The FALLOUT 3 Reality Thread

Watch this game's gunna come out and get a 9.5 from Gamespot and a 9.6 from IGN and then there'll still be that group of people saying "no this game sucks becuase it doesn't continue the storyline or have the same gameplay and blah blah blah blah blah blah" while the rest of us enjoy it. :)death919

yea thing about the people arguing about the "continuing storyline" is that fallout and fallout 2 had completely different storylines with a beginning middle and end lol

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]I checked out your gamercard and its full of games that are more casual than Fallout 3. Just sayin'. ;)subrosian

I didn't see him mention the word "casual." I think he's localizing his context in regards to Bethesda's change of Fallout.

"game design that insults the intelligence of players and patronizes them."

Sounds like a lot of those games I see in the gamercard, but hey, whatever! :) Actually, a lot of those games game design is far more linear and insults the intelligence of the player and patronizes them more than a game like Fallout 3. As much as some would love to believe, Fallout 3 is not a casual game. It's just not. It'll sell a lot, but it'll never sell to that casual demographic. Soccar moms and children will continue to enjoy Wii Fit.

1. Stop attacking the messenger rather than their message. It's a poor debate tactic at best.

2. That demographic (soccer moms and little girls) are called "Non-Traditional Gamers" not "casuals". The gamers who have never heard of Fallout can easily be classified as casual gamers.

I wasn't attacking the messenger anywhere. Just pointing out my observation.

Also, Fallout 3 is FAR from a casual game, sorry. Its story, gameplay. It just doesn't fit into that casual demographic.

Watch this game's gunna come out and get a 9.5 from Gamespot and a 9.6 from IGN and then there'll still be that group of people saying "no this game sucks becuase it doesn't continue the storyline or have the same gameplay and blah blah blah blah blah blah" while the rest of us enjoy it. :)death919

When has a review score ever been an indication of quality? Some of the best games of all time were reviewed poorly. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 scored a perfect 10 - Mario Galaxy only scored a 9.5. Do you think THPS3 is a more creative, innovative, and enjoyable game than Orange Box, Mario Galaxy, CoD4, Halo 3, et cetera?

You've missed the entire point of this thread, please re-read the initial post. Then, read it a third time and think about it.

[QUOTE="death919"]Well considering me and alot of my friends have never heard of Fallout before Fallout 3 and considering we're all super excited about it because it looks like it's going to be a great game, I think we can conclude that not everyone is "just" buying it because it's got the Fallout name on it.foxhound_fox

What does that even mean though? If it gets a higher score than the previous Fallouts, wouldn't that make it a better "Fallout game"? Why should it be treated specially just because it has different gameplay? I consider Metroid Prime to be the greatest Metroid game ever, I don't say "well it didn't follow the traditional formula, so while it's a great GAME, it's a terrible METROID GAME", no I don't think many people think that way at all. The fact is that whether this game is similar to previous games in the series in no way affects its quality.

yea thing about the people arguing about the "continuing storyline" is that fallout and fallout 2 had completely different storylines with a beginning middle and end lolMemoryitis

....What are you going on about? It was the Vault Dweller's actions in Fallout 1 that were consequent of Fallout 2's developments.

[QUOTE="Nolan16"]if u think some one is actually going to read all this your insane..subrosian

Well, since it's your birthday (if it's not, this counts as an early gift) I'll summarize it for you:

Bethesda's not a bad studio, Fallout 3's not a bad game - but Fallout 3 isn't really "fallout" as we knew it in the Black Isle days. Yet it seems gaming journalism, and many new gamers, are hyping it because "it's Fallout 3" instead of objectively viewing this new game.

We shouldn't do that - we need to view Fallout 3 as it's own game, since it's not a part of the series. Imagine if your favorite game were made by a different studio ten years from now, and was just radically different from what you loved - it would be frustrating, and it would be even more frustrating to see that new game praised because of the old games.

Thank you sorry im a simple man lol and i agree with you.

