The FALLOUT 3 Reality Thread

Remember, Interplay killed Fallout, not Bethesda...

BioShockOwnz

Last I checked, a spin-off wasn't the same as the actual game.

Said it before and I'm saying it again.

I wish they wouldn't call it Fallout 3. Instead of keeping the franchise name alive, they should have just let it remain in the gaming graveyard.

I say that mostly b/c of the negativity, and yes I mean negativity that at times seems to border right into being jaded for some (mind not all). I view it a bit differently as a Fallout fan. Sure some of the changes aren't what I would expect, or want (stating that they removing the dark humor is a direct hit to the Fallout theme). However, at least there is a game of the franchise that is keeping said franchise going. Maybe after the release there will be a noticeable general complaint that somethings weren't Fallout-esque enough, and if a 4th installment hits the market maybe they revisit those decisions to remove said content. Sure it's a lot of "maybe" and "if" drivel I just rattled off, but those "maybe" and "if" comments are only relevant if they try... and they are.

Essentially I'm saying that to me something (even greatly changed) is far greater than nothing.

Said it before and I'm saying it again.

I wish they wouldn't call it Fallout 3. Instead of keeping the franchise name alive, they should have just let it remain in the gaming graveyard.

I say that mostly b/c of the negativity, and yes I mean negativity that at times seems to border right into being jaded for some (mind not all). I view it a bit differently as a Fallout fan. Sure some of the changes aren't what I would expect, or want (stating that they removing the dark humor is a direct hit to the Fallout theme). However, at least there is a game of the franchise that is keeping said franchise going. Maybe after the release there will be a noticeable general complaint that somethings weren't Fallout-esque enough, and if a 4th installment hits the market maybe they revisit those decisions to remove said content. Sure it's a lot of "maybe" and "if" drivel I just rattled off, but those "maybe" and "if" comments are only relevant if they try... and they are.

Essentially I'm saying that to me something (even greatly changed) is far greater than nothing.

-RPGamer-

it's absolutely stunning and hilarious how little most of you that claim the game will be a 'horrible fallout game' know about the game. here's a place to start for you - as you obviously need some questions clarified.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_FAQ#Will_ghouls_appear_in_Fallout_3.3F

FERAL GHOULS are creature ghouls. Ghouls in the wild, that are 'faster and more creature like'. THERE WILL be normal ghouls as NPCs and enemies that you can interact with.

please read the whole thing, everyone, because most of you are basing your knowledge of the game on loose forum snippets and rumors made by bitter jaded gamers.

Beth has said repeatedly that there are many apparent issues with canon based on the information we have publicly available - and has CONSTANTLY tried to assure people their fears are ill-based and that everything will be explained by -GASP- PLAYING THE GAME. the brotherhood aspects were covered by these comments - the reason they run rampant is part of the story.

you think they'd spoil things just to make the small group of bitter gamers worry less?

after you're done with the faq register in the official forums - maybe being exposed to some 'facts' will settle some of you down.3picuri3

"TRUST BETHESDA! BETHESDA IS LEGION!"

Not only are ghouls consequent of a Fallout plot device that had nothing to do with the East Coast, but their body structures don't allow for fast movement anyway you slice it.

How exactly would playing the game help the situation any when the point is that whatever rationalization they come up with will be a blatant back-peddle?

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Said it before and I'm saying it again.

I wish they wouldn't call it Fallout 3. Instead of keeping the franchise name alive, they should have just let it remain in the gaming graveyard.

I say that mostly b/c of the negativity, and yes I mean negativity that at times seems to border right into being jaded for some (mind not all). I view it a bit differently as a Fallout fan. Sure some of the changes aren't what I would expect, or want (stating that they removing the dark humor is a direct hit to the Fallout theme). However, at least there is a game of the franchise that is keeping said franchise going. Maybe after the release there will be a noticeable general complaint that somethings weren't Fallout-esque enough, and if a 4th installment hits the market maybe they revisit those decisions to remove said content. Sure it's a lot of "maybe" and "if" drivel I just rattled off, but those "maybe" and "if" comments are only relevant if they try... and they are.

