I'm sorry for the numerous typos and poor grammar. I woke up 20 minutes before writing that. =D

on't give me this ant-oblivion BS, it's true the world changes based on your character. They could have made the game a square miles big with one town and one dungeon.

If I'm lying then tell me How EVERY dungeon in the game at level 3 has just goblins and skeletons. Tell me how if I got a special weapon below level 10 it did less damage than if I got that weapon at level 25?! Tell me how my roommate beat the game at level 4? On a game that lets you level to 100 he beat it at level 4?

What you said is true. I wasn't saying that the enemies don't level with you. But a lot of people seemed to be under the impression that every single creature in the game matched the player's level, which isn't true. What happened was as you increased in level, you'd start seeing fewer creatures with levels below yours, and more at (or slightly above) your level.

It worked kind of like this (say you're fighting 5 enemies at each level). Each number represents the level of a single creature.
-----------------------------
Player Level - 1
Creature Levels - 1,2,1,1,2
-----------------------------
Player Level - 5
Creature Levels - 5,4,6,1,5
-----------------------------
Player Level - 10
Creature Levels - 10,8,11,10,7
-----------------------------
...and so on.
Anyway, you get the idea. You'd mostly run into creatures around your level, but you'd still see ones way below you. At level 50, if you went to a coastline, you'd see level 1 mudcrabs. So yeah, sure, the leveling is messed up. But it's as different from Morrowind as some believe.

Your numbered points are completely true, and I don't think it's extreme to state them at all. What bugs me is when people claim Morrowind didn't suffer from those same problems. It wasn't better in any of those problem areas. The only difference is that Morrowind had some (probably unintentional) quest scripting that prevented you from advancing to the top of certain guilds with one character.

So yeah - Oblivion had problems, but so did Morrowind.

This comment was edited on Jun 9, 19:43.

I know you couldn't jump, I was just saying it wasn't the same routine over and over(as in every time you play) for every task.

Don't give me this ant-oblivion BS, it's true the world changes based on your character. They could have made the game a square miles big with one town and one dungeon.

If I'm lying then tell me How EVERY dungeon in the game at level 3 has just goblins and skeletons. Tell me how if I got a special weapon below level 10 it did less damage than if I got that weapon at level 25?! Tell me how my roommate beat the game at level 4? On a game that lets you level to 100 he beat it at level 4?

Oblivion was fun for a while, but I started to catch on after I walked the entire map and found a new dungeon, I was so excited to explore it. I was like wow this is so far from the start of the game that it'll probably have some tough creatures. WRONG! It was skeletons and goblins. I spent 30 minutes walking to find 30 gold pieces, a bow identical to mine, and monsters that were no harder than the first 3 dungeons near the sewer exit.

Out of the box there was no challange. I know it's apples and oranges but if you tried crossing the map in FO you're dead. Some people might say "Well that's pretty linear if you can only progress the world as you level." Ya well NO SHIT what would be the point point of having a large map if it's all the same stuff? How would it make any sense?
You're some poor, untalented, unknown, tribes-man. You can't come out of your little village taking down deathclaws, and mobsters armed with a smile and a vault 13 jumpuit. You need to explore the world and become a hero. Not have the game hold your hand and point you in the exact location you need to be.

Honestly there was no R in PG with oblivion, it was the most Americanized game ever. get ready for some "ridiculous extremes"
1. You could be what ever you want, it's okay kids don't worry about choices changing the outcome, it's all the same!
You want to be monk? in the fighters, mages, and Theifs guild. Sure why not!

2. Want to be evil? You can try really hard but you're still a hero for saving the day at the end of the game, the only people who will act any different are the guards.

3. Multiple choice answers that make almost no change to the quest. The only thing that happens when you do a quest differently is that it takes longer or you fail. It still ends exactly the way it was written. What you have to stop the town thief? Okay well go stop him, doing otherwise wont set off the trigger to the next script. The forks in the rod either lead straight back to the main road, or where dead ends that had you finding the right way to do it. they lead NO where else.

But I liked the game I just failed in mechanics.