[QUOTE="death919"]Well considering me and alot of my friends have never heard of Fallout before Fallout 3 and considering we're all super excited about it because it looks like it's going to be a great game, I think we can conclude that not everyone is "just" buying it because it's got the Fallout name on it.Pariah_001

See, here's the thing. When Bethesda first aquired the license, they were making strenuous attempts to court the Fallout fanbase so as to sell the new format to them with only the Fallout name to attach to it. When they found out that wasn't working, they decided to bring the game to the consoles with a more casual format.

They were/are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[QUOTE="death919"]Watch this game's gunna come out and get a 9.5 from Gamespot and a 9.6 from IGN and then there'll still be that group of people saying "no this game sucks becuase it doesn't continue the storyline or have the same gameplay and blah blah blah blah blah blah" while the rest of us enjoy it. :)Memoryitis

yea thing about the people arguing about the "continuing storyline" is that fallout and fallout 2 had completely different storylines with a beginning middle and end lol

Fallout 2 takes place starting in the settlement founded by the Vault Dweller in Fallout 1. The universe is the same, the mechanics remain the same - Fallout 2 is a continuation of the story found in Fallout 1, starting from one of the possible endings to the game.

Fallout 3 takes place on the East Coast, with the "world" of Fallout somehow radically different from the one seen in Fallout 1 / Fallout 2 - the history changed, the universe behaving radically differently, despite being a "sequel" and supposedly taking place "after the events of Fallout 1 / Fallout 2".

Also, Fallout 3 is FAR from a casual game, sorry. Its story, gameplay. It just doesn't fit into that casual demographic.BioShockOwnz

Yes it does. Roided up graphics paired up with twitch gameplay and topic markers (as opposed to dialogue trees) is most assuredly casual.

[QUOTE="Mordred19"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]

I don't support game design that insults the intelligence of players and patronizes them. That's about as simple as I can put it.

BioShockOwnz

I checked out your gamercard and its full of games that are more casual than Fallout 3. Just sayin'. ;)

yes, and you should also check out my latest blog post, to see that I strive for better things and a deeper, more diverse experience. do you judge based on gamercards?

With a gamercard full of those kinds of experiences, plus an MGS sig, I can't help but see hypocrisy in all of it. Sorry, but that's just how I see it.

if that's how you see it, you're clearly not even looking in the right direction...

you're making a snap judgment based on a gamercard. that's not represenative of my attitudes.

and what is MGS supposed to imply?

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

[QUOTE="JLF1"]No Fallout 3 from Bethesda = No Fallout 3 at all.JLF1

So? Do we always need sequels? Sometimes you need to leave the classics alone. This applies to movies, so why not to games? The Godfather Part III was one Godfather too many.

Because the reality is that Bethesda is indeed creating a game titled "Fallout 3" and claiming it's canon. You can't just brush away reality and pretend it doesn't exist.

As for why people care, well, the original Fallout is considered by many to be the best RPG ever made. That's right, better than Baldur's Gate 2, and better than any JRPG. The first Fallout is such a good game that the second was actually considered a disappointment in comparison to the first, even though in comparison to every other game it was (and is) utterly fantastic.

So you're looking at a truly stellar franchise. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout: Tactics were horrible and should have never been conceived, but at least they knew their place and acted like the spin-offs that they were, and they made no lasting impact. Fallout 3 isn't trying to be a spin-off, it's trying to bank on the legendary Fallout name while willingly ignoring everything that made it Fallout, and it's trying to be a direct part of the canon in the process.

[QUOTE="death919"]Watch this game's gunna come out and get a 9.5 from Gamespot and a 9.6 from IGN and then there'll still be that group of people saying "no this game sucks becuase it doesn't continue the storyline or have the same gameplay and blah blah blah blah blah blah" while the rest of us enjoy it. :)subrosian

When has a review score ever been an indication of quality? Some of the best games of all time were reviewed poorly. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 scored a perfect 10 - Mario Galaxy only scored a 9.5. Do you think THPS3 is a more creative, innovative, and enjoyable game than Orange Box, Mario Galaxy, CoD4, Halo 3, et cetera?

