Bethesda gets Fallout

[murdoc]

Gamespot has a preview as well, but it's pretty much the same info worded differently.

[Yegolev]

Gamespot has a preview as well, but it's pretty much the same info worded differently.

Gamespot gave a glowing review to Horizons.

[schild]

Gamespot has a preview as well, but it's pretty much the same info worded differently.

Gamespot gave a glowing review to Horizons.

8.8. Sorry I just like saying that.

[sinij]

I love how every dipshit who wants to rebut me in some way, but who can't actually think of anything cogent, will automatically go "LOL U PLAY UO" like it's fucking news or something.  Yeah dumbass, I like me some UO.  It does things other games don't.  Try again.

LOL U PLAY UO

[Riggswolfe]

I love how every dipshit who wants to rebut me in some way, but who can't actually think of anything cogent, will automatically go "LOL U PLAY UO" like it's fucking news or something.  Yeah dumbass, I like me some UO.  It does things other games don't.  Try again.

Just to add to sinij's post:

Frankly, the fact you play UO pretty much invalidates any bitching you'll do about not liking RPG game design and finding ANYTHING antiquated.

[WindupAtheist]

So say folks outraged that the successful company digging up the corpse of their pet failed RPG franchise is with the rest of the world in not wanting to see turn-based combat again.

At least I know my old shit is old, I'm not walking around going "What do you MEAN it's not isometric?!" about a game being developed in 2007.

[Sky]

What's wrong with isometric. Too much 3d bullshit imo.

[Yegolev]

Even if Fallout 3 was isometric, it would not be on a hex grid.  NERDRAGE!

[Murgos]

Nothing is wrong with isometric, Mr. Myopic just like to think that his isometric experience is somehow more valid then our isometric experience.  Obviously, it's OK that he likes an isometric game but the rest of us are just old farts because we can't get with the new mode.

[Riggswolfe]

So say folks outraged that the successful company digging up the corpse of their pet failed RPG franchise is with the rest of the world in not wanting to see turn-based combat again.

At least I know my old shit is old, I'm not walking around going "What do you MEAN it's not isometric?!" about a game being developed in 2007.

Fallout isn't a failed RPG dumbshit. If Blackisle were still around we'd have had real sequels to Fallout years ago. It along with the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape are some of the most fondly remembered RPGs of recent times and they usually end up in a top computer game of all time list.

[Threash]

So say folks outraged that the successful company digging up the corpse of their pet failed RPG franchise is with the rest of the world in not wanting to see turn-based combat again.

At least I know my old shit is old, I'm not walking around going "What do you MEAN it's not isometric?!" about a game being developed in 2007.

Fallout isn't a failed RPG dumbshit. If Blackisle were still around we'd have had real sequels to Fallout years ago. It along with the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape are some of the most fondly remembered RPGs of recent times and they usually end up in a top computer game of all time list.

I'm pretty sure it didn't sell very well, neither did planescape actually.  The fact that black isle folded doesn't help your cause either.

[WindupAtheist]

If they made a game that does the stuff I like about UO, but with shiny 3d graphics and combat that wasn't crappy RPG-style combat, I'd be all over that shit in a heartbeat.  Ultima what?

Just saying.

[Righ]

So say folks outraged that the successful company digging up the corpse of their pet failed RPG franchise is with the rest of the world in not wanting to see turn-based combat again.

At least I know my old shit is old, I'm not walking around going "What do you MEAN it's not isometric?!" about a game being developed in 2007.

Fallout isn't a failed RPG dumbshit. If Blackisle were still around we'd have had real sequels to Fallout years ago. It along with the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape are some of the most fondly remembered RPGs of recent times and they usually end up in a top computer game of all time list.

I'm pretty sure it didn't sell very well, neither did planescape actually.  The fact that black isle folded doesn't help your cause either.

Oh come on, that's just a touch revisionist. Black Isle Studios were a very successful company. They were bought by Interplay, who got rich off the Fallout and Baldur's Gate franchises and took the company to the stock exchange. Then they started doing the usual high-tech startup shit with directors driving around in fancy cars, creating multimedia franchises to make movies and soundtracks, holding expensive shareholder functions, etc while debts went unpaid. They sold out to Titus/Vivendi and ran off with all the phat lewt that they'd robbed from the employees. No really fair to blame their demise of the games being shit then, is it?

[ahoythematey]

For a PC rpg, I seem to remember Baldur's Gate being awfully damn popular.  I'm going to say most fault lies with Interplay's excessive knuckle-dragging.

[Murgos]

If they made a game that does the stuff I like about UO, but with shiny 3d graphics and combat that wasn't crappy RPG-style combat, I'd be all over that shit in a heartbeat.  Ultima what?

Just saying.

Not to put too fine a point on it but the 800lb gorilla of gaming uses a POV camera that is kissing cousin to isometric.  Also, pretty much every RTS ever made uses an isometric perspective.  There is nothing wrong with the technique.