Essentially I'm saying that to me something (even greatly changed) is far greater than nothing.

Vandalvideo

Same tone, I've been saying I don't care for all the changes they make. I still would like to play the game first before making too many judgements on what changes are actually in place (and whether they seem to fit or not). I still think many people are being overly negative about it as a Fallout title. And I still am glad we are getting something over nothing.

I mean if I "said it before", it's not exactly much of a change.

I mean i dont like the sound of nuke proof phone boxes; but why are we getting so annoyed at feral ghouls? There WERE ghouls in the original who were creature-like and mindless, who were hostile to you. I'm sure of it. Ninja-Hippo

It's not so much the "feral" part that I'm pissed about as it is the nature of the ghouls.

In Fallout 2, Gecko's outskirts had ghoul raiders who were dubbed "deranged" and they would attack you. But in lieu of the fact that they're not fast and not agile, they use guns to kill and rob people.

It simply does not make sense for "feral ghouls" to be out and about--And especially not with the ability to move like fast and vicious tigers....And radiation powers--I mean, WTF!?

All ghouls are simply pedestrian individuals eroded by radiation. And whatever crazed ghouls that exist are confined to Necropolis.

Trying to explain that away isn't going to make things better. It'll simply be, as I said previously, a hackneyed backpeddle.

When it's highly likely that any changes will be explained simply, will fit with the series, and will make sense. We're simply being overly hostile to change because we see this as OUR game and not Bethesda's to alter, even though their alterations will more than likely be just fine. Ninja-Hippo

First of all: Just because the continuity lapses will be explained, that doesn't mean their reationalizations will "fit." It just means that they wanted to use Black Isle's idea anyway they could irregardless of quality. Whatever the way they're gonna try and pull it off, the non-sequitur nature of their attempt is always going to be the equvilant of jamming a puzzle piece where it doesn't fit just to cover up the hole.

Second of all: This has nothing to do with us thinking it's our game. The game is its own game. And we simply don't want to play one that's trying to masquerade as the original masterpiece whose name it's trying to mooch off of.

No, you're assuming it's a retcon. You're taking a negative approach and refusing to see this as anything other than a bad thing. Any host of new story developments could result in feral ghouls. And Bethesda have reassured fans that all we be explained. Why you're assuming that they're rewriting the very history of which the game is set is beyond me. Ninja-Hippo

Appending history can be exactly the same as re-writing it. When they say that there was extra story-elements, within Black Isle's universe, that weren't covered, that means they're forcing Black Isle's story to be partially, if not a great deal, consequent of Bethesda's addon. In which case, because it implies omission within the past games and is an indisputable re-structuring of Fallout's continuity, it is indeed a RETCON.

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

It's 10 years later, dude. No matter how or who or what they'd do to Fallout 3, you wouldn't get the same awesome feel like you did the first two.

smokeydabear076

Because that's how it is.. I mean first of all you'd have to go back to 2D graphs..

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

It's 10 years later, dude. No matter how or who or what they'd do to Fallout 3, you wouldn't get the same awesome feel like you did the first two.

xsubtownerx

Because that's how it is.. I mean first of all you'd have to go back to 2D graphs..

A fully 3D recreation of Fallout made by Black Isle sounds fine to me.

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

It's 10 years later, dude. No matter how or who or what they'd do to Fallout 3, you wouldn't get the same awesome feel like you did the first two.

stephant_6

Because that's how it is.. I mean first of all you'd have to go back to 2D graphs..

A fully 3D recreation of Fallout made by Black Isle sounds fine to me.

They had their chance. Well interplay did. They didn't do it. Is it better to have a Fallout 3 game or nothing at all?

PS: Does black isle still exist?

[QUOTE="stephant_6"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

It's 10 years later, dude. No matter how or who or what they'd do to Fallout 3, you wouldn't get the same awesome feel like you did the first two.

xsubtownerx

Because that's how it is.. I mean first of all you'd have to go back to 2D graphs..

A fully 3D recreation of Fallout made by Black Isle sounds fine to me.

They had their chance. Well interplay did. They didn't do it. Is it better to have a Fallout 3 game or nothing at all?