You've missed the entire point of this thread, please re-read the initial post. Then, read it a third time and think about it.

Ha off topic much?

But uh the reviewers review the game itself, the score is for that game, its not suppose to be compared to any other game

aww man there soo many points that are wrong here

Please don't blame the console ports of the casualisation of Fallout 3.JLF1

I'm not bad-mouthing the consoles (although I do believe that this franchise doesn't belong on console format and is, in fact, a detriment to its design), I'm just pointing out the motives behind the game's design and exhibition.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="death919"]Well considering me and alot of my friends have never heard of Fallout before Fallout 3 and considering we're all super excited about it because it looks like it's going to be a great game, I think we can conclude that not everyone is "just" buying it because it's got the Fallout name on it.death919

What does that even mean though? If it gets a higher score than the previous Fallouts, wouldn't that make it a better "Fallout game"? Why should it be treated specially just because it has different gameplay? I consider Metroid Prime to be the greatest Metroid game ever, I don't say "well it didn't follow the traditional formula, so while it's a great GAME, it's a terrible METROID GAME", no I don't think many people think that way at all. The fact is that whether this game is similar to previous games in the series in no way affects its quality.

You know it means.. let me tell you

Rainbow Six used to be a tactical game. You had mission planning *which counted for ALOT* and strategy movements (you had mutliple teams) it was one of the finest tactical games in its day. What has this been reduced to? Arcade Shooter. Guess which has higher scores but guess which is a better tactical shooter.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

[QUOTE="death919"]Watch this game's gunna come out and get a 9.5 from Gamespot and a 9.6 from IGN and then there'll still be that group of people saying "no this game sucks becuase it doesn't continue the storyline or have the same gameplay and blah blah blah blah blah blah" while the rest of us enjoy it. :)Memoryitis

When has a review score ever been an indication of quality? Some of the best games of all time were reviewed poorly. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 scored a perfect 10 - Mario Galaxy only scored a 9.5. Do you think THPS3 is a more creative, innovative, and enjoyable game than Orange Box, Mario Galaxy, CoD4, Halo 3, et cetera?

You've missed the entire point of this thread, please re-read the initial post. Then, read it a third time and think about it.

Ha off topic much?

But uh the reviewers review the game itself, the score is for that game, its not suppose to be compared to any other game

aww man there soo many points that are wrong here

[QUOTE="pieatorium"]I personally find the old fallout games alot of fun, your original comment advocated the mainstreaming (dumbing down?) of these games and the death of hardcore games. Why? Does it impact your fun when someone else can find enjoyment in something you can't? I also enjoy FPS's and puzzle games and pretty much every type of game you can think of and what other people enjoy doesn't affect me. I'm not saying FO3 won't be fun it could possibly even turn out to be a good rpg but I would have rather had them create their own IP if they wanted to head into a PA or SciFi setting. Fallout is less about it's game mechanics and much more about it's setting and history imo and some of the directions they are taking are contradictory to that great canon built up so far. There is a reason everyone, even Bethesda, disregard the spinoffs the franchise spawned when talking fallout lore (even though FOT was a decent game it deviated so much from the previous history and FBOS was just all around trash), and despite this they are making the same mistakes. BioShockOwnz

I don't slap labels like "hardcore" on games, because those are the biggest posers. What I meant was that I'd like to see this "hardcore" label thrown in the trash and just play games for what they are.

Oh ok i can agree with that, your wording was a little off I guess. The most frustrating thing for me so far with what I have seen of FO3 is that Bethesda themselves said they were disregarding FO tactics as a source yet they are basically using it's setting and melding it's story with that of FO1.

