Fallout 3 hype game [56k warning throughout]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="heretrix"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]Looks pretty good. Seems to have that amazing atmosphere that the prior Fallouts had.heretrix

Goddamit Verge, you are supposed to hate it.

Why? :cry:

I think they wanted it to suck the instant they heard Bethesda was making it. Granted, there are a few who can provide good reasons for their worry, but for the most part all I've seen is elitist bull****.

Why is it so difficult to accept that one ****ty game can ruin a franchise? Look at Deus Ex. That franchise tag used to actually mean something. After the travesty that was Invisible War, it no longer does. Who really cares that much about Deus Ex 3 at this point? Nobody, and you have Invisible War to blame for that. Quite sad, considering you can make a solid argument that Deus Ex, a game which came out in 2000, is actually the best game of the decade.

Fallout is still one of the most respected franchises in gaming history, and the reason the spin-offs didn't impact that is because you've still got Fallout 1 and 2 as the main canon intact in the series. If Fallout 3 comes out and resembles Invisible War, which it seems well on its way to based on the information released, then it will hurt the Fallout franchise beyond repair. People will begin to associate "Fallout" with "Fallout 3", particularly since the latter will be the first Fallout game in a decade. That's where the annoyance lies, not to mention that Fallout 3 doesn't even have the benefit of being created by the original team like Invisible War did.

And please stop with this "elitist" BS, thanks. That's the type of thing that kills discussion and is used as a last resort by people with nothing meaningful to say. See: Republicans. Ultimately, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me most, with people acting like they can't even begin to understand this, no matter how many analogies of a similar hypothetical situation we put forth.

Why is it so difficult to accept that one ****ty game can ruin a franchise? Look at Deus Ex. That franchise tag used to actually mean something. After the travesty that was Invisible War, it no longer does. Who really cares that much about Deus Ex 3 at this point? Nobody, and you have Invisible War to blame for that. Quite sad, considering you can make a solid argument that Deus Ex, a game which came out in 2000, is actually the best game of the decade.

Fallout is still one of the most respected franchises in gaming history, and the reason the spin-offs didn't impact that is because you've still got Fallout 1 and 2 as the main canon intact in the series. If Fallout 3 comes out and resembles Invisible War, which it seems well on its way to based on the information released, then it will hurt the Fallout franchise beyond repair. People will begin to associate "Fallout" with "Fallout 3", particularly since the latter will be the first Fallout game in a decade. That's where the annoyance lies, not to mention that Fallout 3 doesn't even have the benefit of being created by the original team like Invisible War did.

And please stop with this "elitist" BS, thanks. That's the type of thing that kills discussion and is used as a last resort by people with nothing meaningful to say. See: Republicans. Ultimately, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me most, with people acting like they can't even begin to understand this, no matter how many analogies of a similar hypothetical situation we put forth.

Zeliard9

Look, that's nowhere near the point I was trying to make. I refuse to have to justify why I like a goddamn game to anybody. I love the first two Fallout games and I hoping that this game will be good. I rather do that than to piss all over it before I get a chance to play it.

I don't care to explain that and it IS elitist for someone to call me a shallow fanboy because I wish to see the franchise continue giving a new creative team a chance. INTERPLAY IS DEAD. You aren't getting another Fallout game from them. Keep waiting for that Fallout MMO if you want, but that isn't likely to happen.

If the game is bad, THAT WILL SUCK. But I don't know that yet and I'm tired of hearing people blowing a gasket about it.

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"]I know nothing about Fallout. What type of game is it? FPS, Action, RPG?HummaKavula

Fallout 1 and 2 are RPG's, Fallout 3 is a FPS.

Oh dear..

My position was... A new Fallout game that stands to make money stands to generate interest in the series again, and allow for the Mechwarrior IV effect to take place. Your final solution to that case was "Well, I'll bet MW3 didn't change that much!" which it did, and pretty much showed how little you knew about the cases I was raising while you still continued to rant and rave as if you did.

Your analogy was meant to communicate a point about Fallout. Your analogy was WAY off base though, and I explained what was the case with Fallout BY attacking your analogy - of course, now you're presenting it with your own slant.

You are outright misrepresenting what I said here, putting words in my mouth for arguments I never broached, nor would I do so. You are more or less the definition of a blinded fanboy in this forum. I'm done here - again, have fun with your witch hunt. Then, when Fallout 3 is released, I'll enjoy it, you can have a heart attack, and maybe we'll both get lucky and some nostalgic developer will take a renewed interest in the series like they did with Mechwarrior IV, and we'll see a truly excellent sequel to the old games - which would never even have a chance of happening without what Bethesda is doing now.Shafftehr

First, what did MechWarrior III change that made it so drastically different to MechWarrior 2? I'd LOVE to hear why you would think the difference between MW3 and MW2 even comes close to being as drastic as the differences between Fallout and Fallout 3. Seriously.