Your myopia is really interesting.  Do you really ignore everything that doesn't mesh exactly in with whatever trivial statement you are trying to make?

[WindupAtheist]

And here's Murgos with his patented Rebuttal of Total Irrelevance.  Yes dipshit, I know RTS games use a top-down view.  What the hell does that have to do with anything in the middle of a god damned RPG thread?  You may as well have just blundered up and said "Turn-based strategy games still use turn-based combat, so take that WUA!  Haw haw!"

That was the dumbest fucking post I've read in... some time.  Seriously.  Did you think I was going to go "Wait, I forgot the RTS genre exists!  I am rebutted!  Aiiiee!" or something?  You love pointing out obvious information as if whoever you're addressing is too dumb to have ever heard of it, when in fact it's something they ignored because it's just plain irrelevant.

Like when I said I figured an Indiana Jones movie with someone besides Harrison Ford in the lead would tank.  You ran up and pointed out that the mildly-successful Kid Indy television show from years ago had a kid playing Indy and not Harrison Ford, like I was supposed to be fucking staggered or something.

Jesus.

[cmlancas]

To be honest with you WUA, I don't think I want to watch Harrison Ford in his diapers trying to hit some guy with a bullwhip. You'll just have to give it up that like James Bond, Indy can be played by someone else.


In response I haven't played many single player RPGs, but I have definitely played Baldur's Gate.

[Murgos]

You love pointing out obvious information as if whoever you're addressing is too dumb to have ever heard of it, when in fact it's something they ignored because it's just plain irrelevant.

Probably because you repeatedly ignore obvious, and obviously relevant, information that is completely counter to whatever stupidity you are spouting today?

"No one wants to play stupid isometric bullshit, ignoring the millions and millions of people who do play isometric games, and also ignoring that 3rd person isometric is preferred play style for almost every MMO currently in existence because I just mean RPG's even though a lot of RPG's were made with 3rd person isometric views that sold millions of copies and are still remembered fondly!  But no one wants to play them.  Seriously guys.  No, really they just don't."

"No one wants to watch an Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford except for the millions and millions of people who have already watched Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford because they don't count.  I'm just making the point that no one will watch a Indiana Jones movie without Harrison Ford even though lots of movie sequels already switch actors in lead roles and do quite well and people are already used to watching Indiana Jones movies without Harrison Ford but those were on TV, see?  No one wants to see it.  I'm just right you know, because I'm special like that and my opinion counts more that proven past performance.  Seriously guys, my opinion is that important.  Like, hardly no one watches TV, way less people watch TV than go to movies.  TV is stupid.  Srsly."

[WindupAtheist]

So let me get this straight, you consider WoW to be an example of an isometric game?

Seriously?

What the hell is the point of arguing with you when you don't even know what all the fucking words mean?

[sinij]

Turn based games on the way out... just like poker or chess. Lets move with times and get it all real time.

[Edit: Added green tags for idi^h^h^h to clarify]

[cmlancas]

Turn based games on the way out... just like poker or chess. Lets move with times and get it all real time.

I never really thought you were a moron until this post Sinij. Poker on the way out? At least try not to be ignorant. Same with chess. I'd argue that there are more registered active members on ICC and some of the larger chess sites than some MMOs that are still alive.

[schild]

Operator, load the sarchasm program.

[UnSub]

"No one wants to play stupid isometric bullshit, ignoring the millions and millions of people who do play isometric games, and also ignoring that 3rd person isometric is preferred play style for almost every MMO currently in existence because I just mean RPG's even though a lot of RPG's were made with 3rd person isometric views that sold millions of copies and are still remembered fondly!  But no one wants to play them.  Seriously guys.  No, really they just don't."

I'm interested in you justifying the bolded bit of that statement. Feel free to mention Habbo Hotel or Virtual Magic Kingdom to help add weight to your argument.

Yes, isometric viewpoints used to sell games. But that was when we were all marvelling over the shift from 2D sprites to something resembling 3D. And then games started to have better representations of 3D through first person / third person view points and moving cameras and the like. In modern gaming, it looks cheap and clumsy for the most part for something to come out with a purely fixed isometric viewpoint.

Millions and millions of people used to love and watch black and white movies too. Apart from indie or student movies, I don't see a lot of people rushing to fill that void either.

And finally, it's been stated by Bethseda that players will be able to rotate the camera around enough to play in a pseudo-isometric viewpoint, if they are so mentally inflexible that they can't handle playing Fallout in any other way want to.

[Ironwood]

That's not fair.

If I have gained respect for a genre and a brand and a series, I am not unreasonable to expect 'more of the same' from the next installment.

Just saying.

[cmlancas]

Turn based games on the way out... just like poker or chess. Lets move with times and get it all real time.