PS: Does black isle still exist?

No Black Isle died,along with the greatness of RPG's. :(

I'm sure Fallout 3 will be good on its own terms,I just wish it weren't a Fallout game.

No Black Isle died,along with the greatness of RPG's. :(

I'm sure Fallout 3 will be good on its own terms,I just wish it weren't a Fallout game.

stephant_6

I see what you're saying. but we never know! We'll have to wait and see if Fallout 3 should be called Fallout 3.

They had their chance. Well interplay did. They didn't do it. Is it better to have a Fallout 3 game or nothing at all?

PS: Does black isle still exist?

xsubtownerx

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Remember, Interplay killed Fallout, not Bethesda...

Pariah_001

Last I checked, a spin-off wasn't the same as the actual game.

It's still the Fallout name that gamers hold so near and dear. Hell, Interplay didn't even have the courtesy to wipe after it **** all over the beloved franchise.

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

Remember, Interplay killed Fallout, not Bethesda...

BioShockOwnz

Last I checked, a spin-off wasn't the same as the actual game.

It's still the Fallout name that gamers hold so near and dear. Hell, Interplay didn't even have the courtesy to wipe after it **** all over the beloved franchise.

Man.. if they could have made that game anything like dark Aliance, it could have been awesome.

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

Remember, Interplay killed Fallout, not Bethesda...

xsubtownerx

Last I checked, a spin-off wasn't the same as the actual game.

It's still the Fallout name that gamers hold so near and dear. Hell, Interplay didn't even have the courtesy to wipe after it **** all over the beloved franchise.

Man.. if they could have made that game anything like dark Aliance, it could have been awesome.

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

Remember, Interplay killed Fallout, not Bethesda...

smokeydabear076

Last I checked, a spin-off wasn't the same as the actual game.

It's still the Fallout name that gamers hold so near and dear. Hell, Interplay didn't even have the courtesy to wipe after it **** all over the beloved franchise.

Man.. if they could have made that game anything like dark Aliance, it could have been awesome.

Are you NUTS?! It was NOTHING like dark Aliance. look, feel, gameplay. They blew it, man. I know they -wanted- it to be like that, but they epic missed.

Are you NUTS?! It was NOTHING like dark Aliance. look, feel, gameplay. They blew it, man. I know they -wanted- it to be like that, but they epic missed.

xsubtownerx

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

Are you NUTS?! It was NOTHING like dark Aliance. look, feel, gameplay. They blew it, man. I know they -wanted- it to be like that, but they epic missed.

smokeydabear076

I know this.. That's why I said if they could have made it anything like Dark Alliance in the sense of quality, it could have rocked! (I loved Dark Alliance)

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

Are you NUTS?! It was NOTHING like dark Aliance. look, feel, gameplay. They blew it, man. I know they -wanted- it to be like that, but they epic missed.

xsubtownerx

I know this.. That's why I said if they could have made it anything like Dark Alliance in the sense of quality, it could have rocked! (I loved Dark Alliance)

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

Are you NUTS?! It was NOTHING like dark Aliance. look, feel, gameplay. They blew it, man. I know they -wanted- it to be like that, but they epic missed.

smokeydabear076

I know this.. That's why I said if they could have made it anything like Dark Alliance in the sense of quality, it could have rocked! (I loved Dark Alliance)

So bad... Like, SO bad.

So bad... Like, SO bad.

xsubtownerx

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

So bad... Like, SO bad.

smokeydabear076

:lol: I freakin' hope so... It does -look- good so far. Will it be played well? I don't know yet. But it does look good. For a 3D Fallout game.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

It's 10 years later, dude. No matter how or who or what they'd do to Fallout 3, you wouldn't get the same awesome feel like you did the first two.

xsubtownerx

Because that's how it is.. I mean first of all you'd have to go back to 2D graphs..

Van Buren.

Link: Fallout violence "tongue-in-cheek" on CVG

"We don't want it to be the focal point of the game, but it is what it is. It's a violent world, and so the combat should be violent as a result.