Second, my analogy was meant to compare audience reactions to sequels being made after a long time. Nothing else. YOU unnecessarily complicated matters by attacking irrelevant details about both sides of the analogy, when all I was concerned with was the audience's reaction, i.e. "We don't need a sequel (or prequel) that tramples on the originals." That's the reaction you see from Fallout fans, and that's the reaction you saw from Star Wars fans, and that's ALL I was pointing at.

Third, "I expect them to smarten up and realize that this is likely their last shot at ever getting enough interest in the franchise again to ever generate a "real" Fallout sequel."

To which my response was: "No one will make a "real" Fallout game again, because Fallout 3 will have hijacked the Fallout legacy. Any Fallout games that come after Fallout 3 will be made to mimic Fallout 3, not Fallout 1 or 2, because Fallout 3 (a) will be the most financially successful of the three, and (b) will be known as the game that diverges from the Fallout sty1e."

See, THAT is yet another the problem with YOUR MechWarrior analogy: MechWarrior 2 was a SUCCESS. Any game that followed would still have pulled elements from MechWarrior 2 because MW2 was a PROVEN success.

Fallout was NOT a success. Fallout 1 and 2 sold poorly, but were received well critically. If and when Fallout 3 sells well and receives decent reviews, publishers won't care about Fallout 1 or 2. All they'll see is that Fallout 3 was a success while Fallout 1 and 2 were not, and so whatever changes Fallout 3 made to the formula used by Fallout 1 and 2 will be retained.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Why is it so difficult to accept that one ****ty game can ruin a franchise? Look at Deus Ex. That franchise tag used to actually mean something. After the travesty that was Invisible War, it no longer does. Who really cares that much about Deus Ex 3 at this point? Nobody, and you have Invisible War to blame for that. Quite sad, considering you can make a solid argument that Deus Ex, a game which came out in 2000, is actually the best game of the decade.

Fallout is still one of the most respected franchises in gaming history, and the reason the spin-offs didn't impact that is because you've still got Fallout 1 and 2 as the main canon intact in the series. If Fallout 3 comes out and resembles Invisible War, which it seems well on its way to based on the information released, then it will hurt the Fallout franchise beyond repair. People will begin to associate "Fallout" with "Fallout 3", particularly since the latter will be the first Fallout game in a decade. That's where the annoyance lies, not to mention that Fallout 3 doesn't even have the benefit of being created by the original team like Invisible War did.

And please stop with this "elitist" BS, thanks. That's the type of thing that kills discussion and is used as a last resort by people with nothing meaningful to say. See: Republicans. Ultimately, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me most, with people acting like they can't even begin to understand this, no matter how many analogies of a similar hypothetical situation we put forth.

heretrix

Look, that's nowhere near the point I was trying to make. I refuse to have to justify why I like a goddamn game to anybody. I love the first two Fallout games and I hoping that this game will be good. I rather do that than to piss all over it before I get a chance to play it.

I don't care to explain that and it IS elitist for someone to call me a shallow fanboy because I wish to see the franchise continue giving a new creative team a chance. INTERPLAY IS DEAD. You aren't getting another Fallout game from them. Keep waiting for that Fallout MMO if you want, but that isn't likely to happen.

If the game is bad, THAT WILL SUCK. But I don't know that yet and I'm tired of hearing people blowing a gasket about it.

And good job missing the point I was trying to make. I never called you a shallow fanboy nor told you to justify why you like Fallout 3. That has nothing to do with anything I wrote. You can like whatever game you like.

My point is that people like you need to look at it from the other perspective, rather than make smarmy comments and simplistically conclude that people must be elitist. I'm specifically trying to explain how it should be understandable why Fallout 3 is looked at with spite by some and how that mentality is precisely not elitist, but simply natural.

And in case you missed that large bullet-pointed list earlier in the thread, we're not hating on Fallout 3 without reasons. There has been a ton of information released about the game so far; enough to, when combined with Bethesda's track record, make certain judgements.

Why is it so difficult to accept that one ****ty game can ruin a franchise? Look at Deus Ex. That franchise tag used to actually mean something. After the travesty that was Invisible War, it no longer does. Who really cares that much about Deus Ex 3 at this point? Nobody, and you have Invisible War to blame for that. Quite sad, considering you can make a solid argument that Deus Ex, a game which came out in 2000, is actually the best game of the decade.Zeliard9

Some of you guys have to speak for yourselves. You're soiling the preception of other Fallout fans, making us look like maniacs.

