🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 01:26:59 GMT, no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom (Noman)
wrote:

>the analogy of M&M:HOMM is completely
>inappropriate when talking about Fallout:FalloutTactics.

M&M	(CRPG) 	: 	HOMM 			(strategy)
Fallout	(CRPG)	: 	Fallout, Tactics	(strategy)

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

Baldur's Gate (CRPG)	: Icewind Dale	(CRPG)

In the case of M&M and Fallout the game company took the name "cross
genre". In the case of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale, they didn't. My
analogy works, yours does not.

>Icewind Dale's focus is on infinity engine/AD&D combat engine played
>through somewhat linear missions. 

As I said, a braindead showcase for an aging game engine :)

>BG had probably more combat within
>an extremely boring plot and forgettable quests/dialogues. 

Baldur's Gate did have a duull story. Baldur's Gate also came out 2
years before IWD when the engine was closer to "state of the art".

>So for some people, the removal of all that extra fluff from BG was
>actually a good thing.

For people who somehow never found all the flaws and bugs in the
infinty engine I suppose.

>On the other hand, Fallout had equally interesting quests/dialogue
>and combat engine. 

Fallout had both better combat and better story than Baldur's Gate, in
my opinion. 

>So even the Baldur's Gate:Icewind Dale analogy
>is not that relevant when talking about Fallout and Tactics.

It's completely _irrelevant_ - it's an invalid analogy...

>FWIW, the combat engine/perks/traits/character creation in FO were
>good enough to be the core focus of a single player game though.

Yep, the Fallout system was fine. I'd like to see combat itself
fleshed out a little bit with some of the features from Jagged
Alliance 2 - but that can easily be supported by the underlying rule
system used in the Fallout games.

>Especially since, the interface has been improved (Fallout had a
>really weak interface, IMO).

I really don't see much differnece in the interface between Fallout
and Fallout 2. Certainly not as much difgfernce as is customary
between a game and a sequel. They were both pretty weak in the
graphics department, which I'm sure turned off a number of people.

>HOMM and M&M have nothing in common.

Exactly! Nothing in common, except the name and the setting! That's
exactly right! The same is true of Fallout and Fallout:Tactics.