[spoiler] FOTactics and FO3 both have a splinter faction of the BOS who have disregarded their previous beliefs to become the wastelands guardians. Both have a resurgance of the Super Mutants. FO1 and 3 share the sealed vault backstory for your charcter although in FO3 you are searching for your father rather than something to save the entire population of your vault. [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="death919"]Watch this game's gunna come out and get a 9.5 from Gamespot and a 9.6 from IGN and then there'll still be that group of people saying "no this game sucks becuase it doesn't continue the storyline or have the same gameplay and blah blah blah blah blah blah" while the rest of us enjoy it. :)subrosian

When has a review score ever been an indication of quality? Some of the best games of all time were reviewed poorly. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 scored a perfect 10 - Mario Galaxy only scored a 9.5. Do you think THPS3 is a more creative, innovative, and enjoyable game than Orange Box, Mario Galaxy, CoD4, Halo 3, et cetera?

You've missed the entire point of this thread, please re-read the initial post. Then, read it a third time and think about it.

[QUOTE="JLF1"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

[QUOTE="JLF1"]No Fallout 3 from Bethesda = No Fallout 3 at all.Zeliard9

So? Do we always need sequels? Sometimes you need to leave the classics alone. This applies to movies, so why not to games? The Godfather Part III was one Godfather too many.

Because the reality is that Bethesda is indeed creating a game titled "Fallout 3" and claiming it's canon. You can't just brush away reality and pretend it doesn't exist.

As for why people care, well, the original Fallout is considered by many to be the best RPG ever made. That's right, better than Baldur's Gate 2, and better than any JRPG. The first Fallout is such a good game that the second was actually considered a disappointment in comparison to the first, even though in comparison to every other game it was (and is) utterly fantastic.

So you're looking at a truly stellar franchise. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout: Tactics were horrible and should have never been conceived, but at least they knew their place and acted like the spin-offs that they were, and they made no lasting impact. Fallout 3 isn't trying to be a spin-off, it's trying to bank on the legendary Fallout name while willingly ignoring everything that made it Fallout, and it's trying to be a direct part of the canon in the process.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

[QUOTE="death919"]Watch this game's gunna come out and get a 9.5 from Gamespot and a 9.6 from IGN and then there'll still be that group of people saying "no this game sucks becuase it doesn't continue the storyline or have the same gameplay and blah blah blah blah blah blah" while the rest of us enjoy it. :)Memoryitis

When has a review score ever been an indication of quality? Some of the best games of all time were reviewed poorly. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 scored a perfect 10 - Mario Galaxy only scored a 9.5. Do you think THPS3 is a more creative, innovative, and enjoyable game than Orange Box, Mario Galaxy, CoD4, Halo 3, et cetera?

You've missed the entire point of this thread, please re-read the initial post. Then, read it a third time and think about it.

Ha off topic much?

But uh the reviewers review the game itself, the score is for that game, its not suppose to be compared to any other game

aww man there soo many points that are wrong here

I'm the TC - I get to make the call on what is relevant to my discussion and what isn't.

And congratulations, what you just said sounds like you're quoting me. You're proving my point - review scores aren't a useful means of judging whether a game is good or bad. If they aren't meant to be compared to anything, then what do they mean? They lack context and objectivity.

-

But see, you were just looking to attack core gamers for caring about a clas sic franchise, and missed the entire point of my OP. I suggest re-reading it and honestly asking yourself the questions I suggest asking. You wouldn't be mad if Microsoft made a game called "Super Smash Brawl 2", a decade from now, that used the characters, but ultimately destroyed what they were, and replaced the fun gameplay you remember with Shadowrun (Xbox 360)?

You're pointing out the flaw that Subrosian was pointing out. Good work. ;)Ibacai

I love when that happens.

