Jagged Alliance 3 > Fallout 3 (For staying true to it's roots)

Instead of giving Fallout 3 negative attentian for straying from it's roots, why don't you hype the sequel to the other cult classic that came out in that era, Jagged Alliance 3?

Fans of the original will know this stuff already.

• Developed by Strategy First
• RPG/Turn Based Strategy.
• Modify weapons and construct objects.
• Take control of an island and it's facilities with creativity and complete non-linearity.
• Blow open any wall, cut any wire fence, climb on any roof, use stealth, darkness, or force.
• Hire mercenaries online from multiple websites, also visit shops that sell insurance, military equipment, and download intelligence.
• Level up each mercenaries stats and skills and equiptment.
• Highly tactical combat. Take cover in grass, behind rocks, or go prone and snipe.
• Assassinate the dictatorship with a squad of hired mercenaries.
• Acquire funding for your operation by winning over the islands shops, facilities, mines.
• Use RPG dialogue to communicate with citizens.
• Mercenaries have relationships with one another that can raise or lower moral. Plus it's funny as hell to listen to.
• Skills include Explosives (to blow up anything that's concrete) Electronics (for electronic traps, etc) and Lockpicking.

Gameplay Video

Jagged Alliance 2
Jagged Alliance 3

And now lets look at this from a business side. Fallout 3 = multiplatform and very action oriented and well sell extremely well, Jagged Alliance 3 = staying true to its roots and wont sell for crap.

Why do you all think that Fallout 3 went the way it did? All because of sales. When games cost 10+ million to make, you need to make sure they are going to sell. I don't care how awesome the first 2 fallout games were, the fact is a game just like those wouldn't sell for crap in todays market. Welcome to next gen gameing.

This is one of the only cases in SW where sales can be used to explain anything.

And now lets look at this from a business side. Fallout 3 = multiplatform and very action oriented and well sell extremely well, Jagged Alliance 3 = staying true to its roots and wont sell for crap.

Why do you all think that Fallout 3 went the way it did? All because of sales. When games cost 10+ million to make, you need to make sure they are going to sell. I don't care how awesome the first 2 fallout games were, the fact is a game just like those wouldn't sell for crap in todays market. Welcome to next gen gameing.

This is one of the only cases in SW where sales can be used to explain anything.

Wasdie

So you are stating games with Isometric view won't sell?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

And now lets look at this from a business side. Fallout 3 = multiplatform and very action oriented and well sell extremely well, Jagged Alliance 3 = staying true to its roots and wont sell for crap.

Why do you all think that Fallout 3 went the way it did? All because of sales. When games cost 10+ million to make, you need to make sure they are going to sell. I don't care how awesome the first 2 fallout games were, the fact is a game just like those wouldn't sell for crap in todays market. Welcome to next gen gameing.

This is one of the only cases in SW where sales can be used to explain anything.

Krigon

So you are stating games with Isometric view won't sell?

I don't think he said that at all... because he didn't say that at all. He is trying to say that Fallout 3 has more of a mass market appeal then Jagged Alliance 3 because of all the updates it went through.

Yep, among my top3 most wanted games easily :)AdrianWerner

Agreed. :P

And now lets look at this from a business side. Fallout 3 = multiplatform and very action oriented and well sell extremely well, Jagged Alliance 3 = staying true to its roots and wont sell for crap.Wasdie

On the contrary, as a niche franchise, it will sell just fine.

Why do you all think that Fallout 3 went the way it did?Wasdie

Because the Fallout license was bought by Bethesda.

Black Isle was not planning to go down Oblivion with Guns' route when they were still developing Van Buren.

All because of sales. When games cost 10+ million to make, you need to make sure they are going to sell. I don't care how awesome the first 2 fallout games were, the fact is a game just like those wouldn't sell for crap in todays market. Welcome to next gen gameing.

This is one of the only cases in SW where sales can be used to explain anything.Wasdie

Good luck actually proving that.

If you haven't noticed, when Fallout first came out, first and third-person games were already prevalent and yet both Fallout games sold just fine and racked up an enormous amount of acclaim. What does that tell you about your standard?

You can't exactly say fallout 3 didnt stay true to its roots until you play it.Bulova

It doesn't stay true to it's roots.

Fallout 3 looks more fun.TheOwnerOner

Interesting selection. Have you played either franchise before?