It would be totally ground breaking if say for instance, you were a light, agile character who could I dunno, Hop a wall.

Damn, I had forgotten that you could jump in Fallout 1 and 2. Oh wait... you couldn't.

I understand what you're saying though, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Several games have offered multiple solutions for a particular goal. They were even there in Oblivion, although maybe not as obvious. Most of the time you did have to resort to violence. Still, it would be nice to see multiple paths expanded on in future games. But I suspect developers stick to just a few options because development time exponentially increases as the paths you can take multiply.

Kind of like how oblivion made every single creature in the game your level. Ya makes a game really exciting. . .

Did you even play the game? Only bandits and marauders (and possibly a few creatures) leveled with the player character. For the vast majority of "creatures", they were stuck at a single level. A mudcrab is always level 1, for example. Oblivion certainly had its share of faults, and the level of enemies had definite drawbacks. But I'm really tired of the anti-Oblivion crowd continually spreading myths, and exaggerating to ridiculous extremes.


This comment was edited on Jun 7, 12:09.

Yeah why make it a game Jerykk. Never once has a game let you accomplish a goal in ways that suit your character.

For Jerykk, that would be a game where the first thing you do is warez a copy of a game.


-----------------------------------------------------
Listen, now: http://yearzero.nin-thespiral.com/FLJoi4gjw2f/player.html

Yeah why make it a game Jerykk. Never once has a game let you accomplish a goal in ways that suit your character.

You need to get into a area, I guess games only allow you to kill the guard and pass. It would be totally ground breaking if say for instance, you were a light, agile character who could I dunno, Hop a wall. Or maybe a intelligent character who could out smart the guard into letting him in. OH OH or how about a character with good perception and stealth like qualities, that was able to sneak past the guard at night.

It's too bad this could never be done in a game. Well besides Fallout 1 & 2.

A CRPG should balance gameplay between stats and actual skill. Kind of like how oblivion made every single creature in the game your level. Ya makes a game really exciting. . .

This comment was edited on Jun 6, 21:39.

For me, putting an RPG like this with combat in first person sort of ruins a bit of the ... well definition there of an "R" PG -- in that your characters statistics and skills should determine how fast and/or effective they are in a situation.

If a game is going to rely entirely on stats, there's no point in it being a computer game. If you want pure stats-based gameplay, play a pen and paper RPG. A CRPG should balance gameplay between stats and actual skill.

Birds Eye views, overhead views, are just done folks. No one wants em or needs em anymore save for the RTS crowd where the overhead view works, and first person view fails. Rarely has it ever worked, with maybe Battlefield and Tribes coming the closest.

I've got to disagree with you on that one. I thought Silent Storm did a fantastic job of the sort of graphics, detail, and destruction that can be used with an isometric view. And honestly, their implementation of the realtime/turn based approach was rather well done too.

With the level of detail and construction now, though, I think that it is a bit more difficult to have things be laid out because the player can see more of the terrain/world at once than just having things be culled/dropped down to the ground at a first person level.

For me, putting an RPG like this with combat in first person sort of ruins a bit of the ... well definition there of an "R" PG -- in that your characters statistics and skills should determine how fast and/or effective they are in a situation.

I just hope Bethesda hires some QA people this time.

Dude, it's Bethesda. Give up hope now. Their idea of QA is setting up a computer in the monkey house at the zoo and letting the chimps pound on the keyboard for a bit.



-----------------------------------------------------
Listen, now: http://yearzero.nin-thespiral.com/FLJoi4gjw2f/player.html

At least let stats affect your hit rate.

They should just use the DX system. Reticle focus speed depends on your weapon skill. The higher the skill, the less time to focus and the less the effect of moving while aiming. All enemies should have locational damage, so headshots do more damage than body shots, you can disarm enemies by shooting their arms or slow/immobilize them by shooting their legs.

This way, player skill is still an important factor but their character's weapon skill is equally important.

If they resort to some random chance-to-hit crap, that'll make gun combat worthless. If I aim at an enemy's chest and shoot from ten feet away, it had better hit some part of the enemy.