What does that even mean though? If it gets a higher score than the previous Fallouts, wouldn't that make it a better "Fallout game"? Why should it be treated specially just because it has different gameplay? I consider Metroid Prime to be the greatest Metroid game ever, I don't say "well it didn't follow the traditional formula, so while it's a great GAME, it's a terrible METROID GAME", no I don't think many people think that way at all. The fact is that whether this game is similar to previous games in the series in no way affects its quality.death919

I can see why People hate on the game but if you really hate it don't play it. I hated FFXII but I did play it because I didn't know the game was bad but if i had known that I wouldn't have played it.JLF1

I don't plan on playing it, but if I want the devlopers to know that this turn in the franchise doesn't sit right with me, I have to voice my distaste or they won't know.

[QUOTE="death919"]What does that even mean though? If it gets a higher score than the previous Fallouts, wouldn't that make it a better "Fallout game"? Why should it be treated specially just because it has different gameplay? I consider Metroid Prime to be the greatest Metroid game ever, I don't say "well it didn't follow the traditional formula, so while it's a great GAME, it's a terrible METROID GAME", no I don't think many people think that way at all. The fact is that whether this game is similar to previous games in the series in no way affects its quality.foxhound_fox

Metroid Prime is an example of the kind of transistion to modern era that fans of the series would have been happy with. As Foxhound said, it captured what made the Metroid series special, while crafting a cutting-edge modern game. In MP's case though, it was created by Nintendo (the original studio) so they understood what they were doing. Bethesda is taking a game they didn't make, radically altering it, throwing away what made the first two games special, and then saying "this is Fallout 3 - the sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2!".

Obviously it's not, anymore than I could call Halo 3 the sequel to Metroid Prime 2, or Killzone the sequel to Goldeneye.

[QUOTE="Memoryitis"][QUOTE="subrosian"]

[QUOTE="death919"]Watch this game's gunna come out and get a 9.5 from Gamespot and a 9.6 from IGN and then there'll still be that group of people saying "no this game sucks becuase it doesn't continue the storyline or have the same gameplay and blah blah blah blah blah blah" while the rest of us enjoy it. :)subrosian

When has a review score ever been an indication of quality? Some of the best games of all time were reviewed poorly. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 scored a perfect 10 - Mario Galaxy only scored a 9.5. Do you think THPS3 is a more creative, innovative, and enjoyable game than Orange Box, Mario Galaxy, CoD4, Halo 3, et cetera?

You've missed the entire point of this thread, please re-read the initial post. Then, read it a third time and think about it.

Ha off topic much?

But uh the reviewers review the game itself, the score is for that game, its not suppose to be compared to any other game

aww man there soo many points that are wrong here

I'm the TC - I get to make the call on what is relevant to my discussion and what isn't.

And congratulations, what you just said sounds like you're quoting me. You're proving my point - review scores aren't a useful means of judging whether a game is good or bad. If they aren't meant to be compared to anything, then what do they mean? They lack context and objectivity.

-

But see, you were just looking to attack core gamers for caring about a clas sic franchise, and missed the entire point of my OP. I suggest re-reading it and honestly asking yourself the questions I suggest asking. You wouldn't be mad if Microsoft made a game called "Super Smash Brawl 2", a decade from now, that used the characters, but ultimately destroyed what they were, and replaced the fun gameplay you remember with Shadowrun (Xbox 360)?

You're pointing out the flaw that Subrosian was pointing out. Good work. ;)Ibacai

I love when that happens.

So basically you are just angry at the name Fallout 3 then huh? because that is basically what you are saying

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="death919"]What does that even mean though? If it gets a higher score than the previous Fallouts, wouldn't that make it a better "Fallout game"? Why should it be treated specially just because it has different gameplay? I consider Metroid Prime to be the greatest Metroid game ever, I don't say "well it didn't follow the traditional formula, so while it's a great GAME, it's a terrible METROID GAME", no I don't think many people think that way at all. The fact is that whether this game is similar to previous games in treshe series in no way affects its quality.subrosian

Metroid Prime is an example of the kind of transistion to modern era that fans of the series would have been happy with. As Foxhound said, it captured what made the Metroid series special, while crafting a cutting-edge modern game. In MP's case though, it was created by Nintendo (the original studio) so they understood what they were doing. Bethesda is taking a game they didn't make, radically altering it, throwing away what made the first two games special, and then saying "this is Fallout 3 - the sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2!".

