Fallout butchering am confirmed, new interview on 1up

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"] I just find the whole idea of building weapons out of thrash and junk stupid, it makes no sense and is mostly just a way to make the game longer by forcing the player to backtrack and grind enemies in order to get the ingredients.Mediocre_man90

Funny, I must have missed the part of the interview where he said that the game forces you create these weapons. I also must have missed the part where he mentions grinding. All I saw was where he talked about how the items required would be found in places that made sense, I.E. surgical tubing being found in an abandoned hospital.

It also makes perfect sense to make weapons out of spare parts and "junk." how do you think things get invented? that's right, people take existing items and modify them, combine them with other items, etc. in this case you already would have instructions on how to create the weapon, and your repair skill would determine how well you follow those instructions.

I just don't think it's fun to go around searching for parts to build items, but yes, force isn't the right word, sorry. The very reason I brought it up though was because this searching for items in order to build other items is one of my most hated gameplay elements (unless it's done REALLY well), while the dialogue in fallout was one of it's best features IMO. The direction they're taking is so different from the one I'd wish them to have that it's almost ridiculous.

It still makes no sense though. Build a firearm, which operates by chemical reactions, with junkparts scattered around a post apocalyptic world? I'd be totally fine with upgrading weapons using junk parts, but building totally new weapons out of them makes NO sense, unless your character is some kind of super engineer.

What really annoys me is that at first they made all these promises about keeping in the things that made Fallout so good, they even said they are Fallout fans themselves and other crap like that, got even me excited. But now they're starting to back down on their promises, no "silly over the top humour", no "negative or positive effects gained via dialogue".

They fooled me once with Oblivion into thinking it's gonna be awesome with its radiant AI etc. But they aren't fooling me twice, Fallout3 can stay in the shelf as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully the mod community can salvage it somewhat like they did with Oblivion.

Beth talk:
"We went back and forth with the impact of dialogue on the character, and ultimately decided we didn't want to penalize or reward the player for carrying on a conversation. What you say and how you say it will certainly affect how NPCs react to you, and whether or not they'll give you quests, but not the ending of the game."

Translation:
"We have no idea how to create good dialogue, in fact we think dialogue is too confusing and frustrating for mainstream gamers, especially when most of our target audience can't read. So we decided to leave it to "accept quest" / "leave" ..of course accepting the quests is still mandatory for finishing the game."

Translation:

"We have no idea how to create good dialogue, in fact we think dialogue is too confusing and frustrating for mainstream gamers, especially when most of our target audience can't read. So we decided to leave it to "accept quest" / "leave" ..of course accepting the quests is still mandatory for finishing the game."

EntwineX

Heh, you really nailed it man

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]

"We went back and forth with the impact of dialogue on the character, and ultimately decided we didn't want to penalize or reward the player for carrying on a conversation. What you say and how you say it will certainly affect how NPCs react to you, and whether or not they'll give you quests, but not the ending of the game. That really depends on some of the big decisions you make during the course of the game, as well as your karma. And your karma changes based on your actions. So if you destroy Megaton a city built around a supposedly inert atomic bomb, your karma plummets, so that will certainly affect the ending. But there are other moments too, key moments during the game, that greatly determine which ending you get."

The fact that conversations actually mattered was one of the defining features of Fallout. I'm okay with changing the POV, even the combat system, that's totally understandable considering the age of the original fallouts, but this is just a clear step backwards in every way possible. This probably confirms it isn't possible to play the game as a strictly diplomatic character either. And what do we get in return?

"In Fallout 3, the player will come across schematics for different custom-made weapons. These might be found in different places in the world, or obtained as quest rewards. Each set of schematics lets you build a certain, pre-determined weapon, as long as you've got all the components, and most of the components are junk objects you'll find in the world."

Sounds familiar? That's probably because MMORPG's have done this since the dawn of... MMORPG's? Is bethesda feature by feature trying to turn this game into a single player MMO? Seriously, he goes on saying how you build guns out of bicycle parts and surgical tubes. WTF? I mean, fallout always had its wierd moments of absurd humour but this isn't a joke. You could as well name the game "MacGyver and the angry supermutants" and no one would notice the differance.