[QUOTE="TheOwnerOner"]Fallout 3 looks more fun.Tony-Harrison

Interesting selection. Have you played either franchise before?

Nope,

but turnbase strategy RPGs bore me.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

And now lets look at this from a business side. Fallout 3 = multiplatform and very action oriented and well sell extremely well, Jagged Alliance 3 = staying true to its roots and wont sell for crap.

Why do you all think that Fallout 3 went the way it did? All because of sales. When games cost 10+ million to make, you need to make sure they are going to sell. I don't care how awesome the first 2 fallout games were, the fact is a game just like those wouldn't sell for crap in todays market. Welcome to next gen gameing.

This is one of the only cases in SW where sales can be used to explain anything.

Krigon

So you are stating games with Isometric view won't sell?

Not the Isometirc view, just the game in general. The appearance (2d Isometric) and the gameplay combined with the appearance is the real turn off. People want a more action packed game experiance that Jagged Alliance 3 is going to provide.

^

I didn't know that fallout was a strategy game.

I guess controlling one person and INDIRECTLY commanding your followers constitutes a strategy game.

Ignorance is hilarious.

Btw The matrix revolutions was a horrible horrible movie.

the matrix is lame. mediocre cyberpunk,a poor man's neuromancer.

i think its funny how for the longest time Todd Howard and his merry bunch of bethsoft asswipe devs went on and on about "isometric being dead",...and "first person/real time is soo much more immersive" ,then blizzard comes around and owns them by announcing diablo 3 as well as keeping the series in it's isometric roots.

[QUOTE="Tony-Harrison"]

[QUOTE="TheOwnerOner"]Fallout 3 looks more fun.TheOwnerOner

Interesting selection. Have you played either franchise before?

Nope,

but turnbase strategy RPGs bore me.

Hah. Fallout 1 & 2 where turn based. If you've never played either then what do you assume the turn based combat is like?

Your just a fanboy.

the matrix is lame. mediocre cyberpunk,a poor man's neuromancer.

i think its funny how for the longest time Todd Howard and his merry bunch of bethsoft asswipe devs went on and on about "isometric being dead",...and "first person/real time is soo much more immersive" ,then blizzard comes around and owns them by announcing diablo 3 as well as keeping the series in it's isometric roots.

Cocacolacowboy

So very true. Also, Divine Divinity came out AFTER Morrowind and was a much better RPG.

Even Gamespot Agree's. Not that it matters.

[QUOTE="Tony-Harrison"][QUOTE="TheOwnerOner"][QUOTE="Tony-Harrison"]

[QUOTE="TheOwnerOner"]Fallout 3 looks more fun.TheOwnerOner

Interesting selection. Have you played either franchise before?

Nope,

but turnbase strategy RPGs bore me.

Hah. Fallout 1 & 2 where turn based. If you've never played either then what do you assume the turn based combat is like?

Your just a fanboy.

we're talking about Jagget Alliance Vs Fallout 3 you dumb sh@# face.

When did Fallout 1 & 2 ever enter the conversation.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Precisely my point, Fallout 3 has been dumbed down.

It's casuals like YOU who are ruining the industry mate.

Precisely my point, Fallout 3 has been dumbed down.

It's casuals like YOU who are ruining the industry mate.

Tony-Harrison

If he hasn't played the first two then why should he care about the bastardization of the series? This game under any other name would be viewed as nothing but a promising game. If he hasn't played the first two, why should he care that it is different than them?

And people who visit gamespot forums are not the casuals ruining the industry.

Good luck actually proving that.

If you haven't noticed, when Fallout first came out, first and third-person games were already prevalent and yet both Fallout games sold just fine and racked up an enormous amount of acclaim. What does that tell you about your standard?

Pariah_001

Here's his luck.

The video game industry is going the way of Hollywood. I could write an entire essay for you as to why and how Hollywood needed to go mass market (because pre 1940s, niches were okay), but really, all you have to do is trust me.

Black Isle was not planning to go down Oblivion with Guns' route when they were still developing Van Buren.

Pariah_001

Such a waste of intelligence on pure, unadulterated fanboysim.

It's especially sad considering that you are a person who unnecessarily uses the upper-most tiers of grammar and vocabulary, only to come crashing down when some illiterate producer uses the lame "Oblivion with Guns" analogy. Seriously, the flow just sucks.