Everyone should just keep their mouths closed until we know more about the game. We haven't seen enough to know if Fallout 3 is true to its predecessors. We know the gameplay is different (for the better), but don't start claiming that the humour won't be there, or that "this isn't Fallout". Move on and look forward to a promising sequel to some of the greatest WRPGs ever. If that's too much to ask, take your selfishness elsewhere and replay Fallout 1 or 2.ShaneBeck

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]Why is it so difficult to accept that one ****ty game can ruin a franchise? Look at Deus Ex. That franchise tag used to actually mean something. After the travesty that was Invisible War, it no longer does. Who really cares that much about Deus Ex 3 at this point? Nobody, and you have Invisible War to blame for that. Quite sad, considering you can make a solid argument that Deus Ex, a game which came out in 2000, is actually the best game of the decade.Makari

Except Tactics and BoS flopped in sales, and so had no real effect on the franchise. But Fallout 3 will be a gigantic success just because it will be riding on the coattails of Oblivion, and so will have a tremendous influence on the direction of thefranchise.

By the way, never, NEVER use Rainbow Six as a justification for ANY action regarding a franchise's direction change.

If the game is going to play like oblivion , then how can any fallout fans be hyped for this?

it just completely destroys what the game is about

scottiescott238

Instead, you want a Pokemon style game with a birds eye view of the player and Pokemon like battles.

*********

You encounter a super mutant.

You aim for the head!

Super mutant lost 20 hps!!1!1!11!1111!one!!1

Super mutant shot at you...

Super mutant misses!!!11!one!!11!1eleven!!

*********

That style of gameplay is outdated and obsolete. Just because Beth is being innovative and starting the series out on a fresh new direction, doesnt mean its going to "not be fallout." I should just shut up, people like you just start **** to start ****.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Except Tactics and BoS flopped in sales, and so had no real effect on the franchise. But Fallout 3 will be a gigantic success just because it will be riding on the coattails of Oblivion, and so will have a tremendous influence on the direction of thefranchise. By the way, never, NEVER use Rainbow Six as a justification for ANY action regarding a franchise's direction change.Makari

Fallout 3 is an RPG in the first person perspective. A big difference.heretrix

MMMMmmmmmNo. Fallout 3 is a shooter with a minute amount of RPG qaulities. A big difference.

[QUOTE="scottiescott238"]

If the game is going to play like oblivion , then how can any fallout fans be hyped for this?

it just completely destroys what the game is about

SylentButDeadly

Instead, you want a Pokemon style game with a birds eye view of the player and Pokemon like battles.

*********

You encounter a super mutant.

You aim for the head!

Super mutant lost 20 hps!!1!1!11!1111!one!!1

Super mutant shot at you...

Super mutant misses!!!11!one!!11!1eleven!!

*********

That style of gameplay is outdated and obsolete. Just because Beth is being innovative and starting the series out on a fresh new direction, doesnt mean its going to "not be fallout." I should just shut up, people like you just start **** to start ****.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Except Tactics and BoS flopped in sales, and so had no real effect on the franchise. But Fallout 3 will be a gigantic success just because it will be riding on the coattails of Oblivion, and so will have a tremendous influence on the direction of thefranchise. By the way, never, NEVER use Rainbow Six as a justification for ANY action regarding a franchise's direction change.Makari

Rainbow Six is the POSTER BOY for ruining a franchise.

The original Rainbow Six was an incredibly, incredibly deep and realistic game. Fully open-ended missions, total realism in mission planning (yes, PLANNING), weapon selection, operative selection, etc. Now look at it.

Rainbow Six, made by Red Storm Entertainment, flopped in sales yet developed a hardcore fanbase, same as Fallout. And just like Fallout, Rainbow Six was "casualized" by a new developer (Ubisoft), and the originals were forever forgotten except by the original fans.

THAT is what's going to happen to Fallout. Not MechWarrior. At least MechWarrior 3 kept a good deal of MW2's gameplay.

Instead, you want a Pokemon style game with a birds eye view of the player and Pokemon like battles.

*********

You encounter a super mutant.

You aim for the head!

Super mutant lost 20 hps!!1!1!11!1111!one!!1

Super mutant shot at you...

Super mutant misses!!!11!one!!11!1eleven!!

*********

That style of gameplay is outdated and obsolete. Just because Beth is being innovative and starting the series out on a fresh new direction, doesnt mean its going to "not be fallout." I should just shut up, people like you just start **** to start ****.

SylentButDeadly

Pokemon battles? I fail to see how your hyperbole actually conveys a coherent point.

There's nothing obsolete about the isometric view. It's used because it best suited Fallout's atmosphere and its status as an RPG. Please to note that third-person and first-person games were out even before Fallout was created, so it doesn't make much sense to imply that the format was used in lieu of those two perspectives.

