gamers from all different games, and put them together, in the same game ? Great threads, right ?!?"
Actually, no, fanboys are rarely the reason publishers buy IPs. The reason they do buy those IPs is because they can make money out of them, and because they are hell of a lot more easy to market than a fresh IP.
This is essentially why we see this never ending stream of sequels coming out the past few years: Halo 5 will be the 9th halo title if you include the Halo 1 anniversary and the Master Chief editions, Gears of War 4 will be the fifth entry, Bloodborne is a Souls game in all but name, Assassin's Creed is far from dead, there definitely will be a TES VI in two years, Call of Duty is still outselling the competition left and right, etc.
Just think about it: every time a high-profile publisher or developer buys an IP that has a small but passionate fanbase, that fanbase always ends up disappointed because it turns out that the new developer wanted to develop the new entry in the series in accordance to their own views and ideas. As a matter of fact, many of those original fans can't even agree among themselves as to what made the franchise actually great in the first place (proof enough in this thread already): some will like the gameplay, others the atmosphere and story, others will like it purely because of the setting.
|
On June 24 2015 02:59 Plansix wrote:
I am going say something crazy here: maybe they cared about Fallout and wanted to make a new version of it. And I am not saying the fans of Fallout were not important, just not the be all end all.
There's also a difference between "people who played the original game, enjoyed it, and would buy a 3rd game in the franchise based on the name" and "fanboys who consider the original games to be the pinnacle of the genre".
The contrast between the two groups is very clear, especially if we look back on the example of Starcraft 2 and how it was marketed. And there's really nothing wrong with using the franchise name to market to the first group, even if it doesn't necessarily cater to the second.
|
On June 23 2015 21:29 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 20:44 superstartran wrote:On June 23 2015 18:07 daemir wrote:
I don't understand how FO2 had bad flow at all? If you had no prior knowledge and followed the clue trail from settlement to settlement, you'd start by travelling east from Arroyo, hitting Klamath, Den, Modoc, Vault City & Gecko, then be pointed south toward NCR and then west and finally north, completing the circle. The way to NCR could vary depending what leads you follow and Reno in the middle is sort of side big side track.
Sure if you know what was what, you could head straight to NCR from Klamath, over the wastes trying to survive random encounters with aliens and mutants as a low level tribal, grab your +2 LCK bonus and talk yourself to 10k experience and take a comfy caravan ride for 2k $back to Redding...but that would require some damn deep pre-knowledge. Or even straight to San Fran, then to Navarro and go talk your way to end the game, but where's the fun in that.
FO1 was great game, but I felt it was too short. 1) It makes no sense that the tribals have literally no knowledge of technology, literally none. Just because the Vault Dweller was tired of what technology did to people (aka Vault 13) doesn't mean that the Vault Dweller doesn't know that there are some uses to technology, and to totally shit on it would be ridiculous. 2) The fact that you are chasing a mythical 'geck' is just ridiculous. That's the whole main focus for like half the damn game. There's real no clear villain, nothing. It's just you running around solving issues for locals for the most part, half of which make no sense. 3) Even when the Enclave does show it, half of the shit doesn't make any sense at all until you encounter the BoS and then they finally explain everything. Quote from the rpgcodex forums, a community of predominantly cRPG players (by cRPG I mean like Ultima, Wasteland 1, Planescape Torment, blah blah blah, old farts basically). Fallout 2 is a "mix of everything" game. It's a game designed by a bunch of 13-year olds following the unbeatable "won't it be cool if the game had...." principle. It has huge gangsters with tommy guns running casinos, it has yakuza with samurai swords, it has a king-fu fighting town, it has scientologists with celebrities, it has tribals, aliens, drug dealers, talking deathclaws, and even real GHOSTS. The game's a joke. The idea that somehow Fallout 2 was even remotely well paced is a fucking joke. That the writing was any good is also a huge joke. I played all those games. And i find those comments ridiculous. You might not like the taste of F2, but that doesnt make it bad game. You are minority. Most people who played F2 loved it.
