«

[Doubler]

why change something that isn't broken? I don't want to have to drink water.[/b]

Unless you're saying that the game was absolutely perfect (I think you'll find that quite a controversial statement - or otherwise the game might not be 'broken' per-sé but still not be good as it could/should be, or might just be functioning poorly - the reason why you will never hear me say 'don't fix what isn't broken'), this isn't changing anything you're considering. :P
It's adding something to the game, something that's subject to change but is not in itself a change of something that was already there (as long as you don't consider an absence 'something', which would be plain odd). Whether it's a good addition or not is your own concern, and you might have your reasons which may be better or worse and more or less universal.

I think Fallout could do with more survival elements befitting the setting and the feel of the game, but with fewer moronic nuclear devices that barely if at all fit, and might just be plain contradictory to the retro-future aspect. The new survival elements seem more in line with the limited supply of bullets I might have to keep an eye on. Or plainly my health. Things you have to pay attention to no matter your choices (I guess you could bypass ammo to some extent), and I suspect those choices are what you mean when you describe Fallout, as taking it literally as 'Fallout = story and do whatever you want' would be a rather poor description. The doing whatever you want was naturally limited by the choice-consequence in the game. Fallout is certainly not a sandbox game.
Anyway, in essence these things will not even necessarily limit you concentrating on the story and doing whatever you want, choosing whatever you want. It's part of the gameplay which is involved in just that.

As for your suggestion of a choice. Wouldn't it be nice if absolutely everything in the game was up to the player to decide? Wonder why they don't do that...
Robinson's Requiem is the game you're thinking about, I believe. Thing is, it's a survival game. The arcade function's a watered-down survival game - an easy mode P

[12turtle12]

I'm not saying this Fallout isn't good, or isn't going to be good when they do release it, but it's definitely a Bethesda flavor, not Interplay. I think you could agree with that...? *BTW- what's a sandbox game?* I'm still going to buy it when it comes out. I think I'll still enjoy it when it comes out. The graphics look great, the character creation is a bit different, and actually I think I'll like that too, rather than just "coming out of the womb" grown up. (Although there should be an option to just make your character in case you're playing the game through for the 10th time like I have all the other Fallout games) But, I think there's a fine balance to making finding water and testing it w/ your portable ... not seismograph...crap...your radioactive-tester thingy, an integral part of the game. If I'm playing the game through for time #5, I already know where the water is. I know I need it, for the 30th time during gameplay this time. I don't want to go find the water again. I want to play the game through for the storyline, and to do different things to change the outcome of the ending sequence. I don't want to waste my time finding water for the 1000th time in my life. That's why I made the comment about experience grinding in some games. Just how frequently are you going to have to go search for water, or go 15 minutes out of your way for it? If it's almost as big as Oblivion world, like the article said I believe, they better have a "jump" option to that important oasis. If not, that's just going to suck.
P.S. - It's not RR, you drop down from an airplane or crashing helicopter, and the first thing you see as you go forward was either a dinosaur or a caveman type guy.

[Doubler]

I'm not saying this Fallout isn't good, or isn't going to be good when they do release it, but it's definitely a Bethesda flavor, not Interplay. I think you could agree with that...?[/b]

Yeah. I'm not sure I like it myself, but I'm suspending judgement to judgement day.

What I'd call a sandbox game is a game in which restraints are lifted as much as possible in favour of always being having all options open - always being able to do whatever you want.
Why isn't Fallout one? Fallout's choice and consequence already limits your options, your possibilities, and railroads you to some extent into you further moves.

radioactive-tester thingy[/b]

Geiger counter? :P
And the 'portable' bit is somewhat redundant. Geiger counters are usually quite portable

As for water. I would imagine finding water isn't the problem in the first place. I'm also hoping that skills play a big role in this.
Of course that's speculation and hoping.

P.S. - It's not RR, you drop down from an airplane or crashing helicopter, and the first thing you see as you go forward was either a dinosaur or a caveman type guy.[/b]

Sounds a lot like Deus. The sequel to RR.

[12turtle12]

Geiger Counter! Thanks!
We're all just speculating at this point. There's really very little information any of us have, but if I get my
expectations for this game too high, I think it'll be a disappointment. How many companies have taken over a sequel to a hit game or movie and made it as good or better, w/ the same "spirit" as the original? It's very difficult. I think that's the biggest problem a lot of fans have. We're worried that Bethesda will put too much Bethesda and not as much Interplay. I'll rate the game when it comes out not based only on it's own merit, but how much it represents the atmosphere and history of the games before it. That's the curse you get when you make a sequel. You have to stay true in certain ways to the original.

[Tulac]

I think the biggest problem is the ten year span. The way I see it they can't have positive reactions no matter what they do. It can either be:
a) Too many changes, not in true spirit of original, bla bla. Which is what we see with Fallout 3.
b) It's too close to original, I can't see any changes it's an old game with only new graphics, bla bla. Which is what we see with Starcraft 2.

So basically fan boys are impossible to please, especially after such a long time.

[mercenary]

Only thing Fallout funs don't want is Oblivion with guns as Fallout 3.
Oblivion is so dumb by means of conversation path and quest solving choices, that it is disgusting for any Fallouter. Also, most of funs (including me), don't want real-time combat.
Level cap for both Fallouts was 99, but I rearly reached more than 30 in 1, and 50 in 2.

[silz]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Doubler @ Jun 16 2007, 03:09 PM) [snapback]294709[/snapback]</div>

But, one consideration I won't regret losing:
"Oh no... a dozen opponents. Should I go make dinner or buy some new clothes while waiting for the them to finish their turn?" :P
[/b]

hehe yeah and you can't even press esc to reload.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Fallout 3 site has updated, looks nice.
The game is coming along fine, although I tend to ignore most of the propaganda, coming from both "sides".

The breakdown.

People who whine constantly = retards.
People who praise constantly = retards.

[_r.u.s.s.]

i want some real in game action movie, not the crap in their 'trailer'
(which looks more like a teaser to me..)

[Blood-Pigggy]

Stop whining :w00t: