Én már az első falu után "deja vu" feelinget kapok, szóval egyszer talán megpróbálom a "Me Grimlock smash!!!" szókincsű, 2-es intelligenciájú barbárral végigvinni.
Én is rettenetesen sajnálom a Black Isle Studios-t , de a Fallout 3-at csak a Troika tudná igazán jól megcsinálni, mert a sorozat szellemi agytrösztjei, akik tudják, hogy mi az a Fallout-feeling, mind ott dolgoznak már! Viszont ők tuti, hogy nem fognak semmit lépni ez ügyben, már csak a jogok miatt sem.
S nem mindenki beszél olyan echte angloul, mint én..
Egy kezdőnek azért elkellhet bár akkor inkább használj trainert.
(De azért sokkal jobb egy tiszta küzdedelem )
Én most irok először!Végülis azt szeretném kérni hogy irjatok ide,ha akrtok neten keresztül játszani egymás ellen.Majd ma kb 18:00-kor visszanézek.Remélem irtok!Hello
Így meglehetősen szkeptikus vagyok most is, bár az utóbbi időben több bíztató hír látott napvilágot, ez kétségtelen.
Amíg élünk, remélünk. Aztán meghalunk.
Ezzel valahogy én is így voltam... már a mutánsoknál átment körökre osztott diablová...
Amúgy nemrég valahol azt olvastam, hogy igenis lesz fallout3 és valami drasztikusat fognak véghez vinni a játékrendszeren... remélem azért nem szúrják el nagyon a dolgot
Szépálom, ilyeneket én is álmodok . Egyszer majdnem valóra vált(ez volt a tactics), de nagyot csalódtam benne.
Az remélem, hogy itt hallok valami biztosat, mert idáig nemsok biztatót hallottam (pl.: talán; elindult...mégsem stb.).
Sajna énsem tudok semmi biztatót mindani csak annyit hogy "talán" lesz de az biztos sikert arat.
Viszont realtime harcrendszer lesz, ami izé,,, nem kéne szerintem. De lessz és ez a lényeg!!!
Bár azt idáig sem nagyon értette senki, hogy miért halogatják folyamatosan a játékot.(
Van még olyan játék amiben ez van ?
> ez egy spec kiadása a Fallout trilógiának..
hallott már vki erről vmit?
(ehavi Pc Guru/CD Galaxis hírdetés)
Szerintem egy jó darabig várhatunk még a Falloutra, főleg mert az egyik főfickó elvonult a cégtől, meg beolvadnak, kiolvadnak...ellenben itt van valami, ami kisértetiesen emlékeztet a falloutra:
igaz nem interplay...
A Fallout1-2 pedig SZEREPJÁTÉK.Ég és föld a külömbség.A Tactics az Tactics,nem pedig harmadik rész.Ennyi.
Most nem azért de akkor a
Fallout Tactics az mi volt?
(Én eddig azt hittem hogy az már a 3. része)
hogyhogy nem az? nem értem?
aki tud az írjon!!!
Vampyro te a legtöbb fórumban csak szidod a többieket...
Most minek kellett bemásolni a Háború és Békét?
itt egy "kis" info:
Important Note: Interplay has not announced Fallout 3.
Wednesday, February 9 - J.E.Sawyer on Real-Time vs. Turn Based
There is an interesting tread (started by Decado, visitor) on the Fallout 2 Message board. There is a possibility that Fallout 3 could have real time combat as well as turn based, so he states his view on this:
There really are a number of things you can do in real-time (especially involving firearms) that you CAN'T do using Fallout's sequential combat system.
* Suppressing Fire - In real-time, suppressing fire accomplishes the goal of pinning down targets to prevent them from exiting a building or running from cover to cover because a hail of bullets is essentially always "attacking" the area. Move through an area in real-time that is being suppressed and you will get "attacked" by the area. In sequence, accomplishing that goal is difficult... to put it lightly.
* Reaction Arc -- Similar to suppressing fire, a reaction arc enables someone to essentially guard a field of vision, firing into that arc with a snapshot as soon as an enemy is sighted. This would be especially useful for snipers. I can think of ways to implement it in sequence, but not as easily as real-time.