Really? Is that why the Interplay forums were blown up with how fucking atrocious Fallout 2 was compared to Fallout 1? Anyone old enough to remember that knows that Fallout 2 was not well received by the original Fallout 1 fans at all. Hell, if you pull up old newsgroup/usenet posts, you'll find that most hardcore CRPG fans hated Fallout 2. By no means was Fallout 2 was a bad game, but it is not some master piece that people make it out to be. In fact, the game was basically as incoherent and non-consistent as Fallout 3 is. Only point I'm making is that if you're going to criticize Bethesda for making an 'incoherent game' with 'sloppy gameplay' etc. etc., let's not pretend that the predecessor Fallout 2 was in anyway shape or form even close to perfect.
|
On June 24 2015 08:02 superstartran wrote:
Really? Is that why the Interplay forums were blown up with how fucking atrocious Fallout 2 was compared to Fallout 1? Anyone old enough to remember that knows that Fallout 2 was not well received by the original Fallout 1 fans at all. Hell, if you pull up old newsgroup/usenet posts, you'll find that most hardcore CRPG fans hated Fallout 2. By no means was Fallout 2 was a bad game, but it is not some master piece that people make it out to be. In fact, the game was basically as incoherent and non-consistent as Fallout 3 is. Only point I'm making is that if you're going to criticize Bethesda for making an 'incoherent game' with 'sloppy gameplay' etc. etc., let's not pretend that the predecessor Fallout 2 was in anyway shape or form even close to perfect.
This man is right, as much as I loved Fallout 2, it was badly received by a decent amount of people back in the day. Probably not a majority, but a really vocal minority at least.
|
On June 23 2015 23:23 TheYango wrote:
Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are extremely highly regarded in the RPG community.
Oh my, yes.
edit:
On June 25 2015 06:37 Lysteria wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2015 08:02 superstartran wrote:
Really? Is that why the Interplay forums were blown up with how fucking atrocious Fallout 2 was compared to Fallout 1? Anyone old enough to remember that knows that Fallout 2 was not well received by the original Fallout 1 fans at all. Hell, if you pull up old newsgroup/usenet posts, you'll find that most hardcore CRPG fans hated Fallout 2. By no means was Fallout 2 was a bad game, but it is not some master piece that people make it out to be. In fact, the game was basically as incoherent and non-consistent as Fallout 3 is. Only point I'm making is that if you're going to criticize Bethesda for making an 'incoherent game' with 'sloppy gameplay' etc. etc., let's not pretend that the predecessor Fallout 2 was in anyway shape or form even close to perfect. This man is right, as much as I loved Fallout 2, it was badly received by a decent amount of people back in the day. Probably not a majority, but a really vocal minority at least.
Also oh my, yes; but at least Fallout 2 didn't use the Unreal engine
|
On June 25 2015 08:53 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 23:23 TheYango wrote:
Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are extremely highly regarded in the RPG community. Oh my, yes. edit: Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 06:37 Lysteria wrote:On June 24 2015 08:02 superstartran wrote:
Really? Is that why the Interplay forums were blown up with how fucking atrocious Fallout 2 was compared to Fallout 1? Anyone old enough to remember that knows that Fallout 2 was not well received by the original Fallout 1 fans at all. Hell, if you pull up old newsgroup/usenet posts, you'll find that most hardcore CRPG fans hated Fallout 2. By no means was Fallout 2 was a bad game, but it is not some master piece that people make it out to be. In fact, the game was basically as incoherent and non-consistent as Fallout 3 is. Only point I'm making is that if you're going to criticize Bethesda for making an 'incoherent game' with 'sloppy gameplay' etc. etc., let's not pretend that the predecessor Fallout 2 was in anyway shape or form even close to perfect. This man is right, as much as I loved Fallout 2, it was badly received by a decent amount of people back in the day. Probably not a majority, but a really vocal minority at least. Also oh my, yes; but at least Fallout 2 didn't use the Unreal engine
I am very confused by that statement.
|
I find this Fallout 2 "bashing" a bit funny while everything in that game is BETTER( well, apart of graphics) than in Fallout 3 which got relased 10 years later with vastly supperior budget. You guys sure do know how to bring the heat to the discussion! (it helps tho to remain a bit in touch with reality).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