How exactly does Bethesda incorporating the most generic and used format qualify as "innovative?" In the first place, it completely morphs the gameplay that was signature to Fallout. And even worse, the gameplay doesn't allow you to use alternative methods aside from shooting at things to get through the game. These things have totally violated the RPG character-builder aspects as incorporated the original games.

After this, they're going out of their way to destroy the previous atmosphere with troll-like super mutants, zombie-like ghouls, and police-like Brotherhood Knights. And this isn;t even mentioning the bizarre and ridiculous weapons that not even Ed Wood would bother with.

[QUOTE="ShaneBeck"]Some of you guys have to speak for yourselves. You're soiling the preception of other Fallout fans, making us look like maniacs.

Everyone should just keep their mouths closed until we know more about the game. We haven't seen enough to know if Fallout 3 is true to its predecessors. We know the gameplay is different (for the better), but don't start claiming that the humour won't be there, or that "this isn't Fallout". Move on and look forward to a promising sequel to some of the greatest WRPGs ever. If that's too much to ask, take your selfishness elsewhere and replay Fallout 1 or 2.RobbieH1234

[QUOTE="scottiescott238"]

If the game is going to play like oblivion , then how can any fallout fans be hyped for this?

it just completely destroys what the game is about

SylentButDeadly

Instead, you want a Pokemon style game with a birds eye view of the player and Pokemon like battles.

*********

You encounter a super mutant.

You aim for the head!

Super mutant lost 20 hps!!1!1!11!1111!one!!1

Super mutant shot at you...

Super mutant misses!!!11!one!!11!1eleven!!

*********

That style of gameplay is outdated and obsolete. Just because Beth is being innovative and starting the series out on a fresh new direction, doesnt mean its going to "not be fallout." I should just shut up, people like you just start **** to start ****.

YEAH, let's change everything into run & gun!!!1

ANYTHING ELSE SUCKZORZ!!11

BOOYAH!!!!11

With today's technology, namely the graphics, turn based gameplay is getting more bland. While I love turn based RPGs, I would rather replay the c1a$$ic$. Truth is, they're not as exciting as 5 years ago, which [I think] is because it doesn't have the potential to be as graphically stunning as a live action game in the first person.ShaneBeck

People don't want to sit around and watch anymore. Why do you think there is such a demand for FPS? What Bethesda is doing, as far as financials go, is genious. ShaneBeck

They're making this mish-mash of a game that blends many different **** and ideas and in turn, I believe it has the potential to be fantastic.ShaneBeck

But it's not Oblivion either.ShaneBeck

[QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"][QUOTE="scottiescott238"]

If the game is going to play like oblivion , then how can any fallout fans be hyped for this?

it just completely destroys what the game is about

IgGy621985

Instead, you want a Pokemon style game with a birds eye view of the player and Pokemon like battles.

*********

You encounter a super mutant.

You aim for the head!

Super mutant lost 20 hps!!1!1!11!1111!one!!1

Super mutant shot at you...

Super mutant misses!!!11!one!!11!1eleven!!

*********

That style of gameplay is outdated and obsolete. Just because Beth is being innovative and starting the series out on a fresh new direction, doesnt mean its going to "not be fallout." I should just shut up, people like you just start **** to start ****.

YEAH, let's change everything into run & gun!!!1

ANYTHING ELSE SUCKZORZ!!11

BOOYAH!!!!11

Run and gun sure beats Pokemon battles any day. You dont have time to sit and think in a survival situation (like a super mutant battle), you need to be on your toes thinking fast doing whatever the **** you can do to survive.

[QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"][QUOTE="scottiescott238"]

If the game is going to play like oblivion , then how can any fallout fans be hyped for this?

it just completely destroys what the game is about

SylentButDeadly

Instead, you want a Pokemon style game with a birds eye view of the player and Pokemon like battles.

*********

You encounter a super mutant.

You aim for the head!

Super mutant lost 20 hps!!1!1!11!1111!one!!1

Super mutant shot at you...

Super mutant misses!!!11!one!!11!1eleven!!

*********

That style of gameplay is outdated and obsolete. Just because Beth is being innovative and starting the series out on a fresh new direction, doesnt mean its going to "not be fallout." I should just shut up, people like you just start **** to start ****.

YEAH, let's change everything into run & gun!!!1

ANYTHING ELSE SUCKZORZ!!11

BOOYAH!!!!11

Run and gun sure beats Pokemon battles any day. You dont have time to sit and think in a survival situation (like a super mutant battle), you need to be on your toes thinking fast doing whatever the **** you can do to survive.

Strategy trumps action any day.

[QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"][QUOTE="scottiescott238"]

If the game is going to play like oblivion , then how can any fallout fans be hyped for this?

it just completely destroys what the game is about

mjarantilla

Instead, you want a Pokemon style game with a birds eye view of the player and Pokemon like battles.