Obviously it's not, anymore than I could call Halo 3 the sequel to Metroid Prime 2, or Killzone the sequel to Goldeneye.

I agree with this. People have also brought up Resident Evil 4 as an attempt at a counter-example to Fallout 3, but that doesn't work for these same reasons.

The best recent analogy I could come up with was Treyarch making Call of Duty games, like Call of Duty 3 (and as rumored, CoD5), yet even that's different since those games don't follow the same story like Fallout 1 and 2 do. Still, Call of Duty fans tend to not want Treyarch's games labeled "Call of Duty", either, so it's similar.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="death919"]What does that even mean though? If it gets a higher score than the previous Fallouts, wouldn't that make it a better "Fallout game"? Why should it be treated specially just because it has different gameplay? I consider Metroid Prime to be the greatest Metroid game ever, I don't say "well it didn't follow the traditional formula, so while it's a great GAME, it's a terrible METROID GAME", no I don't think many people think that way at all. The fact is that whether this game is similar to previous games in the series in no way affects its quality.subrosian

Metroid Prime is an example of the kind of transistion to modern era that fans of the series would have been happy with. As Foxhound said, it captured what made the Metroid series special, while crafting a cutting-edge modern game. In MP's case though, it was created by Nintendo (the original studio) so they understood what they were doing. Bethesda is taking a game they didn't make, radically altering it, throwing away what made the first two games special, and then saying "this is Fallout 3 - the sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2!".

Obviously it's not, anymore than I could call Halo 3 the sequel to Metroid Prime 2, or Killzone the sequel to Goldeneye.

So basically you are just angry at the name Fallout 3 then huh? because that is basically what you are saying

Memoryitis

No, I'm "basically" *every single word* in the OP. Not half of the words, not a quarter of them, not some summary of them - all of them. All of those words together are collectively known as "my point" - any attempt to summarize them further *misses* the point, which is why, the fourth time I've asked now - please read the OP before asking further questions, because your questions seem to miss the many important points I make in the OP.

I agree with this. The sad part is that I read an interview were Bethesda said that they didn't have any contact with the Fallout 1 and 2 devs and that they did not wan't them to be involved.JLF1

Interestingly enough, Bethesda does things like that then claims that they want to make Fallout 3 the true sequel:

We're making the sequel as we think it would be best in the modern age and how it would work best today. This means taking full advantage of all modern technology and first person to facilitate immersion. There is no reason today not to do so. We also didn't want to make our 'own' series because we want to make a true sequel to the first two Fallouts. Pete-Hines

I agree with this. The sad part is that I read an interview were Bethesda said that they didn't have any contact with the Fallout 1 and 2 devs and that they did not wan't them to be involved.JLF1

What's worse is that barely any of them have actually played the previous games all the way through.

I'm not joking. When asked about it, they kept saying, " I'm trying to find them to finish the first one."

Here's a study in "missing the point", courtesy of Fallout 3's lead designer:

There are some people who say that making an 18-rated game, and especially making a Fallout one, should be about sleeping with the hooker, then waking up with the venereal disease. A lot of that stuff personally, to me, veers into being a 12-year old dungeon master.

Some of it feels right and some of it feels wrong. We're appealing to an adult audience and it's a tough call. I mean, once you have groin shots you're approaching a level of silliness that, if you're not careful, can pervade the whole game.Emil Pagliarulo

Here's another courtesy of Pete Hines, the Marketing VP, trying to describe Fallout's humor:

The dark and often violent humor is a large question mark. Pete Hines noted in an interview with SpoNG "You know, the humour in Fallout 3 is that you can get a weapon and blow a guy to a bloody mess, then when you pull up your interface, you see a little smiling cartoon character holding his thumb up. Like that's funny… funny not in terms of jokes or winks at the camera and such…" If you were to ask any experienced gamer, or very likely any Fallout designer, to define Fallout's humor, that would not be their answer.NMA

I don't think they should have called it fallout 3.