Yep, I've now officially joined the Bethesda haters. Fallout is as dead as it was before the announcement of "fallout" 3.

ianuilliam

I can't recall a single conversation I had in the original Fallouts that changed the ending of the game. Yeah, you could talk a guy into not fighting you... or you could sneak past him... or you could go in guns blazing. There were multiple ways to solve any one encounter. But the ending of the game wasn't different depending on whether you used stealth or diplomacy or a disguise or anything else to get through a situation. The things that made for different ending were the major things, like whether you completed major (but not necesary) side quests and such. Isn't that the exact same thing he's saying in this interview,

"What you say and how you say it will certainly affect how NPCs react to you, and whether they'll give you quests, but not the ending of the game. That really depends on some of the big decisions you make..."

Sounds like the originals to me. Talk nice to that mutie and he will react favorably to you, ie won't attack, talk trash to that npc and he will react unfavorably, ie wont give you that important quest or even turn hostile.

Ehm, read his quote again. "we didn't want to penalize or reward the player for carrying on a conversation."

Now, he does say a NPC might not give you a quest if you're rude to him, and that's great IMO, but you could really change a whole lot by talking in fallout. How many times have you played through the original fallouts? Do you know you actually can convince the last boss in fallout 1 to commit suicide simply by talking to him? Ok, so that doesn't change the ending, but for example in fallout 2 you can decide how NCR and the other town (can't remember it's name) relate to each, you can even agitate them into war simply by talking to the leaders. Or how you can decide over what happens with the drug production in New Reno. That IS changing the ending as those both are really big parts of the game world. Really, you can change so much simply by talking there's no idea to even try to list it all.

This system he describes sounds a lot like Oblivions, in which it really doesn't matter what you tell people, there still won't be any real consequences in the actual gameworld.

Say what you will about bethesda, but they put an insane amount of work into Oblivion. And I am not just speaking about the fundamentals such as visuals and gameplay, I am talking about the little stuff as well such as the countless books, the dialog, how they made each town unique, and the numerous side quests and factions (fighters guild, mages guild, brotherhood, etc).

Now, forgive me, but I have never played theprevious Elder Scrolls game so I have no basis of comparison to how Bethesda "ruined" Oblivion(I imagine its how I feel about my favorite game, Deus Ex, and its atrocious sequal Deus Ex 2...good comparison?), but if they work as hard with the Fallout material as they did with the Elder Scrolls material, we should get an AWESOME game.

We all know it wont play like the original already, so just accept it. At least its in the hands of a good developer who will put the work into it required to make it a great game.

mrbojangles25

I agree 100% with you. And this is comming from a person who really dislikes the game. I feel the overall Oblivion was a huge let down (auto leveling being the main culprit), but to say the game is complete crap is really silly. even though I don't enjoy the game, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind Bethseda invested a TREMENDOUS amont of time and effort, and did the best job possible. Sure, IMO, they made some poor design choices, but obviously TONS of people liked those choices.

Oblivion is a HUGE well polished game,with an enormous amount of content. I think they took some design changes that might have burned the "real fans", but overall, the game was a tremendous success.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Say what you will about bethesda, but they put an insane amount of work into Oblivion. And I am not just speaking about the fundamentals such as visuals and gameplay, I am talking about the little stuff as well such as the countless books, the dialog, how they made each town unique, and the numerous side quests and factions (fighters guild, mages guild, brotherhood, etc).

Now, forgive me, but I have never played theprevious Elder Scrolls game so I have no basis of comparison to how Bethesda "ruined" Oblivion(I imagine its how I feel about my favorite game, Deus Ex, and its atrocious sequal Deus Ex 2...good comparison?), but if they work as hard with the Fallout material as they did with the Elder Scrolls material, we should get an AWESOME game.

