🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 08:35:47 GMT, Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 16:20:57 -0700, James Garvin <cr...@nmt.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>AND the building of FO tactics implies that there is something in the works.  
>
>It means that Interplay is using the oldest marketting trick in the
>book and trying to transfer "name recognition" from a well respected
>and critically acclaimed past product onto a new and unrelated
>product. Kinda like 3D0 did with Might & Magic and Heroes of Might &
>Magic. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't/ Fallout:Tactics may
>be a _great_ game, but it's not going to be Fallout 3.

While I don't agree with the first poster about his assumption that
development of F:T implies prospects of FO3 (as far as I remember,
even before Interplay announced F:T, the project Brotherhood of
Steel was mentioned in this newsgroup, and I considered it a
fan project kind of a thing), the analogy of M&M:HOMM is completely
inappropriate when talking about Fallout:FalloutTactics.

A somewhat more suitable analogy might be, Baldur's Gate:Icewind Dale.

Icewind Dale's focus is on infinity engine/AD&D combat engine played
through somewhat linear missions. BG had probably more combat within
an extremely boring plot and forgettable quests/dialogues. So for
some people, the removal of all that extra fluff from BG was
actually a good thing.

I know you don't like Icewind Dale, btw.

On the other hand, Fallout had equally interesting quests/dialogue
and combat engine. So even the Baldur's Gate:Icewind Dale analogy
is not that relevant when talking about Fallout and Tactics.

FWIW, the combat engine/perks/traits/character creation in FO were
good enough to be the core focus of a single player game though.
Especially since, the interface has been improved (Fallout had a
really weak interface, IMO).

HOMM and M&M have nothing in common.
--
Noman