Scotty the Great's Fallout Community: F:BOS website up!

»	Scotty the Great's Fallout Community » Other » Stupid Stuff » F:BOS website up! (Page 1)

This topic is comprised of pages: 1 2 3

Printable Version

Author

Topic: F:BOS website up!

Scotty the Great
Paragon
Member # 1

Member Rated:

posted May 02, 2003 18:35

And yet another hard slap in the face is dealt to all Fallout fans. Check out this excerpt from the developer's page:

uh-oh. wait a minute. What about all those fans who want Fallout 3? But what about all those fans who would love to see Fallout expand? Better yet, what about all those gamers out there who have heard of Fallout, but turn-based RPG's are not their bag? I want them to see what a cool universe Fallout is. I want them to experience the Brotherhood, the wasteland, and the 50's sci-fi culture gone haywire. I want them to be able to see what the 1930's world of tomorrow looks like after WW3. Oh yeah, this could be great

-- Chuck Cuevas - Producer

For those of you who want to check out the site, the url is http://www.interplay.com/fbos/

Posts: 2906 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2002 | IP: Logged

Scotty the Great Paragon Member # 1 Member Rated:	posted May 04, 2003 10:52 So am I the only one that felt pissed about this or what?
	Posts: 2906 \| From: Wisconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Stapes Paragon Member # 2 Member Rated:	posted May 04, 2003 11:51 I technically don't see how that is a slap in the face. All it is sayin is that they want to make another Fallout for fans to be able to see what would look like in the future.
	Posts: 2150 \| From: Sconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Scotty the Great
Paragon
Member # 1

Member Rated:

posted May 04, 2003 13:56

So in other words they are saying instead of following the interests of the hardcore fans of Fallout that have been with the series from the beginning, they rather look the other way and draw in a completely new and different following. Fallout fans for the most part are outraged by BoS, and I for one do not plan on buying it. So Interplay is turning its back on all of the original fans of Fallout in attempt to draw in a 'new' crowd. Basically, the knife is in the backs of all Fallout fans, and this seems to be the final twist of that knife.

Posts: 2906 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2002 | IP: Logged

Stapes Paragon Member # 2 Member Rated:	posted May 04, 2003 15:05 Ah, I now see how you feel about that and it does kinda change my perspective about things. I wasn't planning on buying it anyways.
	Posts: 2150 \| From: Sconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Scotty the Great Paragon Member # 1 Member Rated:	posted May 04, 2003 21:35 Precisely. It's fine to target new audiences; in fact, that's a good marketing strategy. However, you don't want to lose the audience you already have in doing so, which is exactly what Interplay is doing. To top it off, they don't even seem to care.
	Posts: 2906 \| From: Wisconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Gauss Vault Veteran Member # 108 Member Rated:	posted May 05, 2003 06:49 Why should they care? If u get into their heads,all they want is a large crowd of fans 4 their new products.Why should they give a damn about us? Besides,I think todays gamers r more into pure 3d than rpg. [ May 05, 2003: Message edited by: Gauss Bumper ] -------------------- No one is perfect
	Posts: 756 \| From: Israel \| Registered: Feb 2003 \| IP: Logged

Slurrydevil
Vault Champion
Member # 11

Member Rated:

posted May 05, 2003 10:03

If its as crap as it looks to be ill buy it when everyone sells it in disgust and its on sale for cheap, play it (and finish it in 5 hours no doubt) then sell it for more than I bought it for..lol i've done that before.
I will do this because I want to know what im talking about when im bagging it.

--------------------

What is new is always evil, being that which wants to conquer and overthrow the old boundary markers and the old pieties; and only what is old is good. The good men are in all ages those who dig the old thoughts, digging deep and getting them to bear fruit - the farmers of the spirit. But eventually all land is depleted, and the ploughshare of evil must come again and again.

- Nietzsche

Posts: 950 | From: Perth West Australia | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Gauss Vault Veteran Member # 108 Member Rated:	posted May 05, 2003 10:33 Thats a good perspective. -------------------- No one is perfect
	Posts: 756 \| From: Israel \| Registered: Feb 2003 \| IP: Logged

Scotty the Great Paragon Member # 1 Member Rated:	posted May 05, 2003 19:07 Yeah, true dat. I mean, caring about customer wants is so 1990s! Basically, Interplay is doing to Fallout fans what Enron did to its stock holders. Anything for a profit. Nothing for the loyalists.
	Posts: 2906 \| From: Wisconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Slurrydevil
Vault Champion
Member # 11

Member Rated:

posted May 06, 2003 11:16

I mean I dunno, it could be an ok game but ITS NOT WHAT I WANT DAMMIT!!!!

I didn't want another Tactics game, the graphics will probably be good and there will be lots of guns and bangs...but thats not the point! It will be just another shooter in a market bursting with similar games and will fail to be of any importance.
Fallout 3 however would probably be incredibly popular....they are fools..I dunno maybe if they had released this and f3 but after all this time this is all they have to offer?!

