A Requiem Aeternam Deo for Fallout

Grieve, yes or no questions, no other answers.

1. Do you believe Bethesda is the most capable studio for producing Fallout 3?

2. Do you believe Bethesda chose the Xbox 360 as the lead platform because it will let them create the *best gameplay experience possible* of any platform?

3. Do you believe Bethesda truly understands the decades of research that has gone into creating the more respected stat systems for RPGs?

4. Can you name a game created by Bethesda that demonstrates they have a true *mastery* of combing all of the elements of a true "gray area morality" RPG system?

If Bethesda brings their combat-first, stats-first attitude towards Fallout (which they seem to already be doing), or their rather poor storytelling abilities, mass-market focus, and poor UI, it's going to hurt the final result What should have been an exciting revitalization for the series will instead be a generic first-person "RPG" game, and that's simply a damn shame. subrosian

[QUOTE="subrosian"]If Bethesda brings their combat-first, stats-first attitude towards Fallout (which they seem to already be doing), or their rather poor storytelling abilities, mass-market focus, and poor UI, it's going to hurt the final result What should have been an exciting revitalization for the series will instead be a generic first-person "RPG" game, and that's simply a damn shame. Vandalvideo

Implementing true role-playing means allowing the player to handle situations in dozens of different ways outside of combat. "Attack with a knife" and "Attack with a fork" aren't distinctly different key actions, the weapon changes, the action remains the same - Attack.

Another problem, and I agree with your assessment here, is the one-dimensional morality. It's "Star Wars" (the movie) morals, there's the light-side and the dark-side, and you're always on the path to one extreme or the other. The real world of moral ambiguity, in which dozens of belief systems, moral choices, and decisions interact, and in which "good", "evil" and the perceptions of both aren't so cut and dry isn't truly present in games. What we have is a world where there are basically "good ending" and "bad ending", not "action" and "consequence" and "unforseen consequence" and "lack of consquence". You don't kill someone in a game and worry that you'll get caught and sent to trial twenty hours further into the game. You don't feel guilt over an innocent man being blamed, or become hardened by your experiences.

Wow. That's an emotional topic.

Well, since Bethesda has said that they won't even be putting humour into the game (Except for the 'irony of being in a desolate place with happy posters around'), Fallout is officially dead. I expect a decent game that completely murders what a Fallout game should be, which is funny, memorable, hilariously gruesome and ironic. Instead, it will be a dark, gritty FPS. Thanks Bethesda!

I played the first two so long ago that I could really care less at this point what happens to the IP. Personally I am happy a capable company picked up the rights to make the game. Things could of been much worse off if some no name company decided to do this project on their first outing.

Bethesda has made some very high quality titles in the past. I think their new vision of Fallout will be no exception.

To address this topic specifically. There will never be a way to make everyone happy. If the TC got his way and was able to purchase the rights to the IP in order to keep Bethesda from making the game... others would be unhappy with the cancelation of Bethesda's Fallout game. Even further, it's likely people would not agree with the direction of this theoretical althernate non-bethesda title either.

At the end of the day, I would rather a proven developer like Bethesda had the IP then 1 million random "fans" who would do nothing with the IP other then make a few homebrew off shoots.

Too late, it has already been confirmed that several key recurring elements of the Fallout series are being removed. Bethesda talks about "maintaining the spirit of the game", all while cutting out the unique, over-the-top dark, juvenile humor, and bad-mouthing the original games as "immature".subrosian

Wrong. They said they were making it more like Faloout than Fallout 2, which DID have some really cheesy aspects when compared to Fallout 1. If you dont know what Im talkin about maybe it YOU who needs to listen to gamers of yore. They intend to make it more solomn and dark like F1 and I support that. I hate Bethesda and Oblivion but your statement above is false. Your spirit is in the right place though...

[QUOTE="subrosian"] Too late, it has already been confirmed that several key recurring elements of the Fallout series are being removed. Bethesda talks about "maintaining the spirit of the game", all while cutting out the unique, over-the-top dark, juvenile humor, and bad-mouthing the original games as "immature".trollop_scat

Wrong. They said they were making it more like Faloout than Fallout 2, which DID have some really cheesy aspects when compared to Fallout 1. If you dont know what Im talkin about maybe it YOU who needs to listen to gamers of yore. They intend to make it more solomn and dark like F1 and I support that. I hate Bethesda and Oblivion but your statement above is false. Your spirit is in the right place though...