I am a fan of fallout, but the question has to be asked. Is it better to see the game made rather than not? Its a shame to see the series dumbed down to suit console gamers, but the fact remains that it is going to be released.

If they manage to capture even a few of the tings that made fallout great then the game may be worth playing.

Don't try to compare it to the originals, just see it as a post-war action game and enjoy it from that angle.

Here's a study in "missing the point", courtesy of Fallout 3's lead designer:

[quote="Emil Pagliarulo"]There are some people who say that making an 18-rated game, and especially making a Fallout one, should be about sleeping with the hooker, then waking up with the venereal disease. A lot of that stuff personally, to me, veers into being a 12-year old dungeon master.

Some of it feels right and some of it feels wrong. We're appealing to an adult audience and it's a tough call. I mean, once you have groin shots you're approaching a level of silliness that, if you're not careful, can pervade the whole game.Zeliard9

Here's another courtesy of Pete Hines, the Marketing VP, trying to describe Fallout's humor:

The dark and often violent humor is a large question mark. Pete Hines noted in an interview with SpoNG "You know, the humour in Fallout 3 is that you can get a weapon and blow a guy to a bloody mess, then when you pull up your interface, you see a little smiling cartoon character holding his thumb up. Like that's funny… funny not in terms of jokes or winks at the camera and such…" If you were to ask any experienced gamer, or very likely any Fallout designer, to define Fallout's humor, that would not be their answer.NMA

Man, they don't know what they are doing... The Dialogue and characters were the funny parts.. The little pip-boy and the violence was just an afterthought. Way to ruin the game Bethesda.

Stop crying, the game is not even out yet.ILikeCatFoodMan

Thanks for another pointless contribution.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Great post, but the actual thought behind it makes me chuckle. You have a well thought out opinion, which I completely disagree with. I'm all about games going mainstream and letting the cash roll in. It's time to kill off hardcore gaming all together.eternalxboxfan

I have no idea what it's like to live wishing for all goodness in the world to be replaced with the bland, commonplace, and mediocre. Can you even call yourself "alive" if you'd trade away art, beauty, and truth for the "almighty dollar"?

I agree with the fact that art and beauty and (ill add this) pride and integrity vastly outweigh any amount of dollars and wealth, but how you bring down Bethesda like this brings me to wonder whats wrong with them as a studio. Baldurs Gate? KOTOR? Mass Effect? Can you, as a simpleton forum writer honestly be so harsh with the sudio that brought us Baldurs Gate? Also, I highly doubt Bethesda will be hated in the next 10 years. In fact, I assume they will only become a greater team, building the next great franchise with Mass Effect. You also critisize the onw thing with which we strive to seek in video gaming. From the first time we swung the master sword in Zelda, to the first time we swung a crow bar in Half-Life, the pursuit of happiness. The ultimate goal and the whole theme behind playing a video game, is it rabbidly researching the background behind which the games were made and who made them, or is it the question as to whether or not the game is pleasurable? seems as if its a sin to just have fun playing a video game anymore, without any critisizm and complaining and biased opinions on who made this or that.

Did I read this wrong or did he just say that Bethesda made Baldur's Gate, Kotor and Mass effect?

Did I read this wrong or did he just say that Bethesda made Baldur's Gate, Kotor and Mass effect?

DragonfireXZ95

Yeah thats what I picked up from it also, how many alt accounts does Wok7 have?!

[QUOTE="eternalxboxfan"][QUOTE="subrosian"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Great post, but the actual thought behind it makes me chuckle. You have a well thought out opinion, which I completely disagree with. I'm all about games going mainstream and letting the cash roll in. It's time to kill off hardcore gaming all together.DragonfireXZ95

I have no idea what it's like to live wishing for all goodness in the world to be replaced with the bland, commonplace, and mediocre. Can you even call yourself "alive" if you'd trade away art, beauty, and truth for the "almighty dollar"?