[QUOTE="Tony-Harrison"]

Precisely my point, Fallout 3 has been dumbed down.

It's casuals like YOU who are ruining the industry mate.

Vyyral

If he hasn't played the first two then why should he care about the bastardization of the series? This game under any other name would be viewed as nothing but a promising game. If he hasn't played the first two, why should he care that it is different than them?

And people who visit gamespot forums are not the casuals ruining the industry.

Of course there are casuals on Gamespot! They are the ones who don't mind getting a shallowed down version of a game that acquired it's reputation for being deep and intelligent.

Hah. Fallout 1 & 2 where turn based. If you've never played either then what do you assume the turn based combat is like?

Your just a fanboy.

Tony-Harrison

[QUOTE="Cocacolacowboy"]

the matrix is lame. mediocre cyberpunk,a poor man's neuromancer.

i think its funny how for the longest time Todd Howard and his merry bunch of bethsoft asswipe devs went on and on about "isometric being dead",...and "first person/real time is soo much more immersive" ,then blizzard comes around and owns them by announcing diablo 3 as well as keeping the series in it's isometric roots.

Tony-Harrison

So very true. Also, Divine Divinity came out AFTER Morrowind and was a much better RPG.

Even Gamespot Agree's. Not that it matters.

Glad im not the only one who loved that game:)

You can't exactly say fallout 3 didnt stay true to its roots until you play it.Bulova

No, you can.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]And now lets look at this from a business side. Fallout 3 = multiplatform and very action oriented and well sell extremely well, Jagged Alliance 3 = staying true to its roots and wont sell for crap.Pariah_001

On the contrary, as a niche franchise, it will sell just fine.

Why do you all think that Fallout 3 went the way it did?Wasdie

Because the Fallout license was bought by Bethesda.

Black Isle was not planning to go down Oblivion with Guns' route when they were still developing Van Buren.

All because of sales. When games cost 10+ million to make, you need to make sure they are going to sell. I don't care how awesome the first 2 fallout games were, the fact is a game just like those wouldn't sell for crap in todays market. Welcome to next gen gameing.

This is one of the only cases in SW where sales can be used to explain anything.Wasdie

Good luck actually proving that.

If you haven't noticed, when Fallout first came out, first and third-person games were already prevalent and yet both Fallout games sold just fine and racked up an enormous amount of acclaim. What does that tell you about your standard?

well, if you have an expensive franchise like fallout, you need to make it sell, tahts because they change the type of game, lets be honest ppl now just like how many gore and blood a game has, and i dont think that many ppl have played the 1st and 2nd ones, if i own bethseda, i shoud have done the same IMO

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]And now lets look at this from a business side. Fallout 3 = multiplatform and very action oriented and well sell extremely well, Jagged Alliance 3 = staying true to its roots and wont sell for crap.12345yon

On the contrary, as a niche franchise, it will sell just fine.

Why do you all think that Fallout 3 went the way it did?Wasdie

Because the Fallout license was bought by Bethesda.

Black Isle was not planning to go down Oblivion with Guns' route when they were still developing Van Buren.

All because of sales. When games cost 10+ million to make, you need to make sure they are going to sell. I don't care how awesome the first 2 fallout games were, the fact is a game just like those wouldn't sell for crap in todays market. Welcome to next gen gameing.

This is one of the only cases in SW where sales can be used to explain anything.Wasdie

Good luck actually proving that.

If you haven't noticed, when Fallout first came out, first and third-person games were already prevalent and yet both Fallout games sold just fine and racked up an enormous amount of acclaim. What does that tell you about your standard?

well, if you have an expensive franchise like fallout, you need to make it sell, tahts because they change the type of game, lets be honest ppl now just like how many gore and blood a game has, and i dont think that many ppl have played the 1st and 2nd ones, if i own bethseda, i shoud have done the same IMO

I have not played the other fallout games, and its not the gore that interests me...and none of my friends are hyped for the gore either. All i see is smug pc know it alls shunning the game becouse its not "true to its roots". That has nothing to do with how good the game will be at all, its just going in a different direction.hip-hop-cola2

Were not being smug. Fallout 3 is being sold on the reputation of the Fallout licence. Fallout gained it's reputation for not being precisely what it is now, a casual RPG.