I happened to enjoy the cheesy aspects, for better of for worse, they added a little twist of humor, and a unique flaire to an otherwise desolate landscape. You need only look back at video footage of Fallout 2 to see that it still managed the desolated atmosphere perfectly, even with a few fun bits.

Let me also point out something many people don't realize - it is in theory possible to beat Fallout 2 without killing any characters or creatures... it is also possible to kill every character in the game and still finish.

Grieve, yes or no questions, no other answers.

1. Do you believe Bethesda is the most capable studio for producing Fallout 3?

2. Do you believe Bethesda chose the Xbox 360 as the lead platform because it will let them create the *best gameplay experience possible* of any platform?

3. Do you believe Bethesda truly understands the decades of research that has gone into creating the more respected stat systems for RPGs?

4. Can you name a game created by Bethesda that demonstrates they have a true *mastery* of combing all of the elements of a true "gray area morality" RPG system?

subrosian

I refuse to answer yes or no questions. I find them to be a poor crutch to evade any sort of intelligent argument. However, I will answer the questions.

1.- Most capable? No. Fully capable? yes. There is a huge difference, and an important one.

2.- Maybe, though not probably. I'm pretty sure they chose the x360 platform because they feel it's going to give them the best return on investment. I could try to argue around this by stating that a better assured ROI allows for a better game, but we both know this is bunk.

3.- I have no reason to believe otherwise - being unable to create something does not make one unable to understand or implement something. I can't compose a song to save my life, but I can well sure play some beautiful tunes on my guitar and piano, and understand what makes them great.

4.- Frankly, I've only played Arena and Oblivion, so my answer here is no. Then again, I don't believe they've tried.

Now, a couple questions of my own:

1.- What is important to you in Fallout?

2.- What confirmed similarities have there been between Fallout and Oblivion, aside from the perspective?

3.- Do you fully believe that Bethesda is incapable of developing a worthy fallout, taking into consideration that they're not starting from scratch?

4.- Exactly what comments of Bethesda make you believe they're mishandling the franchise?

man you never get. all these information are from the dev interviews. if i take todd horward at directly what he says then it would mean that oblivion has real- lifelike ai and not some broken annoying dumb npcs

oblivion may be a good game, but it was not in any way a good rpg. no matter how much you want to say its a good rpg its not.

naval

And you have any reason to believe otherwise, aside, of course, from your irrational desire to hate on Oblivion? Most of what was broken in Oblivion has been confirmed not to be in Fallout. "Man you never get" back to you.

Wow. That's an emotional topic.

Well, since Bethesda has said that they won't even be putting humour into the game (Except for the 'irony of being in a desolate place with happy posters around'), Fallout is officially dead. I expect a decent game that completely murders what a Fallout game should be, which is funny, memorable, hilariously gruesome and ironic. Instead, it will be a dark, gritty FPS. Thanks Bethesda!

osirisomeomi

Wrong. We've been through this several times now.

Subrosian, I dont' know if you already went over this, but would you draw similarities between the System Shock 2/Bioshock issue?

Also, if you had a petition or something, I'd sign it.

Wow, was there this much of an uprising when Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was released for consoles?Codename33

[QUOTE="naval"]

man you never get. all these information are from the dev interviews. if i take todd horward at directly what he says then it would mean that oblivion has real- lifelike ai and not some broken annoying dumb npcs

oblivion may be a good game, but it was not in any way a good rpg. no matter how much you want to say its a good rpg its not.