I agree with the fact that art and beauty and (ill add this) pride and integrity vastly outweigh any amount of dollars and wealth, but how you bring down Bethesda like this brings me to wonder whats wrong with them as a studio. Baldurs Gate? KOTOR? Mass Effect? Can you, as a simpleton forum writer honestly be so harsh with the sudio that brought us Baldurs Gate? Also, I highly doubt Bethesda will be hated in the next 10 years. In fact, I assume they will only become a greater team, building the next great franchise with Mass Effect. You also critisize the onw thing with which we strive to seek in video gaming. From the first time we swung the master sword in Zelda, to the first time we swung a crow bar in Half-Life, the pursuit of happiness. The ultimate goal and the whole theme behind playing a video game, is it rabbidly researching the background behind which the games were made and who made them, or is it the question as to whether or not the game is pleasurable? seems as if its a sin to just have fun playing a video game anymore, without any critisizm and complaining and biased opinions on who made this or that.

Did I read this wrong or did he just say that Bethesda made Baldur's Gate, Kotor and Mass effect?

He said that while calling subrosian a simpleton forum writer. Must be a wok7 alternate account.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

Did I read this wrong or did he just say that Bethesda made Baldur's Gate, Kotor and Mass effect?

tenaka2

Yeah thats what I picked up from it also, how many alt accounts does Wok7 have?!

You gotta be kidding me, we came to the same conclusion. He does reek of wok7, doesn't he? I knew it.

[QUOTE="Nolan16"]if u think some one is actually going to read all this your insane..foxhound_fox

Baldurs Gate? KOTOR? Mass Effect? Can you, as a simpleton forum writer honestly be so harsh with the sudio that brought us Baldurs Gate? Also, I highly doubt Bethesda will be hated in the next 10 years. In fact, I assume they will only become a greater team, building the next great franchise with Mass Effect. eternalxboxfan

Bioware made those games, not Bethesda

If you're going to call me a "simpleton" you might want to fact check your postings first :P

I see I have been quoted in the original post, how awesome. I'd also like to make the point that:

• If you're locked in an area at say level 3 with super mutants at level 20, they'll be scaled down to your level.
• The whole "mutants are stupid and you can't talk to them" ****s on canon.
• If you read a review/preview from a mainstream site from an author claiming to be a hardcore Fallout fan and thus is in a position to say how "awesome!!!" Fallout 3 is, don't believe it; they've never played the originals.
  

I play games to have fun.
Fallout 3 looks incredibly good to me. Will it be faithful to the Fallout series? Maybe not. Will it be an enjoyable game in its own rights? Most likely, looking back at the success of Oblivion.

I look forward to playing it.

[QUOTE="eternalxboxfan"]

Baldurs Gate? KOTOR? Mass Effect? Can you, as a simpleton forum writer honestly be so harsh with the sudio that brought us Baldurs Gate? Also, I highly doubt Bethesda will be hated in the next 10 years. In fact, I assume they will only become a greater team, building the next great franchise with Mass Effect. subrosian

Bioware made those games, not Bethesda

If you're going to call me a "simpleton" you might want to fact check your postings first :P

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Also, Fallout 3 is FAR from a casual game, sorry. Its story, gameplay. It just doesn't fit into that casual demographic.Pariah_001

Yes it does. Roided up graphics paired up with twitch gameplay and topic markers (as opposed to dialogue trees) is most assuredly casual.

Not to mention first person shooting present int the game

[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Also, Fallout 3 is FAR from a casual game, sorry. Its story, gameplay. It just doesn't fit into that casual demographic.naval

Yes it does. Roided up graphics paired up with twitch gameplay and topic markers (as opposed to dialogue trees) is most assuredly casual.

Not to mention first person shooting present int the game

I mean seriously.

200 years later and the cars explode like mini nukes.

*facepalm*