*********

You encounter a super mutant.

You aim for the head!

Super mutant lost 20 hps!!1!1!11!1111!one!!1

Super mutant shot at you...

Super mutant misses!!!11!one!!11!1eleven!!

*********

That style of gameplay is outdated and obsolete. Just because Beth is being innovative and starting the series out on a fresh new direction, doesnt mean its going to "not be fallout." I should just shut up, people like you just start **** to start ****.

YEAH, let's change everything into run & gun!!!1

ANYTHING ELSE SUCKZORZ!!11

BOOYAH!!!!11

Run and gun sure beats Pokemon battles any day. You dont have time to sit and think in a survival situation (like a super mutant battle), you need to be on your toes thinking fast doing whatever the **** you can do to survive.

Strategy trumps action any day.

Its not about action its about survival. Just because some people arent intelligent enough to think of a strategy quick and in real time, doesnt mean we are all like that.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"]

Run and gun sure beats Pokemon battles any day. You dont have time to sit and think in a survival situation (like a super mutant battle), you need to be on your toes thinking fast doing whatever the **** you can do to survive.

SylentButDeadly

Strategy trumps action any day.

Its not about action its about survival. Just because some people arent intelligent enough to think of a strategy quick and in real time, doesnt mean we are all like that.

That's not intelligence, that's twitch. And I don't blame you for preferring that kind of gameplay. It's straightforward, and it's easy to comprehend. You have fewer choices at your disposal. Once you have the basic tactics down, you're set. No more work, just muscle memory.

The Baldur's Gate and Fallout and Planescape games had strategy. Too many different things could happen at the same time. That's why it was turn-based rather than real-time. If it was real-time, combat would be impossible.

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Except Tactics and BoS flopped in sales, and so had no real effect on the franchise. But Fallout 3 will be a gigantic success just because it will be riding on the coattails of Oblivion, and so will have a tremendous influence on the direction of thefranchise. By the way, never, NEVER use Rainbow Six as a justification for ANY action regarding a franchise's direction change.mjarantilla

Rainbow Six is the POSTER BOY for ruining a franchise.

The original Rainbow Six was an incredibly, incredibly deep and realistic game. Fully open-ended missions, total realism in mission planning (yes, PLANNING), weapon selection, operative selection, etc. Now look at it.

Rainbow Six, made by Red Storm Entertainment, flopped in sales yet developed a hardcore fanbase, same as Fallout. And just like Fallout, Rainbow Six was "casualized" by a new developer (Ubisoft), and the originals were forever forgotten except by the original fans.

THAT is what's going to happen to Fallout. Not MechWarrior. At least MechWarrior 3 kept a good deal of MW2's gameplay.

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Except Tactics and BoS flopped in sales, and so had no real effect on the franchise. But Fallout 3 will be a gigantic success just because it will be riding on the coattails of Oblivion, and so will have a tremendous influence on the direction of thefranchise. By the way, never, NEVER use Rainbow Six as a justification for ANY action regarding a franchise's direction change.RobbieH1234

That's not intelligence, that's twitch. And I don't blame you for preferring that kind of gameplay. It's straightforward, and it's easy to comprehend. You have fewer choices at your disposal. Once you have the basic tactics down, you're set. No more work, just muscle memory.

The Baldur's Gate and Fallout and Planescape games had strategy. Too many different things could happen at the same time. That's why it was turn-based rather than real-time. If it was real-time, combat would be impossible.

mjarantilla

[QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"]

Run and gun sure beats Pokemon battles any day. You dont have time to sit and think in a survival situation (like a super mutant battle), you need to be on your toes thinking fast doing whatever the **** you can do to survive.

mjarantilla

Strategy trumps action any day.

Its not about action its about survival. Just because some people arent intelligent enough to think of a strategy quick and in real time, doesnt mean we are all like that.

That's not intelligence, that's twitch. And I don't blame you for preferring that kind of gameplay. It's straightforward, and it's easy to comprehend. You have fewer choices at your disposal. Once you have the basic tactics down, you're set. No more work, just muscle memory.

The Baldur's Gate and Fallout and Planescape games had strategy. Too many different things could happen at the same time. That's why it was turn-based rather than real-time. If it was real-time, combat would be impossible.

Run and gun sure beats Pokemon battles any day. You dont have time to sit and think in a survival situation (like a super mutant battle), you need to be on your toes thinking fast doing whatever the **** you can do to survive.

SylentButDeadly

Well, exactly the same thing I get while playing gears of war/crysis/doom/duke nukem/serious sam/painkiller/whatever. I get a shooter.

Fallout was so popular and so influental for a damn good reason. It was vast and it was deep and it was a turn based RPG. That genre has its purpose.