Grive

And you have any reason to believe otherwise, aside, of course, from your irrational desire to hate on Oblivion? Most of what was broken in Oblivion has been confirmed not to be in Fallout. "Man you never get" back to you.

many things that were broken was never meant to in oblvion in the first place. ai was supposed to be perfect which it wasn't. do you really thing oblivon was a good rpg ? it was as much as rpg as diablo was. i don't hate oblivion ( although it may be convinient for you to label me as such), and i would have loved it , if few things were not broken, as a action adevnture game rather than a rpg

Wow, was there this much of an uprising when Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was released for consoles?Codename33

We bankrupted Interplay didn't we? What more of an answer do you want.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"][QUOTE="lafigueroa"]

Since the ORiginal makers of Fallout themselves applauded what Bethesda has done to the series, and put them on a short list of developers they would be happy to see make Fallout 3, I'm taking a wait and see approach. Having played Wasteland, Fallout, and Fallout 2, I think I can recognise if the game is true to the series or just another Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

Until I play the game, I am willing to have an open mind and let the developer make their game. After I get my hands on it, I'll comment.

subrosian

That's pretty much how I feel regarding this and pretty much any othersequel that fits the "we're changing things up" model.

The problem these days is that there are too many games that suffer from "sequelitis", basically keeping the gameplay extremely similar to that of its predecessor while adding incremental changes here and there and slapping it onto store shelves claiming it to be"new and improved!" Halo 3 suffered from it, but it's easier to overlook because of its incredibly high value and replayablility, not to mention that its gameplay was never bad to begin with so there wasn't much that needed to be changed.

And that's where Fallout 3 comes in. It's not that its gameplay wasn't good enough to begin with (although I cannot say much about this since I haven't played it) just that it runs a bit of a risk of being viewed as inferior to its predecessors because not much has changed. That's why I believe an overly cynical view of what Bethesda is doing with the Fallout 3 is un justified. There have been games that have broken the mold and effectively screwed up everything good about the game (I'm looking at you Shadowrun)but there have also been those games that changed things up and are better for it (FF XII is a good example of this). I'm hoping Fallout 3 will have more in common with the latter than the former.

So that being said, I too will be taking a wait and see approach to this game. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to find a copy ofFallout 2 so I can see what all the fuss is about...

I want you to imagine this situation though, let's take Halo 3, a game that suffers from aging gameplay (there's no denying it was an evolution, not a revolution) but enjoys high production values and a strong community. Now imagine seven years go by - Halo 3 still has a cult following despite its aging graphics (lets say that it had a timeless story, I don't think Halo does, but let's say it does for a discussion).

Now, all of a sudden, a different developer, say, EA, takes over and starts to make Halo 4. Now, the Xbox 720 is at the height of popularity (bigger than the 360), but they instead choose to make the Wii-Two the main platform, and port it out from there. Then they start announcing all the things they don't like about the series, and making massive changes. Halo 4 will now be a third-person sports themed mini-game collection with fewer weapons, Cortana, the Covenant, and vehicles are being removed, and the gameplay is being made to work at lot like Madden updated with FPS elements, rather than simply creating a revolutionary new FPS.

Wouldn't you feel like they took the easy way out? That, as a Halo fan, they should have tried for being an excellent shooter alla Halo CE, rather than being something it wasn't in the first place? Wouldn't you be somewhat skeptical when EA said "y'know, Spartans were immature, and no, there's *no way* we're going to let you shoot aliens, we think that's xenophobic".

While I think your examples are a bit extreme (Halo 4 becoming a sports-themed minigame collection? Come on.)In this case, I would certainlybe troubled by the direction EA is taking the game butI would still remain cautiously optimistic, as I am with every game I hear about that I may be interested in. I don't think I've ever been disappointed with a game's previews, because I believe that things can come together as the game nears release, and in many ofthose situations, I'm right.

Would I deem it a complete and utter bastardization of the series? Yes, and on that point, I will concede, but I don't think Fallout 3 will be such an extreme departure from the Fallout series as your Halo 3 to Halo 4 example is.

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"][QUOTE="lafigueroa"]

Since the ORiginal makers of Fallout themselves applauded what Bethesda has done to the series, and put them on a short list of developers they would be happy to see make Fallout 3, I'm taking a wait and see approach. Having played Wasteland, Fallout, and Fallout 2, I think I can recognise if the game is true to the series or just another Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

Until I play the game, I am willing to have an open mind and let the developer make their game. After I get my hands on it, I'll comment.