* Queued Coordinated Actions -- The ability to link multiple actions for one or a number of characters based on completion states in real time. Action One: Jim throws a grenade into a room of baddies. Action Two: Everyone guards with a reaction arc for five seconds. Action Three: Fred and Jack open fire on the two other exits from the room while Jim pulls out his submachinegun to pick off stragglers. Once again -- there are ways you may be able to simulate it in sequence, but they are "sketchy", IMO. Your response to the possibility seems very violent and negative. I've already been through the whole real-time vs. turn-based debate for Neverwinter Nights. Everyone has preferences for different styles of play. While the turn-based combat in Fallout and Fallout 2 was obviously very popular among most of its fans, there were a lot of other people who were turned off to the game because of it -- people who either didn't buy the game or who bought the game and didn't like it. Would real-time combat be different from turn-based combat? Certainly. If they weren't different, there'd be no distinction. However, just because it's different, that doesn't mean that it would be be bad or even inferior. If the idea of Fallout 3 being real-time really does kill the feel of the series for you -- I'm sorry you feel that way. I see a lot of really cool possibilities for it and in a way, for many people who used to be turned off to Fallout, making the game in real-time will make it appealing to a lot more people.
Later on, FalloutBoy (visitor) said something like "If people don't like turn based combat they can buy any other game that does not have it", and our Sawyer made this comment (which, btw, I think it's very open minded and I support it with all of my heart... and this web site
I'm sorry if you didn't know this, but BioWare's NWN is *not* the first NWN. Neverwinter Nights was originally a game using SSI's Gold Box game engine for one of the first graphical MMORPGs. The fact that BioWare's NWN is 3D *and* real-time caused flame wars that make anything I've seen on this board pale in comparison. The old NWN community was, as a rule, less-than-pleased with where BioWare was going with the name and the game. "Must all of your games be the same?" Uh, no. In fact, that's exactly what you seem to be arguing *against*. I don't understand the simultaneously anti- *and* pro-conservative sentiment. Fallout and Fallout 2 were by and large the same. Must they all be? Fallout and Fallout 2 proved successful, but were by *no* means tremendous sellers. If I were to take your opening adage to heart, the past we'd be forgetting is the huge group of people who didn't like Fallout's turn-based combat. If we are to move forward, we have to find a medium between real-time and sequence. In addition, I think it's pretty unfair to examine one element of a game (in this case a combat environment) and judge that its change makes the game completely incongruent with previous games in the series. Fallout 3 isn't going to be Fallout 2 or Fallout 1 anymore than any other progressive sequel. Storylines change, systems change, weapons change -- none of that is going to go completely untouched. That's part of building on a sequel. In closing, I'd like to say that most of the comments I've seen on this are seem to be, well, close-minded. If you want to be close-minded, that's fine with me. However, you are ignoring the fact that we *are* putting a lot of thought into the concepting of the game and we *do* want to hear your ideas on how to make the game better. However, you have to remember that we're not only trying to make this game better for you, but for anyone who may want to play it.
Contrary to what some people might believe, the concept of RPGs in real-time with pausing existed LONG before Baldur's Gate. There was a great game which came out in 1992 called Darklands that featured the exact same system. Long before I ever thought I'd even be working at a gaming company, I thought that was a terrific idea. I still think it's a terrific idea. If I didn't honestly believe that it could help make Fallout 3 a really cool game, I wouldn't be arguing about it.
Now, you basically have two choices in this matter:
1) You can say, "Screw you dummies. You don't know anything and are totally naive." and take off.
2) You can say, "You know, the things I really like about sequential combat that I think will be lacking in a real-time environment are..." The latter option is not only not insulting, but it's constructive. Games that try to accomodate veteran players without getting their input rarely succeed at accommodating those players. We've listened to players both new and old -- a lot of them like real-time and a lot of them like sequential combat. The general consensus around here is that it's a hell of a lot easier to accommodate turn-based fans from a real-time foundation than the other way around. So, if you have suggestions or comments on the subject that can help us move forward, please make them.