[QUOTE="ShaneBeck"]Some of you guys have to speak for yourselves. You're soiling the preception of other Fallout fans, making us look like maniacs.

Everyone should just keep their mouths closed until we know more about the game. We haven't seen enough to know if Fallout 3 is true to its predecessors. We know the gameplay is different (for the better), but don't start claiming that the humour won't be there, or that "this isn't Fallout". Move on and look forward to a promising sequel to some of the greatest WRPGs ever. If that's too much to ask, take your selfishness elsewhere and replay Fallout 1 or 2.RobbieH1234

[QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"][QUOTE="IgGy621985"][QUOTE="SylentButDeadly"][QUOTE="scottiescott238"]

If the game is going to play like oblivion , then how can any fallout fans be hyped for this?

it just completely destroys what the game is about

mjarantilla

Instead, you want a Pokemon style game with a birds eye view of the player and Pokemon like battles.

*********

You encounter a super mutant.

You aim for the head!

Super mutant lost 20 hps!!1!1!11!1111!one!!1

Super mutant shot at you...

Super mutant misses!!!11!one!!11!1eleven!!

*********

That style of gameplay is outdated and obsolete. Just because Beth is being innovative and starting the series out on a fresh new direction, doesnt mean its going to "not be fallout." I should just shut up, people like you just start **** to start ****.

YEAH, let's change everything into run & gun!!!1

ANYTHING ELSE SUCKZORZ!!11

BOOYAH!!!!11

Run and gun sure beats Pokemon battles any day. You dont have time to sit and think in a survival situation (like a super mutant battle), you need to be on your toes thinking fast doing whatever the **** you can do to survive.

Strategy trumps action any day.

That's another one of the messed up things about Fallout 3, is it doesn't even seem to work as an action game. Some of the previewers have commented that the gunplay comes off as awkward. You basically pull off a move or series of moves, and then it goes into a non-interactive cinematic where it depicts it, sort of like in a JRPG. That basically defeats the entire purpose of real-time gameplay. Why not just make it fully turned-based then?

The massive post is somewhat misleading though, as long as you're not already biased. Say... the comments about nuclear powered cars and nuclear power being something to fear. Nukes themselves were to be feared as weapons, but the cars in Fallout 2 and some energy weapons ran on batteries that had gigantic radiation symbols on them. Was there some explanation as to how a miniature fusion reactor wasn't 'nuclear power?'Makari

I did address the radar = perception thing as being a possible way of making the stat more useful or it being a function of a more perceptive person being able to distinguish further targets on a radar through the 'noise' before. Makari

In the original Fallout, water was damn hard to come by... and in the second, it was so common as to be a nonissue, and they made jokes about how rare it was in the first.Makari

WRT intelligence and noncombat, here's a clip out of an interview: [quote="Emil Pagliarulo"]Q: One of the most memorable parts of Fallout was the fact that you could convince the last boss to kill himself. This is part of a larger aspect of Fallout, in that you could conceivably finish the game without killing anyone. Without spoiling anything, would it be accurate to say that Fallout 3 maintains this tradition--that the endgame can be done without violence? EP: How do you know there is an end boss, huh? Huh?! OK, let's assume for a second that there is an end boss. And I'm a master of verbal manipulation. Will I be able to use these skills to my advantage, to maybe defeat my opponent without lifting a finger? You can count on it. Now, that's not to say you can talk your way through the entire game without ever engaging in combat. The Capital Wasteland's a dangerous place, so you're going to have to defend yourself at some point. But within the quests, and several other places, yeah--you can talk your way through, if you've got the skill. Q: I never played the game all the way through this way, but I will admit that in Fallout 2, I mucked with my character's stats and did a good few hours with a character of intelligence of 2 or something, and it was interesting seeing the reactions to my character's mental deficiencies--I couldn't even speak, I just grunted. I've heard that in Fallout 3 intelligence doesn't affect dialogue, that it's almost all in speech or charisma. Is there a specific reason? Why can't I wander around as some sort of nuclear cro-magnon? EP: It really all comes down to the best way to balance our resources and our time, and concentrate on the things that really matter. Throughout the game, the player has so many choices, so many ways to define their character, we don't want to get hung up on something like that.Makari

EDIT: I really need to articulate that giant post. Although reading through previews that mention toaster weapons and flaming swords is just...

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Why is it so difficult to accept that one ****ty game can ruin a franchise? Look at Deus Ex. That franchise tag used to actually mean something. After the travesty that was Invisible War, it no longer does. Who really cares that much about Deus Ex 3 at this point? Nobody, and you have Invisible War to blame for that. Quite sad, considering you can make a solid argument that Deus Ex, a game which came out in 2000, is actually the best game of the decade.