[QUOTE="hip-hop-cola2"] I have not played the other fallout games, and its not the gore that interests me...and none of my friends are hyped for the gore either. All i see is smug pc know it alls shunning the game becouse its not "true to its roots". That has nothing to do with how good the game will be at all, its just going in a different direction.Tony-Harrison

Were not being smug. Fallout 3 is being sold on the reputation of the Fallout licence. Fallout gained it's reputation for not being precisely what it is now, a casual RPG.

The fallout franchise was sold by interplay to bethesda for cold hard cash which means they can do whatever they want with it.

I for one played Fallout 2 and am glad it is going 3d. 2d isometric games made a lot more sense when hardware was limited. Those games also play much better with a mouse which makes them less ideal for a multiplat release.

I'm surprised so many Fallout fans are complaining since things could be a lot worse. Just be glad that they didn't turn Fallout into a family friendly Wii game.

[QUOTE="Tony-Harrison"]

[QUOTE="hip-hop-cola2"] I have not played the other fallout games, and its not the gore that interests me...and none of my friends are hyped for the gore either. All i see is smug pc know it alls shunning the game becouse its not "true to its roots". That has nothing to do with how good the game will be at all, its just going in a different direction.dc337

Were not being smug. Fallout 3 is being sold on the reputation of the Fallout licence. Fallout gained it's reputation for not being precisely what it is now, a casual RPG.

The fallout franchise was sold by interplay to bethesda for cold hard cash which means they can do whatever they want with it.

I for one played Fallout 2 and am glad it is going 3d. 2d isometric games made a lot more sense when hardware was limited. Those games also play much better with a mouse which makes them less ideal for a multiplat release.

I'm surprised so many Fallout fans are complaining since things could be a lot worse. Just be glad that they didn't turn Fallout into a family friendly Wii game.

It may as well have been.

Greedy developers & 'tards who buy dumbed down s*** like Oblivion with Guns are destroying gaming.

This game is hardcore.Tony-Harrison

lol, so eloquently and concisely put! Just what i was gonna say :D

And now lets look at this from a business side. Fallout 3 = multiplatform and very action oriented and well sell extremely well, Jagged Alliance 3 = staying true to its roots and wont sell for crap.

Why do you all think that Fallout 3 went the way it did? All because of sales. When games cost 10+ million to make, you need to make sure they are going to sell. I don't care how awesome the first 2 fallout games were, the fact is a game just like those wouldn't sell for crap in todays market. Welcome to next gen gameing.

This is one of the only cases in SW where sales can be used to explain anything.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Vyyral"][QUOTE="Tony-Harrison"]

Precisely my point, Fallout 3 has been dumbed down.

It's casuals like YOU who are ruining the industry mate.

Tony-Harrison

If he hasn't played the first two then why should he care about the bastardization of the series? This game under any other name would be viewed as nothing but a promising game. If he hasn't played the first two, why should he care that it is different than them?

And people who visit gamespot forums are not the casuals ruining the industry.

Of course there are casuals on Gamespot! They are the ones who don't mind getting a shallowed down version of a game that acquired it's reputation for being deep and intelligent.

You havent played Fallout 3 yet, but yeah i know what you mean.

Thia game looks like crap , no offense.AtrumRegina

Non Taken... and it doesn't look crap... but it does sound it.

The original JA's (as made by Sir-Tech) was awesome... I still play JA2 Gold now and then. Unfortunetly, F3Games/Akella,seems to be removing all the elements that made JA2 such a great game... In the end we have a simple turn-based tactical game with linear missions running on the Silent Storm engine. I'll rather justplay JA2 or Silent Storm again...

No complex economy system, no militia, etc... no point.

*goes back to playing his 250th-300th or so hour of fallout 3*

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

On the contrary, as a niche franchise, it will sell just fine.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]Why do you all think that Fallout 3 went the way it did?Pariah_001

Because the Fallout license was bought by Bethesda.

Black Isle was not planning to go down Oblivion with Guns' route when they were still developing Van Buren.

All because of sales. When games cost 10+ million to make, you need to make sure they are going to sell. I don't care how awesome the first 2 fallout games were, the fact is a game just like those wouldn't sell for crap in todays market. Welcome to next gen gameing.