Decado, who started this mess continued stating that this point of view may bring Fallout closer to strategy games like Jagged Alliance 2, and move it away from game that mostly depends on characters statistics. Here's what Mr.Sawyer answered:
I think it will work very well. When people hear "real-time" I think the implication in a game with firearms is that it uses target acquisition like Quake. It's actually very easy to implement the things I was talking about if you simply modify damage, chance to hit, and other stuf based on the nature of the action. You'd simply be clicking on a type of attack (Wide Burst, Narrow Burst) and painting a target area. Unpause and the character begins firing into the area, attacking anyone in the area at a reduced chance to hit and less damage (for instance). In short, I'm confident that it still can be based on your character's skill -- even though the cleverness of your tactics will still be left up to you as a player. As you said on the IWD board, time will tell what sorts of things we can do with the game.
I honestly can't imagine it being any more difficult to master than Fallout's combat. You're still choosing attack modes and actions in the same essential way, but the actions take place simultaneously. You're still clicking on your weapon until you find the attack mode you want (simply more options -- instead of Single Shot, Burst, and Reload, a SMG could have Single
Shot, Wide Burst, Narrow Burst, Reload) and selecting the target creature or area. Unpause, and it starts doing it. The only
thing that's different is that you can change your dudes' actions whenever you want. It doesn't mean that they take place whenever you want -- just that you can respond to stuff going on when you want and allow them to change their actions at the next available opportunity. As I've said before, I honestly think that time will tell how well it works.
This reminds me of combat system similar to Baldur's Gate. You can pause the game when ever you want, even in options set up for auto pause after every turn. Which may be good in this case. Huh, we have a long way to go. And one more this Mr.Sawyer said, it's simply a reminder to those who thinks that Fallout 3 is ginna be a First Person view game:
1) It would not be first person. It would be a third person isometric view, like Fallout. Unlike Fallout, however, you would have the ability to zoom in and out and rotate the camera wherever you wanted to.
2) It would be real-time with pause (in addition to other things).3) Target acquisition would be *exactly* the same as it is in Fallout and most other CRPGs. You select your action and your target. Your skill and various other in-game factors determine whether or not you hit, do damage, and so on.
Tuesday, February 8 - More Fallout 3 Speculations
Again, some Fallout 3 speculations on the Icewind Dale message board. J.E. Sawyer from Black Isle Studios posted the following (reply to post "I hate you, why wont you do Fallout 3"
Given that Steve and I were just talking about variable firing modes (like Wide Burst, Narrow Burst, and Continuous Fire for belt-fed weapons), you can bet that we weren't thinking of ideas for Icewind Dale.
In addition to that post, here's another:
We were talking about ideas for a game that is not Icewind Dale, not the next North Shore (Torment Team) project, and not a fantasy RPG. Sorry I can't be more concrete than that. That's all I can say for now.
Now, let's guess about that secret game that is RPG but not fantasy... Yeah, right, I know, they can't say more about this. My god, we must ask for Fox Mulder to find out the truth. And I'll give you a tip: Trust no one but Black Isle
Fearus Urquhart Interview
InciteGames posted it's interview with Feargus Urquhart, allmighty leader of Black Isle Studios, and guy who brought us Fallout games. What is interesting is that he speaks of Fallout 3. Here's a quote:
We aren't working on Fallout 3 currently, however if we were to start it then we are going to make it using a 3D engine. When I say that, I generally get about 100 email from people freaking out that we are going to make it a first-person shooter. So everyone knows, we are going to keep the gameplay and isometric nature the same as in the first two Fallouts. We will probably put in a real-time combat mode, but we will not abandon the players who want to take their time in combat.
Link: InciteGames Interview
Wednesday, February 2 - More Info on Fallout 3
Here's something that David Ray, Software Engineer busy making Icewind Dale,
posted on Interplay's Icewind Dale Message Board:
The only thing I can tell you about Fallout 3 is that it is not currently in development. That does not mean it will never be in development, but at the moment it is not.
Later down the tread, David also commented info that can be found in Fallout 3 section of this site:
Everything said in that interview was true at the time it was said. I can even tell you that I transfered into Black Isle specifically to work on that project. It was put on extended hold due to reasons I can not explain. Since then, some things have changed. For one, we may not be using the Stonekeep II engine, although we may still, but there are other choices that have been kicked around as well. So, since I was one of the programmers slated to work on that project, and am still interested in doing so, I can tell you that the project is not currently going on. Whether it will happen or not, I simply do not know for certain, I certainly hope it does. And because of the new engine options available to us (also information I can't disclose), I don't believe we currently have a decision for which engine it will use, as I have stated before. I have never knowingly posted any false information to this board, and will continue in that tradition. So what I am telling you here is true to the best of my knowledge, and since it is something I'm keeping tabs on, I believe it is accurate.