The_Game21x

That's pretty much how I feel regarding this and pretty much any othersequel that fits the "we're changing things up" model.

The problem these days is that there are too many games that suffer from "sequelitis", basically keeping the gameplay extremely similar to that of its predecessor while adding incremental changes here and there and slapping it onto store shelves claiming it to be"new and improved!" Halo 3 suffered from it, but it's easier to overlook because of its incredibly high value and replayablility, not to mention that its gameplay was never bad to begin with so there wasn't much that needed to be changed.

And that's where Fallout 3 comes in. It's not that its gameplay wasn't good enough to begin with (although I cannot say much about this since I haven't played it) just that it runs a bit of a risk of being viewed as inferior to its predecessors because not much has changed. That's why I believe an overly cynical view of what Bethesda is doing with the Fallout 3 is un justified. There have been games that have broken the mold and effectively screwed up everything good about the game (I'm looking at you Shadowrun)but there have also been those games that changed things up and are better for it (FF XII is a good example of this). I'm hoping Fallout 3 will have more in common with the latter than the former.

So that being said, I too will be taking a wait and see approach to this game. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to find a copy ofFallout 2 so I can see what all the fuss is about...

I want you to imagine this situation though, let's take Halo 3, a game that suffers from aging gameplay (there's no denying it was an evolution, not a revolution) but enjoys high production values and a strong community. Now imagine seven years go by - Halo 3 still has a cult following despite its aging graphics (lets say that it had a timeless story, I don't think Halo does, but let's say it does for a discussion).

Now, all of a sudden, a different developer, say, EA, takes over and starts to make Halo 4. Now, the Xbox 720 is at the height of popularity (bigger than the 360), but they instead choose to make the Wii-Two the main platform, and port it out from there. Then they start announcing all the things they don't like about the series, and making massive changes. Halo 4 will now be a third-person sports themed mini-game collection with fewer weapons, Cortana, the Covenant, and vehicles are being removed, and the gameplay is being made to work at lot like Madden updated with FPS elements, rather than simply creating a revolutionary new FPS.

Wouldn't you feel like they took the easy way out? That, as a Halo fan, they should have tried for being an excellent shooter alla Halo CE, rather than being something it wasn't in the first place? Wouldn't you be somewhat skeptical when EA said "y'know, Spartans were immature, and no, there's *no way* we're going to let you shoot aliens, we think that's xenophobic".

While I think your examples are a bit extreme (Halo 4 becoming a sports-themed minigame collection? Come on.)In this case, I would certainlybe troubled by the direction EA is taking the game butI would still remain cautiously optimistic, as I am with every game I hear about that I may be interested in. I don't think I've ever been disappointed with a game's previews, because I believe that things can come together as the game nears release, and in many ofthose situations, I'm right.

Would I deem it a complete and utter bastardization of the series? Yes, and on that point, I will concede, but I don't think Fallout 3 will be such an extreme departure from the Fallout series as your Halo 3 to Halo 4 example is.

I'm using an extreme example because it's difficult for people who don't understand Fallout to grasp how drastic of a change this all really is. I'd suggest taking a look at the Fallout 2 wiki entry to understand that this really was a pop-culture drenched title, and then at the cutscene videos over on YouTube to understand the serious side of the game. If Bethesda can only capture the more serious side, without being honestly open to the moral ambiguity, bad situations, and create a truly free-form game (one in which you can make it through the game and do *anything*, by an means you'd like).

It was Steve Jackson's Illuminati meets the apocalypse, and you were the chosen one (sort of). I don't want to put it as pure humor, because it wasn't, it was a serious game with some serious gameplay, but anything that reduces the freedom of the first two titles is wrong.

Subrosian, I dont' know if you already went over this, but would you draw similarities between the System Shock 2/Bioshock issue?

Also, if you had a petition or something, I'd sign it.

Mordred19

Bioshock was sort of a blatant lie, in that, claiming to be the "spiritual successor" to System Shock II made it a huge letdown for, well, anyone who ever played System Shock II. If Bethesda was making this game, calling it ScrollOut, and saying it was the "spiritual successor to Fallout 2", I'd certainly be annoyed - that term "spiritual successor" seems to be a nice way of piggy-backing on better games, without having to live up to the gameplay, story, or characterisitics of a title.