We all know it wont play like the original already, so just accept it. At least its in the hands of a good developer who will put the work into it required to make it a great game.

dnuggs40

I agree 100% with you. And this is comming from a person who really dislikes the game. I feel the overall Oblivion was a huge let down (auto leveling being the main culprit), but to say the game is complete crap is really silly. even though I don't enjoy the game, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind Bethseda invested a TREMENDOUS amont of time and effort, and did the best job possible. Sure, IMO, they made some poor design choices, but obviously TONS of people liked those choices.

Oblivion is a HUGE well polished game,with an enormous amount of content. I think they took some design changes that might have burned the "real fans", but overall, the game was a tremendous success.

I agree as well, in fact I really enjoyed Oblivion once I realized it was an adventure game and not a RPG and that I shouldn't expect things that I would expect from a normal RPG. Making your own spells was really a lot of fun and the fact that so many of the objects in the games actually had physics applied to them was really impressive. Nonetheless, it's not a game that represents what a next gen Fallout should be like.

Whaa-whaaa-whaa; the game still sounds great.

For as much whining as some of you do over a game that isn't even out yet, I bet more than half of you were among the retards praising RE4 for its dumbed-down and bastardized gameplay.

Whaa-whaaa-whaa; the game still sounds great.

For as much whining as some of you do over a game that isn't even out yet, I bet more than half of you were among the retards praising RE4 for its dumbed-down and bastardized gameplay.

n64nut

RE4 was a total departure from the series, and I bet fans of RE felt exactly the same as we fallout fans feel right now. It might be a good game, but it's not fallout as we know it.

Exactly what part of the original Fallout games was Bethesda a "fan" of? Since they seem to be trying their damnedest to phase out all the core gameplay components of the originals, it must have been for the "explodin muties lulz".

First off, they explicitly stated that actions rather then words will effect the endgame. Yes, this is a step away from the original Fallout, but at least it is MUCH better then Oblivion. Your actions do count in this game.Manly-manly-man

Remember they said a lot of the same PR stuff about Oblivion too and we all saw how that turned out...or didn't turn out as the case may be.

Bethesda isen't really that good of a developer. It was luck that they thought up the Elder Scrolls, a formula that you would have to try very hard to mess up. Fallout 3 is sounding more and more like Oblivion with guns. Hopefully they will release a construction set and these issues will be smoothed out within months of release by some dedicated modders.

You can't use that arguement, it is stupid. "Well, they didn't do everything they promised in Oblivion, so Fallout 3 will suck!" That doesn't make sense. They obviously got a lot of feedback about that, and I am sure they will do something to prevent the same thing. Manly-manly-man

Bethesda's marketing strategy of misinformation and over-hyping resulted in a mass commercial success, so why would they go and change their game plan?

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]You can't use that arguement, it is stupid. "Well, they didn't do everything they promised in Oblivion, so Fallout 3 will suck!" That doesn't make sense. They obviously got a lot of feedback about that, and I am sure they will do something to prevent the same thing. Alaris83

Bethesda's marketing strategy of misinformation and over-hyping resulted in a mass commercial success, so why would they go and change their game plan?

QFT

honestly...whats the big deal...im sure if ur interested in this game AT ALL, you'll have just as much fun as you would if you can or can't do said actions/events...you're compairing it to oblivion like its a BAD thing...my god peoplelinkinpark7077

For a lot of people who like Role-playing games, myself included, comparing it to Oblivion IS a bad thing. Oblivion was a beautiful tech demo but it wasn't much of a game and it certainly wasn't a RPG.

I'll have to wait to play the game to say if it sucks or not, but it looks like it will not be a true fallout sequel, so i am disappointed.gozalo

I have to agree here. I think the game has some pretty good potential and is turning out pretty well. That said, this is not sounding like a Fallout game anymore. We have the scenery/time and some of the items (eg: stealing names:P )but I have lost quite a bit of the joy I felt when I first heard the words "Fallout 3". Again, although it sounds like a good game overall, I feel a little annoyed by the use of the name. It's starting to sound as though they bought the license to play off the name, and save the time on creating a new IP (characters, names, etc), rather than truly to carry on in the footsteps of the of the title itself.

I'll probably buy this game when it hits, but, at the same time,I'll probably be left with a tinge of disapointment at over all lack of that classic Fallout feeling.

