Fallout Fantasy Revealed?

French site Overgame.com reports that a new release schedule they received from Virgin Interactive, which distributes Interplay's games in Europe, contains an entry for Fallout Fantasy, a role-playing game in development at Black Isle Studios for a September 2002 release. Here is a rough Babel Fish translation of the story, which doesn't offer further facts on the game as Virgin Interactive refused to comment, but speculates this is the official title of the Fallout 3 game that was mentioned in several recent Q&As (story, story). It is expected that the game will be presented at next month's E3 trade show in Los Angeles.
View : : :
68.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 17, 2002, 09:31
anon@65.160
68.
Re: No subject Apr 17, 2002, 09:31
Apr 17, 2002, 09:31
anon@65.160
 
That's what I'm saying, is that very few console games/series do any significant amount of leaps and bounds to provide anything new. In PC terms, innovation can mean a number of things, and the competition can be a bit more fierce, but moreso it's also diversified into subgenres that don't exist upon consoles. With consoles, it seems (particularly in SquatSoft's case) that they are as of late complacent enough to do a load of pretty artwork, throw in a barely thought-out system (which is nothing more than a barebones combat system, particularly with FF8), and then shovel it out. I've seen MS-DOS CRPGs with more thought behind them. THAT is the console problem, is that most are simply not willing to do anything outstanding and just aim a couple of steps above what they just released or the competition. Or go for the "sequel-hook" to drag the fans further. There are A FEW innovative or groundbreaking games (kind of a different term, really), but yes, those are good. Still, makes it a hard sell unless you're one who absolutely *must* have a certain game. What I don't like, is the slow pulling of money out of the nose from consumers of this, and it's a coldly-calculated method of bringing them back through franchises on an "upgrade console", much like how the PS3 is already in planning for a couple of years from now, if reports are correct. What then, of the PS2 and games/support for that? Sequels will be planned for the PS3, excused as needing more shine and resources, tipping the hand of the consumer to go out and drop another $300 or so.

Whereas in the PC market, RAM upgrades are cheap, vid cards for modern games can run you about $40, a decent sound card about the same, a processer and MB at thrice that. To do upgrades, you just need to lay down a bit here and there, without having to lay down a serious chunk of money for something that will be obsolete in the long run and will never be provided for in a short time, and if it burns up you're looking at a pawn shop for a replacement to play that $600+ collection of otherwise useless plastic and/or silicon. The old hardware for PC can be used for a clunker machine, and the old programs can usually still be run on the new upgrades.

Black and White was a bit innovative, but it was the overall game design where it landed flat. It had a load of potential and didn't even bother to take and utilize it at all, instead opting for a Populus/Tamagotchi hybrid.

Innovation as far as simulation? Easy, The Sims. A tad dry for my liking, but it's taken the simulation genre a bit further with allowing for different playstyles other than "lay down roads/paths, railroads/trees, and zone/put rides on it and wait until you die of old age", and definitely further than those which seem to be nothing more than a feature-stuffed rehack of Lemonade. RPG, the end of current innovation ended in actuality with either Fallout or Arcanum, in allowing a multitude in playstyles in a mostly nonlinear environment - from hack and slash to diplomat, to thief, evil, good, whatever, et alia. The world tended to respond to your playstyle and provide for it, a bit moreso than Daggerfall's freedom in that you had more than just combat. Most of the crap out there is linear stat-level hack and slash. RTS is a bit of a tough one, but I'd have to hand that to StarCraft, as it took 3 different sides with their own unique building structures and pitted them against each other and did fair for balancing. Most other RTS games have construction trees much the same for either/any side, with slight variations, or the quirky Red Alert "air force vs. naval force".

-Rosh
www.nma-fallout.com
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@210.49
2.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@12.228
3.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
15.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
17.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
44.
Apr 12, 2002Apr 12 2002
anon@212.17
48.
Apr 12, 2002Apr 12 2002
anon@65.160
49.
Apr 14, 2002Apr 14 2002
anon@24.167
50.
Apr 14, 2002Apr 14 2002
anon@65.160
55.
Apr 15, 2002Apr 15 2002
anon@12.34
56.
Apr 15, 2002Apr 15 2002
anon@12.86
4.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@216.91
5.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
6.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
7.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@212.111
8.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
9.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
10.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
12.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@216.221
14.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
11.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@12.228
13.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@63.137
16.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
18.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@216.189
19.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@209.137
20.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@216.189
21.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
24.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
25.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
26.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
27.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@216.189
28.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
29.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
31.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
32.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@216.189
30.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
33.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
34.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@216.221
35.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
      Re: scratch that..
anon@216.189
37.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
40.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
      Re: scratch that..
47.
Apr 12, 2002Apr 12 2002
      Re: scratch that..
anon@207.229
45.
Apr 12, 2002Apr 12 2002
anon@65.160
22.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
23.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
36.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
38.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@216.189
39.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
41.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
42.
Apr 11, 2002Apr 11 2002
anon@12.220
46.
Apr 12, 2002Apr 12 2002
anon@204.52
51.
Apr 14, 2002Apr 14 2002
   Re: shit!
52.
Apr 15, 2002Apr 15 2002
    Re: shit!
54.
Apr 15, 2002Apr 15 2002
     Re: shit!
57.
Apr 15, 2002Apr 15 2002
      Re: GameSpy
anon@216.68
58.
Apr 16, 2002Apr 16 2002
anon@65.160
43.
Apr 12, 2002Apr 12 2002
53.
Apr 15, 2002Apr 15 2002
anon@24.169
59.
Apr 16, 2002Apr 16 2002
60.
Apr 16, 2002Apr 16 2002
anon@193.129
61.
Apr 16, 2002Apr 16 2002
62.
Apr 16, 2002Apr 16 2002
63.
Apr 17, 2002Apr 17 2002
anon@24.164
64.
Apr 17, 2002Apr 17 2002
66.
Apr 17, 2002Apr 17 2002
anon@65.160
65.
Apr 17, 2002Apr 17 2002
anon@65.160
67.
Apr 17, 2002Apr 17 2002
 68.
Apr 17, 2002Apr 17 2002
     Re: No subject
anon@65.160
69.
Apr 17, 2002Apr 17 2002
      Re: No subject
70.
Apr 17, 2002Apr 17 2002
     Re: No subject
73.
Apr 18, 2002Apr 18 2002
      Re: No subject
74.
Apr 18, 2002Apr 18 2002
       Re: No subject
anon@65.160
75.
Apr 18, 2002Apr 18 2002
        Re: No subject
anon@65.160
76.
Apr 18, 2002Apr 18 2002
         Re: No subject
anon@65.160
71.
Apr 18, 2002Apr 18 2002
72.
Apr 18, 2002Apr 18 2002
anon@24.164