--------------------

- Nietzsche

Posts: 950 | From: Perth West Australia | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Scotty the Great
Paragon
Member # 1

Member Rated:

posted May 06, 2003 16:29

Yeah, but what did you expect? Interplay's stock dropped dramastically and is even no longer listed on the NYSE, a bunch of top leaders in the company quit, and they are going belly-up. So they decided instead of taking the extra time and money to produce a high-quality Fallout 3, they will just mold Tactics a little bit, import it to a different gaming system, and call it Brotherhood of Steel. It wouldn't cost them as much as Fallout 3, and it could potentially drive in some income for the company.

Still, I don't feel this justifies screwing over all of the hard-core Fallout fans.

Posts: 2906 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2002 | IP: Logged

Gauss Vault Veteran Member # 108 Member Rated:	posted May 08, 2003 01:18 Well, I dont think they give a fuck what u,me and everybody else thinks. -------------------- No one is perfect
	Posts: 756 \| From: Israel \| Registered: Feb 2003 \| IP: Logged

rad-x
Vault Citizen
Member # 86

Member Rated:

posted May 08, 2003 02:29

It's not gonna be a good game anyway, I've just watched a cutscene at gamespot, and it was awful. The arms of the people don't bend, the voice acting is poor and it is totally action-based, as the raiders say "Kill EVERYTHING!"

--------------------

As I gaze up at the night sky in my own fair time, I look back down and see the devastation. This post-nuclear world. It's terrible. But at least we got Nuka-Cola, warm and flat, the drink of the post-apocalyptic civiliztion. Generation Next!

Posts: 466 | From: Glasgow, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

Slurrydevil
Vault Champion
Member # 11

Member Rated:

posted May 08, 2003 05:35

Ok in that case ill definately say that this is a pain in the arse. Someone else should buy the Fallout name and get Feargus Urquhart working for them. Im sure Interplay are desperate enough to sell it! Maybe it would be cool if Sierra bought it.

--------------------

- Nietzsche

Posts: 950 | From: Perth West Australia | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Scotty the Great Paragon Member # 1 Member Rated:	posted May 08, 2003 06:55 Yeah, that sounds pretty horrible. I myself have been avoiding watching any previews for the game for the fear that it would only confirm my fear that this will be a horrible game. Guess I don't have to watch now. And Sierra? Not exactly my favorite gaming company out there, but I guess it would do. I myself would prefer Blizzard.
	Posts: 2906 \| From: Wisconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Gauss Vault Veteran Member # 108 Member Rated:	posted May 08, 2003 07:51 Yea,Blizzard rocks. -------------------- No one is perfect
	Posts: 756 \| From: Israel \| Registered: Feb 2003 \| IP: Logged

Stapes Paragon Member # 2 Member Rated:	posted May 08, 2003 21:38 GO BLIZZARD! Blizzard has brought games to use like Diablo, Diablo 2, Diablo 2: LOD, Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3. Sucky games like Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood Wars. I love all the diablo games, and have only been able to play WC 2 and 3. I haven't played regular WC. SC just really sucks.
	Posts: 2150 \| From: Sconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Gauss Vault Veteran Member # 108 Member Rated:	posted May 09, 2003 05:52 I love the diablo games 2. The diablo Lod is really good! -------------------- No one is perfect
	Posts: 756 \| From: Israel \| Registered: Feb 2003 \| IP: Logged

Slurrydevil
Vault Champion
Member # 11

Member Rated:

posted May 09, 2003 12:32

Yeah maybe Blizzard now you mention it...

And don't knock Starcraft Stapes, its good b-grade cheap fun

--------------------

- Nietzsche

Posts: 950 | From: Perth West Australia | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Gauss Vault Veteran Member # 108 Member Rated:	posted May 09, 2003 14:04 Id say its a Z grade good for nothing piece a`shit. -------------------- No one is perfect
	Posts: 756 \| From: Israel \| Registered: Feb 2003 \| IP: Logged

Stapes Paragon Member # 2 Member Rated:	posted May 09, 2003 15:28 Yeah, SC is one of THEE stupidest games out there! I'd have to rate that game at a ZZZ-.
	Posts: 2150 \| From: Sconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Scotty the Great
Paragon
Member # 1

Member Rated:

posted May 09, 2003 16:10

Blizzard is a pretty good company. Diablo ruled and Diablo 2 and its expansion were pretty cool too. Warcraft 2 is still one of my favorite games of all time (and I think that Warcraft 3 was an okay game, but left something to be desired; definetly not as good as #2). And if you never have played the original Warcraft, you're missin' out! It's real neat, and a good way to waste some time

As for Starcraft, there is the downfall of Blizzard. The whole game idea and everything was alright, but I can't get past the conception that they just took Warcraft and placed it into the future. Starcraft to me didn't even seem like an original game, nor even an original idea. It always seemed to me like a rip-off of Warcraft. Ah well, I still don't hold that against Blizzard; every company makes some mistakes. Plus Starcraft was a hit at the time no matter what I think, so there must have been some good in it. However, for me that remains to be found.

