Je conseille à tous les fans de Fallout 3 de visiter les forums de BIS (pas Bohemia Interactive Studio, hein… ^^) comme cette page : http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.php?..c&start=210
Je vous copy/paste un thread de Chris Avellone :
___________________________________________________________
[quote]
triCritical wrote (View Post):
Now I am not saying that Van Buren is FO3, even though I think it is, but lets pretend it isn’t so you guys don’t get in trouble. But if it were being made, who would be in charge?
The people that get my vote would obviously be the Josh’s and Damian’s of the world who didn’t appreciate FO2 and enjoy TB combat. Anyway to whoever is in charge these are my suggestions.
- Keep it simple, don’t make a world that is too big. (Arcanum and FO2)
- Combat and encounters should be smart and focused and not too many of them. When you go into combat it should be special, and it should make the player feel a bit nervous since he doesn’t do it a whole lot. Furthermore, the controls should be easy and intuitive with plenty of options like the former systems.
- FIX SPECIAL!!! Get rid of luck, combine skills, add skills, revisit tagging, and make it logical but at the same time not too logical.
AND FOR THE LOVE OF BRAHMIN, fix the way guns are handled to small, rifles and large!!!
-
NEW RENO SUCKED!!! OK it was fun going through it and playing it, but it wasn’t FO,
-
50’s Sci-fi, NOT 80’s GAME SCI_FI for crissakes. ENCLAVE BAAAADDDDD!!!
Finally,
- Weapons and automobiles. Very rare, remember! I shouldn’t have a german gun made in the 70’s in mass abundance in the San Francisco area. Assault rifle anyone??? Actually I don’t know when the assualt rifle came into its own, I tend to think WW2 weaponry for FO real, but that might be slightly erroneous. All future style weapons I though were done pretty good in both games.
OK these thing would make me happy, but if you can’t implement don’t sweat it, I will just turn into Rager or something. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now here is another question. What universe will you be using. The FO universe, the tactics universe, the game I won’t mention universe because I will get banned by the gustapo, or the FO bible universe. The reason is because I want to re-educate myself in the happenings so I can be an educated and helpful board member.
Finally, if its Chris whose in charge, someone please remind him that PS:T and FO should be very different games.
EDIT: Assault rifle refers to the m16 lookalike in FO2. Turns out it was made in John Hopkins in 1948 but did not go into wide use until the early 60’s and popularized in the vietnam war.
All good points.
I would prefer TB combat. And no multiplayer.
I think New Reno in light of the genre was wrong, but I will defend the quests, the choices, and the number of things to do in New Reno until my dying day. I believe it was a fun location to play, and I am still proud for having designed it, despite the genre problems.
80s Sci-Fi is bad. The point of Fallout is that the world functions much the way people of the 50s believed a sci-fi/post-holocaust world would be. And it obeys the same physics, to boot.
Weapons and automobiles (if any) should be rare. I do not think there should be real-world weapons.
For continuity purposes, I would prefer that all Fallout PC RPG titles have their own continuity outside of other platforms and game genres (FOT), and that other platforms and game genres be regarded as “What if” universes, not canon. I do not know if that is my decision, however.
I recognize that PS:T and Fallout are different games. I would also ask if you consider PS:T (done after Fallout) to have been a gross violation of the Planescape genre and whether you thought it had too many easter eggs in it.
I think there are many things that make Fallout what it is:
The SPECIAL system. EDIT: Including turn-based combat.
The choices in solving quests.
The non-linearity.
The ambiance.
Hard moral choices.
Role-playing, including stupid dialogue and Karma-based responses.
A world where locations have rational explanations and reasons for being, as well as economic reasons for how they have survived.
…among others. There are some things I think were done poorly in FO2, and they are:
Easter eggs.
Too many jokes, which only undermines the plot.
Lack of a satisfying finale.
Lack of choice in finale.
Not enough choice in some areas.
Real-world weapons.
Super Technology.
Too much sex. I don’t think you need an excess of prostitutes to make a game serious and gritty.
The presence of aliens and the supernatural. While I can support the presence of aliens in a Fallout 50’s ambiance, I think they distract from the human-centric themes in the game.
There are some things I would want to bring from Planescape, however:
- A strong central theme or multiple ones, preferably sparked by your character.
- Deep NPC relationships that are not about romance.
- Richer NPCs whose lives you can affect dramatically.
- Get XP rewards for exploration, learning things, teaching things, and not just killing.
- Even more importance and focus on the central character; rather than seeking a water chip or a GECK, I’d rather the player tell me what he’s looking for as a character, then have the game react accordingly.
I would prefer a Fallout that takes a step back from the world in FO2, in a frontier-like area, more in keeping with FO1. I would also like to see certain civilizations’ advancement reversed dramatically and violently, as well as perhaps do some general clean-up on the world.
My 2 cents - hypothetically speaking,
Chris
___________________________________________________________
Ce message a été édité par GuiX le 19/05/2003