Fallout is still one of the most respected franchises in gaming history, and the reason the spin-offs didn't impact that is because you've still got Fallout 1 and 2 as the main canon intact in the series. If Fallout 3 comes out and resembles Invisible War, which it seems well on its way to based on the information released, then it will hurt the Fallout franchise beyond repair. People will begin to associate "Fallout" with "Fallout 3", particularly since the latter will be the first Fallout game in a decade. That's where the annoyance lies, not to mention that Fallout 3 doesn't even have the benefit of being created by the original team like Invisible War did.

And please stop with this "elitist" BS, thanks. That's the type of thing that kills discussion and is used as a last resort by people with nothing meaningful to say. See: Republicans. Ultimately, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me most, with people acting like they can't even begin to understand this, no matter how many analogies of a similar hypothetical situation we put forth.

Zeliard9

Look, that's nowhere near the point I was trying to make. I refuse to have to justify why I like a goddamn game to anybody. I love the first two Fallout games and I hoping that this game will be good. I rather do that than to piss all over it before I get a chance to play it.

I don't care to explain that and it IS elitist for someone to call me a shallow fanboy because I wish to see the franchise continue giving a new creative team a chance. INTERPLAY IS DEAD. You aren't getting another Fallout game from them. Keep waiting for that Fallout MMO if you want, but that isn't likely to happen.

If the game is bad, THAT WILL SUCK. But I don't know that yet and I'm tired of hearing people blowing a gasket about it.

My point is that people like you need to look at it from the other perspective, rather than make smarmy comments and simplistically conclude that people must be elitist.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Except Tactics and BoS flopped in sales, and so had no real effect on the franchise. But Fallout 3 will be a gigantic success just because it will be riding on the coattails of Oblivion, and so will have a tremendous influence on the direction of thefranchise. By the way, never, NEVER use Rainbow Six as a justification for ANY action regarding a franchise's direction change.Makari

Rainbow Six is the POSTER BOY for ruining a franchise.

The original Rainbow Six was an incredibly, incredibly deep and realistic game. Fully open-ended missions, total realism in mission planning (yes, PLANNING), weapon selection, operative selection, etc. Now look at it.

Rainbow Six, made by Red Storm Entertainment, flopped in sales yet developed a hardcore fanbase, same as Fallout. And just like Fallout, Rainbow Six was "casualized" by a new developer (Ubisoft), and the originals were forever forgotten except by the original fans.

THAT is what's going to happen to Fallout. Not MechWarrior. At least MechWarrior 3 kept a good deal of MW2's gameplay.

Red Storm did Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield, but I think Ubisoft did Rainbow Six 3 itself, the consolized port (I'm not absolutely certain, though). But Raven Shield was still a proper R6 game. Rainbow Six 3 was the travesty.

So I blame Ubisoft. By the time Lockdown came out, the damage had been done by Rainbow Six 3, and Red Storm was dissolved soon after R6 Lockdown, I believe.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Why is it so difficult to accept that one ****ty game can ruin a franchise? Look at Deus Ex. That franchise tag used to actually mean something. After the travesty that was Invisible War, it no longer does. Who really cares that much about Deus Ex 3 at this point? Nobody, and you have Invisible War to blame for that. Quite sad, considering you can make a solid argument that Deus Ex, a game which came out in 2000, is actually the best game of the decade.

Fallout is still one of the most respected franchises in gaming history, and the reason the spin-offs didn't impact that is because you've still got Fallout 1 and 2 as the main canon intact in the series. If Fallout 3 comes out and resembles Invisible War, which it seems well on its way to based on the information released, then it will hurt the Fallout franchise beyond repair. People will begin to associate "Fallout" with "Fallout 3", particularly since the latter will be the first Fallout game in a decade. That's where the annoyance lies, not to mention that Fallout 3 doesn't even have the benefit of being created by the original team like Invisible War did.

And please stop with this "elitist" BS, thanks. That's the type of thing that kills discussion and is used as a last resort by people with nothing meaningful to say. See: Republicans. Ultimately, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me most, with people acting like they can't even begin to understand this, no matter how many analogies of a similar hypothetical situation we put forth.

heretrix

Look, that's nowhere near the point I was trying to make. I refuse to have to justify why I like a goddamn game to anybody. I love the first two Fallout games and I hoping that this game will be good. I rather do that than to piss all over it before I get a chance to play it.

I don't care to explain that and it IS elitist for someone to call me a shallow fanboy because I wish to see the franchise continue giving a new creative team a chance. INTERPLAY IS DEAD. You aren't getting another Fallout game from them. Keep waiting for that Fallout MMO if you want, but that isn't likely to happen.

If the game is bad, THAT WILL SUCK. But I don't know that yet and I'm tired of hearing people blowing a gasket about it.