It's an overused new term that's becomg frustrating, mostly because there's no standard for such a thing.

In any case, I was letdown by Bioshock on a lot of levels... but people who weren't expecting a System Shock 2 sequel weren't, and that's the case we'll run into with Fallout 3 - people who have never played Fallout 2 have no expectation to meet, they're an easy audience, and that's why Betheseda is keen to target them.

[QUOTE="Codename33"]Wow, was there this much of an uprising when Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was released for consoles?LockeAteid

We bankrupted Interplay didn't we? What more of an answer do you want.

I can't see Bethesda going bankrupt so easily.

I've never played Fallout so I don't know what it's like.

Still, I want Fallout 3.

You've described how Bethesda is hurting the Fallout name with revamped-for-the-worse gameplay, but how do you know they will interfere (for lack of a better word) with the dark humour and simultaneaously the seriousness of Fallout?Mordred19

Both from comments from Bethesda themselves and from a variety of impressions of Bethesda's Fallout 3 demo. In fact, the term "Oblivion sequel" isn't something I invented, it has been used by half-a-dozen different review sites that were there for the demo screening, many calling it "an improved version of Oblivion".

In serveral of the reviews of the demo footage Bethesda showed off, they noted how out of place and poorly executed the humor was, nothing like Fallout 2's era-apporpriate gaming.

One of the most concerning notes was how poorly Bethesda had managed to maintain a consistent atmosphere - this was noted in even *positive* previews of Fallout 3, that Bethesda has failed to create the consistent, believable atmosphere that was in Fallout 1 and 2, as well as in modern atmospheric titles such as Bioshock.

However, as far as maintaing true to the classic humor, Bethesda themselves have already said they would not be doing so, calling the crotch shots, whores, and bum-killing "immature". Bethesda themselves also seems oblivious to the several hundred clas sic -geek culture references in the Fallout series, everything from Star Trek to Douglas Adams. In any case, it's not the spiritual successor, it's not the reinvention - what it is, is a damn shame.

[QUOTE="Codename33"]Wow, was there this much of an uprising when Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was released for consoles?LockeAteid

We bankrupted Interplay didn't we? What more of an answer do you want.

Lol, you guys are dilusional if you think upset fallout fans bankrupted interplay.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]In that case, where's my gun...subrosian

war... war never changes
the end of the world occured pretty much as we'd predicted...

keep the gun , I take the doggy :D .

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]You've described how Bethesda is hurting the Fallout name with revamped-for-the-worse gameplay, but how do you know they will interfere (for lack of a better word) with the dark humour and simultaneaously the seriousness of Fallout?subrosian

Both from comments from Bethesda themselves and from a variety of impressions of Bethesda's Fallout 3 demo. In fact, the term "Oblivion sequel" isn't something I invented, it has been used by half-a-dozen different review sites that were there for the demo screening, many calling it "an improved version of Oblivion".

In serveral of the reviews of the demo footage Bethesda showed off, they noted how out of place and poorly executed the humor was, nothing like Fallout 2's era-apporpriate gaming.

One of the most concerning notes was how poorly Bethesda had managed to maintain a consistent atmosphere - this was noted in even *positive* previews of Fallout 3, that Bethesda has failed to create the consistent, believable atmosphere that was in Fallout 1 and 2, as well as in modern atmospheric titles such as Bioshock.

However, as far as maintaing true to the classic humor, Bethesda themselves have already said they would not be doing so, calling the crotch shots, whores, and bum-killing "immature". Bethesda themselves also seems oblivious to the several hundred clas sic -geek culture references in the Fallout series, everything from Star Trek to Douglas Adams. In any case, it's not the spiritual successor, it's not the reinvention - what it is, is a damn shame.

I dont' understand Bethsesda's reasoning behind calling that immature, and I haven't even played Fallout.

Maybe calling their game "Sellout" would be more apporpriate.