Friday, January 21 - David Hendee talks about Fallout 3
David Hendee said something interesting (as always on the official Fallout 2
Again, sorry. We can't say whether there will or will not be a Fallout 3 until it is officially announced. Just in very "general" terms. If a new engine is developed, the engine alone will take 16 to 30 months, then the rest of the development time tacked on to the end of that (12+ months). The type of game and other factors can add or subtract a great deal from that.
If an existing engine is used, it can take anywhere from 12 to 24 months... in general. Then again, I'm not all that great with estimations so take that with a shovel of salt.
This isn't to say that there will or will not be one, but it would seem strange not to do a Fallout 3?
Fallout 1 & 2 designer (one of the many)
Black Isle Studios
I have gathered all available info on Fallout 3 and compiled this Fallout 3 news page, exclusively for NMA's visitors!
Now, let's get started.
GameCenter had a small Fallout 2 interview, in which Feargus Urquhart, lead director of Black Isle studios, but besides Fallout 2, he speaks about "not yet announced" title, Fallout 3.
"In other Fallout news, Urquhart acknowledged that Interplay intends to develop Fallout 3. He said that Interplay considers Fallout to be one its major role-playing brands and that a third game is all but certain. He also confirmed that Fallout 3 will likely feature a 3D engine, not the series' existing 2D isometric engine. "I'm a big proponent of making games 3D," said Urquhart. "If that's where the industry and games are going, that's what we need to do."
In fact, Interplay already has a 3D engine in mind for Fallout 3. Interplay tentatively intends to use the first-person 3D engine that it has developed for Stonekeep 2. However, Urquhart stressed that the engine would be modified to suit Fallout 3's planned three-quarter view. "Fallout has a look and even if we do a 3D version we're not going to change it so much that it looks unfamiliar," Urquhart assured us.
Finally, we asked if Urquhart and Interplay are considering making the game real time. Urquhart acknowledged that this might be an option, but guaranteed Fallout 3 would have a turn-base mode. "We don't know," said Urquhart. "That's not a decision we've made yet." At least that's not a no.
Note: Remember that this is copyrighted by GameCenter, and I appreciate them for for allowing me to use this here.
In addition, I have gathered some tiny things, from Feargus Urquhart (from chats, message boards and emails) and Matt Norton (I had a small discussion with him about a flechette gun, and I must say I'm very pleased with Matt's help).
"We've just started on Fallout 3. Right now we're trying to figure out just what we want it to look like and how we want the engine to work. I don't have much information about the game itself yet other than the fact that we're going to a 3D engine (although using a similar view to the one found in Fallout 2 rather than 1st person). It will not be a multiplayer game."
Note: This info is available from NMA, if You want to use it on Your web site, state that this info came from No Mutants Allowed.
And now, one Frequently Asked Question: I don't want Fallout 3 to be a 3d game. I don't like first person shooters. It'll ruin the game!
Now, you are not getting this right. Fallout 3 is not gonna be a 3d shooter, it'll use a 3d engine. What does this means? First, much nicer graphics, and less job for artists. Excellent example of this is a Baldur's Gate (don't get me wrong as most of you did, BG is just partially a 3D game). Your characters' graphic will change each time you get something new, even boots! This process is totally different than graphic in Fallout 1 and 2. Artist needs to draw each image of a character with each weapon, armor. Note that animations usually have about 14-25 frames (separate images that are shown fast, so you think it's animation), so it takes a lot of time. In 3d games, all you need to do is to create an image of a character, and just place an image of let's say, 10mm pistol right next to his hand. Then the engine moves the gun as character moves his hand. This is the closest I could explain, as I'm not a programmer.
"I make my own luck."
A kutya, a deathclaw+ stb szerintem már fölösleges.
Én nehezen tudom elképzelni 3d-ben.
de haladni kell(?) a korral.
Európára kiváncsi lennék.
A fórumon szereplő hozzászólások olvasóink véleményét tükrözik, azokért semmilyen felelősséget nem vállalunk.