My point is that people like you need to look at it from the other perspective, rather than make smarmy comments and simplistically conclude that people must be elitist.

Your point of view in referring to people as elitist is simplistic, not your point of view on Fallout 3. Please read more carefully and stop misconstruing my posts.

Your point of view in referring to people as elitist is simplistic, not your point of view on Fallout 3. Please read more carefully and stop misconstruing my posts.

Zeliard9

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Your point of view in referring to people as elitist is simplistic, not your point of view on Fallout 3. Please read more carefully and stop misconstruing my posts.

heretrix

If it's true, who cares if it's elitist?

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Your point of view in referring to people as elitist is simplistic, not your point of view on Fallout 3. Please read more carefully and stop misconstruing my posts.

heretrix

Yes, referring to someone as "elitist" in broad strokes without backing any of it up isn't insulting at all. That entire post I wrote was to explain how being down on Fallout 3 isn't an elitist mentality, and I explained why and brought up the example of a stellar franchise ruined by a lackluster sequel as a way to reinforce it.

And what do you respond with? "You're elitist". Of course. You somehow take my anti-elitist post, and try to twist it around into something that somehow becomes elitist. Only on the Internet.

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Your point of view in referring to people as elitist is simplistic, not your point of view on Fallout 3. Please read more carefully and stop misconstruing my posts.

Zeliard9

Yes, referring to someone as "elitist" in broad strokes without backing any of it up isn't insulting at all. That entire post I wrote was to explain how being down on Fallout 3 isn't an elitist mentality, and I explained why and brought up the example of a stellar franchise ruined by a lackluster sequel as a way to reinforce it.

And what do you respond with? "You're elitist". Of course. You somehow take my anti-elitist post, and try to twist it around into something that somehow becomes elitist. Only on the Internet.

I never called you an elitist intially.Read the thread CAREFULLY.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Your point of view in referring to people as elitist is simplistic, not your point of view on Fallout 3. Please read more carefully and stop misconstruing my posts.

heretrix

Yes, referring to someone as "elitist" in broad strokes without backing any of it up isn't insulting at all. That entire post I wrote was to explain how being down on Fallout 3 isn't an elitist mentality, and I explained why and brought up the example of a stellar franchise ruined by a lackluster sequel as a way to reinforce it.

And what do you respond with? "You're elitist". Of course. You somehow take my anti-elitist post, and try to twist it around into something that somehow becomes elitist. Only on the Internet.

I never called you an elitist intially.Read the thread CAREFULLY.

I wasn't responding to you specifically calling anyone elitist, but rather in general, since it's impossible to have a discussion on the game without the word being thrown around liberally. The reason I quoted yours and Verge's posts was to use them to openly wonder why people think it's such a terrible thing that people question the direction of this game.

You replied to that by telling me I should stop forcing you to try to hate the game, which I was never doing. I was explaining why some of us do. It was really as simple as that. I'm not sure how it ballooned up to this.

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Your point of view in referring to people as elitist is simplistic, not your point of view on Fallout 3. Please read more carefully and stop misconstruing my posts.

Zeliard9

Yes, referring to someone as "elitist" in broad strokes without backing any of it up isn't insulting at all. That entire post I wrote was to explain how being down on Fallout 3 isn't an elitist mentality, and I explained why and brought up the example of a stellar franchise ruined by a lackluster sequel as a way to reinforce it.

And what do you respond with? "You're elitist". Of course. You somehow take my anti-elitist post, and try to twist it around into something that somehow becomes elitist. Only on the Internet.

I never called you an elitist intially.Read the thread CAREFULLY.

I wasn't responding to you specifically calling anyone elitist, but rather in general, since it's impossible to have a discussion on the game without the word being thrown around liberally. The reason I quoted yours and Verge's posts was to use them to openly wonder why people think it's such a terrible thing that people question the direction of this game.

You replied to that by telling me I should stop forcing you to try to hate the game, which I was never doing. I was explaining why some of us do. It was really as simple as that. I'm not sure how it ballooned up to this.

Shake on it?heretrix

Agreed. :P

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

Shake on it?Zeliard9

Agreed. :P

If you have never played Fallout before, then Oblivion with guns is a good enough description. It has a dark humour that is unique to the series.

Tony-Harrison

That description only applies to Fallout 3...

I don't know why everyone disses Fallout Tactics or even Brotherhood Steel. Rather than trash titles & not recognize them as canon, why not do what the Japanese do & make it Fallout in an alternate universe? Then we can see Fallout "Versus" & some other titles to expand the franchise. Instead, we get purists who snub everything but the first 2 releases. I wonder if 3 will be snubbed?

It looks like a third person shooter, not FPS, as someone previously mentioned. I hope the combat can be turn-based. That would be fun.