🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 16:20:57 -0700, James Garvin <cr...@nmt.edu>
wrote:

>???????????  BG2 hasn't been out for six months Thrasher.  BG sold over 1
>million and BG2 is getting up there. 

BG1, sorry. Baldur's Gate was at 500,000 units sold when Diablo II
shipped. Where do you get your numbers?

> FO2 wasn't an unimaginative addon!  It was a great game that really expanded 
>the Fallout universe.  Look at the story.  The end goal (get to the tanker and win), 
>but the inbetween was so much more!  The quest for the GECK was inspired 
>and written very well.  New Reno was full of political intruge and just look at Vault 
>City vs the Ghouls.

Well, we have a difference of opinion here. I'd rate Fallout as a
"great" game. I'd rate Fallout 2 as a "good" game. Fallout 2 added
nothing to fallout except more story material. And, no, I don't think
the story was "better" in Fallout 2. The story in Fallout 2 was
_longer_, but it was pretty dull stuff.

>Your store is overpriced.  I can get the Fallout package (FO1 and FO2) for
>$20.  I can also get BG1 and TOSC for the same.  

You must live in the boonies :)

>Torment is at the $25 mark. FO could have been bigger, but it was at 
>the cusp of bringing RPGs back from the dead.

Yes, it was. That's no excuse for the way Intrplay dumped it onto the
market though. That unremarkable piece of shit Escape from
Thundermountain got 10 times the marketting Fallout did. Interplay and
Bioware spent a YEAR in this newsgroup and on the web promoting and
supporting Baldur's Gate before it shipped. There is a massive
difference in the way these two titles were handled. I don't know why.
The big effort with Baldurt's Gate obviously paid off, and it still is
paying off. It's really wasn't "all that" - Fallout was the better
game, in my opinion. By a long shot.

>Why do you say that?  FO1 & 2 didn't even use the infinity engine

What does that have to do with anything? Fallout came out almost a
year before Baldur's Gate, and as I recall FO2 came out shortly after.
That's a LONG time ago. Two years since FO2 shipped and FO3 hasn't
even been announced as being in development. It's not rocket science.
They dropped teh franchise.

>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.

>Why make a whole game with a story about the brotherhood (and the midwest) if you
>aren't going to try to build on that?  

Because it's easier to use a back story that's alreadyt been developed
than to come up with a new and original one?

>FO3 is around the corner and I think probably with either the NWN engine or something similar.  

I hope you are making this up. It makes me ill to think that the
Fallout games might be polluted by the infinty engine. I'm into
tactical combat in my games, and in my opinion the infinty engine is
the weakest one there is for representing tactical combat. It's
pathetic. It was passable two years ago - though not as good as
Fallout or X-Com - but now? No way.