I am interested in this whole thing, especially the bagging on the press. It irks me.

Now, they are going to portray a game in postive light. That's what they do, opposed to, what, bagging on the game prematurely? That's unprofessional and you all know it. Just because they might have doubts or you might have doubts, previews are meant to be previews, not reviews. We shall see, but in the meantime, leave the gaming press alone. They haven't done anything differently, it's just you guys who are getting **** already about something that is not a very big deal at all.

Hooray for MacGyver inspired gameplay!

And sorry to hear about your third Fallout game going down Fallout fans... I've never played it, but it's definitely a great game and I know how it plays, etc., but I wish that Bethesda wouldn't had became the developer we know today. They seem to had screwed up after Morrowind or around 2003.

I remember back in 1999 or 2000 that the game was somewhat popular where I live. Now though, getting it is a challenge. Wish I could've played it, but I remember a lot of hype about it, and it was true.

You can't use that arguement, it is stupid. "Well, they didn't do everything they promised in Oblivion, so Fallout 3 will suck!" That doesn't make sense. They obviously got a lot of feedback about that, and I am sure they will do something to prevent the same thing. Manly-manly-man

Bethesda is in the business of making dumbed down games that are meant to appeal to everyone. Hardcore gaming/RPG fans will flock to TES and Fallout because of their names. Casual and console players will flock to Oblivion and Fallout3 because they're dumbed down simplified games that you can't lose at, and can be played in bursts of 15 minutes ata time.

Their hype machine for Fallout 3 is near identical to the method of generating hype for Oblivion. The magazine spreads, very little information except for cool ideas that don't get translated into the game successfully, trickling the 360 (not PC) screenshots out. They're doing the exact same thing as they did 2-3 years ago. And from all accounts it sounds as though they're making the same game they did 2-3 years ago, just with a different setting.

You can't use that arguement, it is stupid. "Well, they didn't do everything they promised in Oblivion, so Fallout 3 will suck!" That doesn't make sense. They obviously got a lot of feedback about that, and I am sure they will do something to prevent the same thing. Manly-manly-man

Although I agree that it would make sense for them to consider feedback from the community, the old adage stands that "you reap what you sew". When a company makes promises on a game that they don't follow through with, it only makes sense for the public to feel a wary of the next game they produce following in suit. It's how the world works, plain and simple. By your train of thought, although I enjoyed the my dinner last night at Chili's, if I were to assume that I'd like to eat there/order thatagain because of that experience, well that would be "stupid".

Bethesda's marketing strategy of misinformation and over-hyping resulted in a mass commercial success, so why would they go and change their game plan?

Alaris83

Same reason they made changes after Morrowind. People said it was a great game, but they complained about the journal, long travel times, and overly complex missions. People also couldn't stand the combat system. Sound familiar? all that changed with Oblivion. They fixed the journal so that it actually organized the quests, they added fast travel, and simplified the missions. Most importantly, they changed the combat system. And people whined and complained about how Morrowind was 10 times better, and that Oblivion was "dumbed down."

Of course, when Morrowind came out people thought that Daggerfall was 10 times better, and when Daggerfall came out people thought it was a buggy mess...

Seems to me like Bethesda really can't get a break.

Seems to me like Bethesda really can't get a break.Mediocre_man90

They don't deserve a break.

Well it seems as if Emil is backing off these comments already. Who knows what to believe about this game anymore? Either he made an honest mistake and really did choose his words poorly in the original interview or the Bethesda PR Spin Machine is in full effect.

Emil Explains @ NMA

Well it seems as if Emil is backing off these comments already. Who knows what to believe about this game anymore? Either he made an honest mistake and really did choose his words poorly in the original interview or the Bethesda PR Spin Machine is in full effect.

Emil Explains @ NMA

-wildflower-

Hm, well who will know until the game comes out. Talking about the game only wants me to see it and we still have a YEAR. So maybe we should talk about other stuff for awhile. Like what sort of heist I am going to need to pull off to afford a 360 so I can play mass effect.