If it's a good game I'll buy it. If it's not, I won't. None of your whimpering about whether it fits your vision of what Fallout 3 should be will change that. kentlucky

... and you aren't impressing anyone with your "I don't care" attitude.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]You've described how Bethesda is hurting the Fallout name with revamped-for-the-worse gameplay, but how do you know they will interfere (for lack of a better word) with the dark humour and simultaneaously the seriousness of Fallout?Mordred19

Both from comments from Bethesda themselves and from a variety of impressions of Bethesda's Fallout 3 demo. In fact, the term "Oblivion sequel" isn't something I invented, it has been used by half-a-dozen different review sites that were there for the demo screening, many calling it "an improved version of Oblivion".

In serveral of the reviews of the demo footage Bethesda showed off, they noted how out of place and poorly executed the humor was, nothing like Fallout 2's era-apporpriate gaming.

One of the most concerning notes was how poorly Bethesda had managed to maintain a consistent atmosphere - this was noted in even *positive* previews of Fallout 3, that Bethesda has failed to create the consistent, believable atmosphere that was in Fallout 1 and 2, as well as in modern atmospheric titles such as Bioshock.

However, as far as maintaing true to the classic humor, Bethesda themselves have already said they would not be doing so, calling the crotch shots, whores, and bum-killing "immature". Bethesda themselves also seems oblivious to the several hundred clas sic -geek culture references in the Fallout series, everything from Star Trek to Douglas Adams. In any case, it's not the spiritual successor, it's not the reinvention - what it is, is a damn shame.

I dont' understand Bethsesda's reasoning behind calling that immature, and I haven't even played Fallout.

Maybe calling their game "Sellout" would be more apporpriate.

Bethesda.... doesn't make a whole lot of sense right now. They called Fallout 2's pop-culture references and humor style "immature", and yet every impression of their demo called it cliched, with the humor being more "hehe a swear word" than Black Isle's far more nuanced humor. Even within the first Fallout, where the humor was more subdued, you weren't grating your teeth going "why is this a cliched mess?".

This isn't an easy genre to do - and Bethesda is strolling in here working with a beloved universe. It's rather obvious they have little enthusiasm for how the source material handled it, so they've viewed this as a license for Oblivion-style gameplay, morality, et cetera.

Take a look at some impressions, for example, this overwhelming positive one (link) and you see the same note being hit over and over - what Bethesda says they're doing, what they're actually doing, and how much this is Oblivion 2277. Anyone saying "this isn't Oblivion with guns" ought to read through the media impressions, because despite the BS coming out of Bethesda's PR department, this is pure Eldar Scrolls meets the Apocalypse.

-

Yes, the word "sellout" is fitting. I prefer the term "bastardization", simply because Bethesda never had Fallout to begin with, they are certainly cashing in, but they are cashing in on someone else's talent. What they're doing is better phrased as exploitation - at least a sell-out had to have the talent to do something right in the first place.

(right click view image to see full sized)

I felt this was a rather fitting image.

awsome pic...hehemismajor99

Thanks,

I've gone through about a dozen impressions of Fallout 3 from the experts of gaming who've been blessed with being at Bethesda's screening of the gameplay. Every preview thus far has stuck me as though the writers were struggling to stay positive. The term "Oblivion with guns" came up several times, in multiple previews, and it's hard not to feel it's true.

The preview that Bethesda has shown covers the section of gameplay in which the player basically gets a "nuke" or "don't nuke" choice for a town, and the descriptions of everything from conversations to character development all harken back to Oblivion-style gameplay. While the level up system is renamed and *visually* mixed, the actual gameplay is not.

For example, remember the lock-picking minigame in Oblivion? Essentially, regardless of your skill level with lock-picking, even if it was your first time doing it, you could pick any lock in the game. Leveling the lockpicking skill was pointless, at a certain point in the game you will have access to an unbreakable pick, making an advancement of this skill even more worthless.

The "punishing you for focusing on non-combat aspects" returns in Fallout 3, "hacking" is now a minigame as well, one involving a sort of word guessing game. The combat system in Fallout 3 is similar to the combat system of KOTOR, utilizing the same "real-time with pausing" as we saw in Bioware's titles.