I never really thought you were a moron until this post Sinij. Poker on the way out? At least try not to be ignorant. Same with chess. I'd argue that there are more registered active members on ICC and some of the larger chess sites than some MMOs that are still alive.

Cry. But. But. But.

Meh. How dare I get on my trike and try to jump the sarchasm.

Apologies. Wonder what my deal was last night ><

[Miasma]

That's not fair.

If I have gained respect for a genre and a brand and a series, I am not unreasonable to expect 'more of the same' from the next installment.

Just saying.

I guess the CEO of EA, of all people, has decided that more of the same is a bad thing now.  From his complaints about games being too boring and complicated I can only assume he has decided to join the cult of Wii.

[Riggswolfe]

To be honest with you WUA, I don't think I want to watch Harrison Ford in his diapers trying to hit some guy with a bullwhip. You'll just have to give it up that like James Bond, Indy can be played by someone else.

/derail

IMO there are some characters that are so associated with certain actors that switching them will kill that franchise and it would be better to just retire the character. Indiana Jones and Snake Plisken both come to mind. (which is why I am about 75% certain I won't see the remake of Escape from New York.)

Though to be honest, I'm sure some people said the same thing when Sean Connery stopped doing James Bond.

/derail off

[Stephen Zepp]

Not really trying to throw huge amounts of gasoline on the fire, really!

"Isometric" and "overhead" views are two very different definitions that get confused by "the masses" all the time.

WoW is not isometric. Everquest's 3rd person cams are not isometric.

[Murgos]

"No one wants to play stupid isometric bullshit, ignoring the millions and millions of people who do play isometric games, and also ignoring that 3rd person isometric is preferred play style for almost every MMO currently in existence because I just mean RPG's even though a lot of RPG's were made with 3rd person isometric views that sold millions of copies and are still remembered fondly!  But no one wants to play them.  Seriously guys.  No, really they just don't."

I'm interested in you justifying the bolded bit of that statement. Feel free to mention Habbo Hotel or Virtual Magic Kingdom to help add weight to your argument.

Like I said there are millions and millions of people playing isometric games right this minute.  Technically games like WoW and EQII are not 'isometric' (the viewing angle is not equal on all sides but very few games that are referred to as isometric ever were) but they are a projection.  The fact that you can move the camera (i.e. foreshorten an axis) is incidental, you are still looking at a 2 dimensional object represented on a flat surface that is using tricks of perspective to appear to have depth.  Whether it's actually better to describe the technique as axonometric projection rather than isometric is academic when everyone has always used isometric to refer to diametric or even axonometric viewing angles.

What the hell is the point of arguing with you when you don't even know what all the fucking words mean?

Believe it or not WUA, when you look at an image on your monitor screen you are not viewing a 3 dimensional object.

[Sky]

Yes, isometric viewpoints used to sell games. But that was when we were all marvelling over the shift from 2D sprites to something resembling 3D. And then games started to have better representations of 3D through first person / third person view points and moving cameras and the like. In modern gaming, it looks cheap and clumsy for the most part for something to come out with a purely fixed isometric viewpoint.

I'd disagree. Sacred and Divine Divinity were great games. Just because the cool thing to do is 1st or 3rd person 3d doesn't mean isometric is dead. It's just not trendy. Cthulhu save us from trendy motherfuckers, anyway. They brought us RTS and tainted Brian Reynold's soul.

[rk47]

From what I understand:
isometric:


overhead


So the only major MMO that I recall playing in isometric view is probably UO.

[ajax34i]

I thought "isometric" was defined as the camera being affixed to the area, not to one person.  Your area loads, and you look at it (you can pan and zoom and rotate all you want, shrug), and the character(s) move from one corner of the screen to the next and back independently of where the camera is.

This, as opposed to 3rd person / 1st person, where the camera is affixed to your character, and you can still zoom/pan/rotate but you cannot detach it.

You know, the camera setup and control in WoW is exactly like in EVE.  So, is EVE isometric?

[rk47]

traditional isometic games like Fallout 2 and Jagged Alliance 2 has no such thing called 'camera rotation' it's fixed view. That creates problem when attempting to retrieve something blocked by the 'forewall' of a background, because you cannot just rotate view.

[Stephen Zepp]

traditional isometic games like Fallout 2 and Jagged Alliance 2 has no such thing called 'camera rotation' it's fixed view. That creates problem when attempting to retrieve something blocked by the 'forewall' of a background, because you cannot just rotate view.

I'm not an artist and can't really describe the terms properly, but "isometric" is actually a pretty fixed (in view angle) art style that provides the illusion of depth by a different means than a more "free style" camera uses. Basically how I understand it is that it's a way of playing with perspective to provide depth, as opposed to how a more flexible 3D environment does so.

[Sky]

They fade out the wall in the foreground and you can grab items, or switch to an internal view where you can see behind walls. Isometric games have improved since the 90s, ya know. Though the definition has definitely blurred over time.