Of course if they release a game with turn-based or even optional turn-based combat I would probably shit myself.

If that happened I would hump Pete Hines leg. would be the best action he's had since his wife stopped putting out.

Seriously though, this trailer actually has me thinking a *tiny* bit more positively about this whole FO3 mess. I'm one of those NMA freaks, so that means a lot coming from me.

Ronny P., the Ink Spots, the slow pan out to a torn apart landscape...I can't really think of a better opening then that. Hell, as far as the opening cinema goes, they nailed everything down perfectly.

Now, the gameplay, that's what has me worried. We *know* it'll be real time, that's a lock...so there is nothing gained by begging them for it. (Though I only recently stopped doing that myself)

I just want them to make combat something more then oblivion with guns. Games like Stalker and Deus Ex are fun, but FO is a dyed-in-the-wool RPG. At least let stats affect your hit rate.

And for the love of god, don't just boil weapon skills down to "Guns" and "melee". It's bad enough you shitbricks put maces in with axes in oblivion.

I don't think bethesda can make a game I like, and I don't think they can do fallout 3.

Birds Eye views, overhead views, are just done folks. No one wants em or needs em anymore save for the RTS crowd where the overhead view works, and first person view fails. Rarely has it ever worked, with maybe Battlefield and Tribes coming the closest.

I would love to see the Oblivion engine for Fallout 3, however the content of Oblivion was as bad as it gets, as Cutter pointed out. Having 10,000 Elven cities with a few treasure chests in it was just stupid.

Bethesda keeps producing the same Elder Scrolls garbage, and they NEVER listen to their fans, which are dwindling.

Oblivion Engine
Stalker balls, guts and steel
Fallout 1 and 2 writing and style.

THAT would be a great game. Can bethesda pull it off?

GOD FUCK NO!

But if you expect the game to be turn-based like the previous two Fallout games, you'll have to keep on dreaming.

Outside of environment and setting, a couple of the key components that make Fallout/2 what they are would be the character and gameplay systems. If they don't stay true to the first 2 games in this respect, then as far as I'm concerned, it's not Fallout.

That's one of the aspects I hope to NOT see in Fallout 3. They can do more than have a ton of little holes-in-the-wall to explore.

But if you expect the game to be turn-based like the previous two Fallout games, you'll have to keep on dreaming.

I just know this game is going to be Oblivion all over again in a post-apocalyptic setting and that's all.

It could be a lot worse, but hopefully it won't be as stale. I like a few Doritos, but I'd rather die than eat them for a whole month.

I want something like Oblivion

Philistine! If FO3 is anything like Oblivion -which most of us FEAR it will be - it will ruin the property. Sadly, Bethesda does not make good CRPGs. Their games are all style and no substance. They could have saved a ton of time and money on Oblivon by just making 1 town with a random dungeon generator in it, as that's all Oblivon really was. Dungeon crawling for the sake of dungeon crawling over and over is not a CRPG, much less Fallout.

So I don't want to hear ANYONE talking about how this should have ANY aspect of Oblivion or any other crappy game Bethesda has made. No tacit approval. Nothing! Nathan! Nada! Keep sticking it to them and riding them and not trusting them one iota for one second is the only way they might just possibly produce something halfway decent.
Anyone giving them the benefit of the doubt will be the first one up against the wall when the revolution comes!

*Sigh* Where's Tim Cain and co. when you need them? I just know this game is going to be Oblivion all over again in a post-apocalyptic setting and that's all.

"Jesus H. Christ, we must be a mile from the sun."
- Lawrence Bourne III, Volunteers

There is absolutely NO reason to show "teasers" like this without any actual gameplay.

LameThesda

damn this is y i game, to dream about the potential.

but dreams r just that dreams. I want this now!!!

I will dream later.

The actual game will be top down or 3/4 view pixelated characters running around?

Who said that? Last I recall, it was going to be first person.

Well, there on the right track with the first video I'm loving it.

2008 DAMN thats a LONG TIME!!!