One of the biggest complaints I saw consistently, or at leats the most concerning, was that the atmosphere has been lost. To explain, the atmosphere in Fallout was consistent of a world where the apocalypse had happened by 1950s sci-fi. The art style, characters, dress, behavior, et cetera remained tied closely to this theme. With Fallout 3, many complaints came from reviewers about things being jarringly out of place - some of the more subtle humor of previous Fallout's replaced with awkwardkly excecuted "bad language", cliched mutants and dialogue that felt jarringly out of place in the world, and a lack of attention to providing details - with many objects, persons, et cetera have a modern sci-fi art st yle that is out of place in the cla ssic sci-fic art sty led world.

It's not shaping up to be a good thing for fans of Fallout, or even simply for fans of WRPGs. Oblivion had a great number of problems, and as time has gone by even console gamers with no prior experience with Eldar Scrolls have vocalized concerns - the lack of enjoyment (or real reward) of being a Vampire, the punishing level-up system, the psychic guards, the one-dimensional moral system - have all come under fire.

So, I wish I could say Fallout 3 will be anything other than Bethesda's post-apocalyptic sequel to Oblivion, but it's not. It's a game where Oblivion has sucked out Fallout's organs, put on its skin, and started parading around town.

...so the picture is rather fitting.

I really do hope Bethseda does a good job with FO3.... Not rape the series.

However looking at Oblivion, and an Xbox userbase that has had no history with the FO franchise. Im weary.

I really do hope Bethseda does a good job with FO3.... Not rape the series.

However looking at Oblivion, and an Xbox userbase that has had no history with the FO franchise. Im weary.

skrat_01

They have already made plans to ignore the series and simple utilize the franchise name, some of its art, and that it's set in a post-apocalyptic world. However, it certainly will not be Fallout. As far as what console gamers with no exposure to the series will think.

By the time this title releases in late 2008 / early 2009, with the 360 being the lead, and Bethesda using the Oblivion engine for the game, chances of it impressing on visuals (the way Oblivion did) are slim. Of course, the 360 being the lead platform, and the usage of the old Oblivion engine will not bode well for it by the the time the late 2008 release date rolls around.

It may enjoy some degree of success (sales wise) on the 360, but I'd rather it didn't, if it cannot remain true to the series.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

I really do hope Bethseda does a good job with FO3.... Not rape the series.

However looking at Oblivion, and an Xbox userbase that has had no history with the FO franchise. Im weary.

subrosian

They have already made plans to ignore the series and simple utilize the franchise name, some of its art, and that it's set in a post-apocalyptic world. However, it certainly will not be Fallout. As far as what console gamers with no exposure to the series will think.

By the time this title releases in late 2008 / early 2009, with the 360 being the lead, and Bethesda using the Oblivion engine for the game, chances of it impressing on visuals (the way Oblivion did) are slim. Of course, the 360 being the lead platform, and the usage of the old Oblivion engine will not bode well for it by the the time the late 2008 release date rolls around.

It may enjoy some degree of success (sales wise) on the 360, but I'd rather it didn't, if it cannot remain true to the series.

Sure I love the idea of FO in 3D, and the change of perspective to FPS, rather than isometric, is debateable for better or worse.... But the more you read about it, the more you get the perspective the game really is 'oblivion with guns', with a light FO coat.

And the renamed PIP-BOY, VAULT-BOY. WTF??!?!?!

My original thought was that the 360 is "lead" for the simple reason that it's the lowest common denominator as far as hardware is concerned, and a limiting gamepad as well. The more I think about it, the more it's apparent the fanbase of the IP is screwed. This is troubling, as Bethesda is obviously talking out of both sides of their mouth on this one. There are people that obviously believe most of what Bethesda's says in public, and this is obviously damage control, and this is causing issues between fans. Bethesda cannot say they are remaining true to their fallout fanbase, and then design the game around a completely different platform. People aren't that gullible.

On a side note, I don't wanna have to hit shift f2 to drop items in my inventory, I have a flippin mouse and keyboard, give me a interface that works for PC.