Besides Bethesda may wow all of us and maybe not.mo0ksi

I'm pretty sure it will. Most mainstream reviewers and gamers are afflicted with the "wow" illness these days. Halo 2 wow'ed them, Oblivion wow'ed them, Bioshock is wow'ing them (it's not a bad game, but all the 100% scores are the symptoms).

Only after a while do people realize these overhyped games for what they are.

I think skeptisim and critization of just about every move Beth makes is well founded.. HAs any one read tha tone article post that person made that did an entire research spanning several pages on the practicies of beth.. All well citied and crediable..

If any one has a link to it can you please post it?

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"]Besides Bethesda may wow all of us and maybe not.Erlkoenig

I'm pretty sure it will. Most mainstream reviewers and gamers are afflicted with the "wow" illness these days. Halo 2 wow'ed them, Oblivion wow'ed them, Bioshock is wow'ing them (it's not a bad game, but all the 100% scores are the symptoms).

Only after a while do people realize these overhyped games for what they are.

"Yes, you can ask different NPCs different things, in different ways. Yes, a lot of times your skills and attributes (besides just Speech) will open up new dialogue options. And yes, what you say in dialogue will matter. Act like a wiseguy, and an NPC may attack you, or refuse to deal with you. Treat an NPC with respect, and maybe he'll be more willing to talk to you.

Of course, in the true spirit of Fallout -- in which the NPCs themselves have personalities -- it really depends on who you're dealing with. NPCs, like people, have their own quirks and preferences. Take a bold approach with the right NPC, and she may like you even more. Play the weakling with the wrong guy, and you may just tick him off."

Ok, that sounds a lot better than what he first said, while I remain sceptical, there may be some slim hope afterall.

I have really lost all hope for this game.

why did they named it fallout 3 :(.

Emil Explains @ NMA

-wildflower-

"Believe me or not, but here's the reality of dialogue in Fallout 3: it does matter. It matters more than dialogue in one of our games has ever mattered. I feel really comfortable saying that, because one of my responsibilities is editing and directing all the dialogue that gets written, and one of my personal crusades is pushing the NPC interactions to be more meaningful. We approached that level in Oblivion -- now I really feel like we've truly reached it."

Huh? Wait...I do remember a single quest - the Pale Pass one - that could be solved via conversation rather than combat.

If that is close to what they're trying to achieve, then we might actually see 4 or 5 quests that involve meaningful dialogue...if we're lucky.

All I am going to say is this:

I will approach Fallout 3 with an open mind, and play it as if it were a first-person adventure game with RPG components and some neat gimmicks. Thats how I played oblivion, andI loved it for that reason. Idunno..if I want a diehard RPG I will go play neverwinter nights 2 or something similiar.

I think skeptisim and critization of just about every move Beth makes is well founded.. HAs any one read tha tone article post that person made that did an entire research spanning several pages on the practicies of beth.. All well citied and crediable..

If any one has a link to it can you please post it?

sSubZerOo

If you go to my profile page I put the whole article in as one of my blog posts. THe link to the original source should be there as well.

They did a great job on Oblivion so i have faith they'll do a good job with this game.

anyone hardly knows anything about the game, wait for some gameplay vids or some in-detail interviews (if none already), i'm not making my decision NOW or anything, im waiting till it even comes out, unlike what most of the people here are doingdarkSIDEechoes

There has been a ton of information released about this game. I've read most (if not all) of those hackneyed PR type press releases...uhm, I mean, " professional previews" on various websites and pretty much every speck of information released so far indicates that this game is Fallout in name only.

see, why can't developers access forums and whatnot, find out what people actually LIKED about their certain game and then use that to their advantage? makes no sense. :(chrisrooR

They do see critisims but you can't make a game for everyone basically and forums are a vocal minority.

Heh, its a given that fallout will be like Master of orion 3, or other games that use a franchise name. Pretty much the only thing that will remain similar is the name. While oblivion was a good game, when you compare it to previous elder scrolls games, its just average at best. Morrowind was better, and daggerfall was by far the best in the franchise. bethsoft seems to keep neutering the elder scrolls franchise imo, which is a sad thing.

Its no real surprise they are neutering fallout 3 in the same fashion.