This is one of the only cases in SW where sales can be used to explain anything.Wasdie

Good luck actually proving that.

If you haven't noticed, when Fallout first came out, first and third-person games were already prevalent and yet both Fallout games sold just fine and racked up an enormous amount of acclaim. What does that tell you about your standard?

Fallout 1 and 2 sold like crap. Wasdie is right.

But at least Bethesda did a better job then FT:BoS and F:BoS with regards to role playing and brought F3 to the PC too and made it very mod-able, as opposed to Interplay who gave up on the PC platform.

Fallout 3 could have been better if some of those mods, where mods, but part of the game.

And I despise turn based combat and the isometric view, they are in no way connected to role playing.

[QUOTE="Cocacolacowboy"]

the matrix is lame. mediocre cyberpunk,a poor man's neuromancer.

i think its funny how for the longest time Todd Howard and his merry bunch of bethsoft asswipe devs went on and on about "isometric being dead",...and "first person/real time is soo much more immersive" ,then blizzard comes around and owns them by announcing diablo 3 as well as keeping the series in it's isometric roots.

Tony-Harrison

So very true. Also, Divine Divinity came out AFTER Morrowind and was a much better RPG.

Even Gamespot Agree's. Not that it matters.

Ahhh nice one yes Divine Divinity im gonna take a look. Regarding the other games you mentioned TC i dunno personally im not a fan of Modern Era, World War Era, Western Era, of Turn Based games.

Honestly after completing Final Fantasy Tactics a month ago i have been hankering for a new experience turnbased on my PSP, Diesga im thinking.

Bahh Divine Divinty after just doing some reasearch i know this game and i hated the Demo, hmm perhaps i was hasty but i doubt it.

[QUOTE="AtrumRegina"]Thia game looks like crap , no offense.MindlessTeef

Non Taken... and it doesn't look crap... but it does sound it.

The original JA's (as made by Sir-Tech) was awesome... I still play JA2 Gold now and then. Unfortunetly, F3Games/Akella,seems to be removing all the elements that made JA2 such a great game... In the end we have a simple turn-based tactical game with linear missions running on the Silent Storm engine. I'll rather justplay JA2 or Silent Storm again...

No complex economy system, no militia, etc... no point.

Fallout 3 should have stayed with it's roots, and I'm not complaining about the first person perspective or the FPS combat. The complexity of Fallout 2 RPG elements are missing, that's what ruined the game. Fallout 3 could'be better if it wasn't a RPG, but a shooter like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

And now lets look at this from a business side. Fallout 3 = multiplatform and very action oriented and well sell extremely well, Jagged Alliance 3 = staying true to its roots and wont sell for crap.

Why do you all think that Fallout 3 went the way it did? All because of sales. When games cost 10+ million to make, you need to make sure they are going to sell. I don't care how awesome the first 2 fallout games were, the fact is a game just like those wouldn't sell for crap in todays market. Welcome to next gen gameing.

This is one of the only cases in SW where sales can be used to explain anything.

Krigon

So you are stating games with Isometric view won't sell?

[QUOTE="MindlessTeef"]

[QUOTE="AtrumRegina"]Thia game looks like crap , no offense.jwsoul

Non Taken... and it doesn't look crap... but it does sound it.

The original JA's (as made by Sir-Tech) was awesome... I still play JA2 Gold now and then. Unfortunetly, F3Games/Akella,seems to be removing all the elements that made JA2 such a great game... In the end we have a simple turn-based tactical game with linear missions running on the Silent Storm engine. I'll rather justplay JA2 or Silent Storm again...

No complex economy system, no militia, etc... no point.

You won't regret it. I got 3 guys that work with me into JA2 a few weeks ago and they love it. It really is a very good game with lots of depth, replay value and twisted humor. And when you finally get bored... download the 1.3 Mod for JA2:)

Fallout 3 isn't bad, but I agree with those saying that the originals was better... I don'treally agree with the "better" part as such, but they were more involved and memorable. I still love my Turn Based games, but Idon't think F3 would have worked as well as a TB game... it's fine the way it is with the VATS (gameplay wise), it just needs a bit more complexity (more weapons, armour and more ways to upgrade or customize them), NO level cap and a better story.

As for JA3... I'll avoid it like the plague!

*EDIT* Oh and, I didn't like Devine Divinity at all...