Sounds like it will appeal to alot more people and get new gamers into the series.
Who cares about the dozen hardcore fans like you that will get a hemorroid from it, us real gamers will play it and enjoy it.
Mercenary343

The point is that Fallout 3 isn't true to the series in any significant way. You aren't getting into the series, you're getting into a poor imitation of that series. If you end up liking "Fallout 3", that's fine,keep in mind that it's not really Fallout.

[QUOTE="Mercenary343"]Sounds like it will appeal to alot more people and get new gamers into the series.
Who cares about the dozen hardcore fans like you that will get a hemorroid from it, us real gamers will play it and enjoy it.
Mordred19

The point is that Fallout 3 isn't true to the series in any significant way. You aren't getting into the series, you're getting into a poor imitation of that series. If you end up liking "Fallout 3", that's fine,keep in mind that it's not really Fallout.

That's what has been most frustrating - this is Fallout in name only. "It'll reinvent the series and bring new people to it, so I don't care!" is the plea of someone who has immediately flagged themselves as no longer caring about quality, fidelity, or gaming history - aka, not a true gamer. Respect the roots of our sub-culture, or you are not a *beneficial* member of it.

The game you will actually be playing Mercenary is "Oblivion with Guns" - same engine, same level design, similar gameplay, same utter lack of role-playing, with KOTOR's "real time with pausing" battle system forming the "guns" portion. Bethesda has also severed all ties with Fallout cannon, move the game to the east-coast of the USA, and removed any direct reference to the first two titles.

People who have only played Fallout 3 cannot claim to have *played* or *understand* Fallout.

Sounds like it will appeal to alot more people and get new gamers into the series.
Who cares about the dozen hardcore fans like you that will get a hemorroid from it, us real gamers will play it and enjoy it.
Mercenary343

These two statements leave me confused.

[QUOTE="Mercenary343"]Sounds like it will appeal to alot more people and get new gamers into the series.
Who cares about the dozen hardcore fans like you that will get a hemorroid from it, us real gamers will play it and enjoy it.
Blackbond

These two statements leave me confused.

It's simple, basically, if you buy every heavily advertised game that comes out, regardless of quality, character, or fidelity, you're a "real gamer". If you're a longtime, dedicated gamer (which as we all know there are only 12 of) who considers the industry-impact, history, depth, and adherence to (and advancement of) the medium, you're NOT a "real gamer".

-

I have no idea either Blackbond - there aren't a lot of logical arguments for defending mediocrity.

I've been playing video games since Pong. My first game on a personal computer was Civilization 1. And yes, I played the original Fallout. So I consider myself a true gamer in the best form. Bethesda has done good work in the past. Personally I fell their Morrowind was their true masterpiece, and that Oblivion was actually a step backward. If this truly is Oblivion Wtih Guns than I shall be most disappointed and saddened, but not particularly surprised. The biggest problem I see: Bethesda has always been light on the story fare. Let's face it, Oblivion is no opus. It's no Planescape: Torment, no Baldur's Gate II, and certainly no Fallout. Bethesda cannot compare with Black Isle nor BioWare in terms of storytelling capacity and so it must rely upon tired cliches and that I believe is what frightens you. Unfortunately, however, after having seen beloved game after beloved game destroyed by their contemporaries I must say I've become desensitized to this crime against gaming, and have long since lost my passion.

Quite frankly at this point I'm tired of caring. If Bethesda murders the Fallout franchise, which I believe they will, then so be it. I will, in a corner of my mind, pretend that Bethesda never released the game, and go on living. And try to avoid ever looking at the game, or any advertisements for the game, for the rest of my life.

Can we link to sources for these"Betheda isor Bethesda will" statements? At least cut and paste some quotes. A lot of this reads like "Bethesda says they gonna ruin Fallout to spite old fans".

I understand being upset about about a favorite series being revamped for a new generation of gamers and technology but when the complaint is that it will be too much like an extremely well received game like Oblivion it sounds ridiculous.

Have you PLAYED Fallout?

Do you KNOW why Oblivion is critised so much?

Have you PLAYED Fallout?

Do you KNOW why Oblivion is critised so much?

skrat_01

Yes and yes I have read the detailed critiques of Oblivion in this thread. I agree where there is no room to disagree but I enjoyed the game immensely.