Posts: 2906 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2002 | IP: Logged

Gauss Vault Veteran Member # 108 Member Rated:	posted May 10, 2003 11:14 It was a real hit on B net. but I still dont like it. -------------------- No one is perfect
	Posts: 756 \| From: Israel \| Registered: Feb 2003 \| IP: Logged

Scotty the Great Paragon Member # 1 Member Rated:	posted May 11, 2003 08:32 nods Yeah. What I don't like right now about bnet is that there isn't too many people who play the classic games anymore. Most people either want to play WC3 or D2 and forget about the rest.
	Posts: 2906 \| From: Wisconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Stapes Paragon Member # 2 Member Rated:	posted May 11, 2003 09:22 That is only true because the original games are too old with really bad graphics. That's the only reason I don't play the original games.
	Posts: 2150 \| From: Sconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Scotty the Great Paragon Member # 1 Member Rated:	posted May 11, 2003 18:38 No, it's only true because the older games actually have more challenge. WC2 was harder than WC3, just as Diablo was more challenging than Diablo 2. Sure, graphics are better, but gameplay has been made way too easy.
	Posts: 2906 \| From: Wisconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Gauss Vault Veteran Member # 108 Member Rated:	posted May 12, 2003 06:43 It depends on the game. -------------------- No one is perfect
	Posts: 756 \| From: Israel \| Registered: Feb 2003 \| IP: Logged

Scotty the Great Paragon Member # 1 Member Rated:	posted May 12, 2003 07:02 True in a lot of cases, but I feel that WC3 and D2 pale in comparison to its predecessors. Well, maybe not so much D2, but WC3 can't even through a stick at WC2.
	Posts: 2906 \| From: Wisconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Stapes
Paragon
Member # 2

Member Rated:

posted May 12, 2003 15:29

I'll agree with you there, because I hate WC3 over the internet. To me all you do is run around and try killing each other with 3 different lords. WOOPEE!!!! I find WC2 more of a challenge because you actually have to have a strategy to be able to win and sometimes, you lose.

As for the original Diablo being better than D2, I highly doubt that. The regular Diablo had too slow of load times on any computer. I also didn't like the way that it was set up. In D2, you have all the people centered in a little camp, whereas the original was just a town that was scattered everywhere. I don't remember, but I don't think that there were different acts in the original.

[ May 12, 2003: Message edited by: Stapes ]

Posts: 2150 | From: Sconsin | Registered: May 2002 | IP: Logged

Scotty the Great Paragon Member # 1 Member Rated:	posted May 12, 2003 16:13 No, in the original you had to go through a church that had 20-some levels and led down to hell where Diablo lived. And the load times aren't that bad on modern computers (in fact, only a few seconds on mine). The only problem I had with Diablo was that you couldn't run. Other than that, it was a great game.
	Posts: 2906 \| From: Wisconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Stapes Paragon Member # 2 Member Rated:	posted May 12, 2003 22:11 See, I don't like that. And I like the setup of the D2 stuff better. You have more inventory to store extra stuff, you also don't have everything takin up half the screen. The however many levels would drive me crazy. The only thing that is mainly the same is that there is a Normal, Nightmare, and Hell difficulty.
	Posts: 2150 \| From: Sconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

Scotty the Great
Paragon
Member # 1

Member Rated:

posted May 13, 2003 07:01

Yeah, but there were also a few features where you could go from the town down to a certain floor (like one was a staircase that led to the 5th floor, and a crack in the ground that leads down to hell, or floor 17). I don't know if the floor levels are correct, but the idea is. It's been a while since I played it. The only downfall in that system is that you ha to be a certain level before you could use any certain gateway. So even if you had a powerful low-level character that could make it to hell, you couldn't take the jump to floor 17 from town because you weren't a high enough character.

The inventory was something greatly improved, though, I'll agree with that. I mean, in the original Diablo, your gold even took up space!

Posts: 2906 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2002 | IP: Logged

Slurrydevil
Vault Champion
Member # 11

Member Rated:

posted May 13, 2003 10:40

The only problem with the diablo series is sometimes you feel like its just *click* *click* *click* and no thinking. I mean they are awesome games but I always feel like my brain is running out of my ears when i play them.

--------------------

- Nietzsche

Posts: 950 | From: Perth West Australia | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Stapes Paragon Member # 2 Member Rated:	posted May 13, 2003 15:25 Yeah, but it is the same way in how many other games? In WC3 all you do is click click click, but in 2 you don't do that. Or at least I don't. But all the other games that I can think of with the exception of the MechWarrior games you have to do that.
	Posts: 2150 \| From: Sconsin \| Registered: May 2002 \| IP: Logged

All times are Central Time
This topic is comprised of pages: 1 2 3