"I think we've done it to the extent that it's not realistic. It's a bit more tongue-in-cheek. It's Quentin Tarantino. So it's not storming the beaches of Normandy in Saving Private Ryan, where it looks like it's actually happening. It's more Kill Bill. It's violence that's a bit more over the top so it's more comical than disturbing."

Covering all bases, Hines concluded, "It's definitely a game for grown ups. It always has been. I think we've been very clear about that. This is a mature title for mature audiences. It's not a game for kids."

WOW.

Honestly, I don't understand how people can even stomach the idea of defending this guy. This is just so ridiculous.

TO the people who say "how can you take this so seriously"

When people invest so many hours and become so attached to a game - like any object - e.g. your car, you are going to be pissed off when someone rapes your memories with a bastardised sequel, that goes agains thte principles that made you love the first game.

*COUGH* (non game example)

Recent Transformers Movie

No Fallout 3 from Bethesda = No Fallout 3 at all.JLF1

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="3picuri3"]Common Feral Ghoul from a Random Encounter outside city - hostile Glowing Ones - Variation of the Common Ghoul, also feral, found in Necropolis Have a good day - finished arguing with you. If you want to read everything and play it and come back I'll welcome any constructive argument re: your concerns with fallout 3.Ninja-Hippo

Again though, Bethesda said that all would be explained in the game; ie how supermutants ended up on the east side. In fact, they even said they were a little surprised at how Fallout fans hadn't figured that out yet, and how many of them got stuff fundamentally wrong regarding the original game.

I mean i dont like the sound of nuke proof phone boxes; but why are we getting so annoyed at feral ghouls? There WERE ghouls in the original who were creature-like and mindless, who were hostile to you. I'm sure of it.

The super mutants on the East Coast thing wasn't really hard to figure out (I have a good idea of how they're going to attempt to explain it - the explanation is only going to satisfy people who don't really know the story that well) - however the "Fallout fans got things wrong" comment on Bethesda's part is a bit low - especially since (in those days) Fallout fans were directly asking the devs what things meant, whereas 95% of Bethesda's staff has never played Fallout 1 or Fallout 2. If Bethesda were sticking to Fallout canon, instead of rewriting it to suite their vision of the game (something they already said they were doing to "balance" the gameplay mix for gamers new to Fallout), then maybe they'd have a leg to stand on.

In other words, it's one thing if Bethesda was being a super stickler for this stuff, and was the biggest nerd in the room, so to speak - it's another when they're telling me that a car door or a phone booth somehow provide the wind sheer protection you'd need to survive a nuclear blast. At that point it's a bit rich to tell me "well - you just don't understand the games you spent your childhood playing - we have Cliff's Notes, that we wrote, that say we're right".

-

My analogy has been "take a favorite game, jump forward ten years - another studio is totally reinterpreting it - only suddenly no one seems to get it because they've never played it." Princess Peach is now Luigi's brother, and use the Master Sword to fight Koopas.... and if you think that doesn't make sense, then you were just interpreting Mario incorrectly.

Here's the thing though:

For feral ghouls to exist, one of two things would need to happen:

1) Another nuclear war (which cannot happen).

2) The current generation to somehow "evolve" into feral ghouls by radiation or something, which again, can't happen.

Even then, the current generation should have died out by the time Fallout 3 hits. I don't actually know how they can explain it without going outside the Fallout universe, or it sounding completely stupid.RobbieH1234

Ah, you've missed what I'll call "the almighty loophole", which is how Bethesda can explain whatever they want, and still pretend they respect Fallout canon:

East Coast Vaults.

Now you can say "okay wait - in Fallout 1 /2 radiation was harmful and something to be feared - you didn't turn into a Super Saiyan by getting caught in a nuclear blast". Now Bethesda can say "right, it just didn't happen that way in the West Coast, but there were a couple of East Coast Vaults that they didn't know about properly in the first two Fallout games - some of which have just opened, were the radiation affected things differently".

-

Now obviously Bethesda's view of BOS / Fallout Universe and such is now borrowing from the spinoff games (BoS and Tactics). This is why I said their explanation won't satisfy Fallout fans - because concepts like Radiation, the goals of factions, et cetera that should (or at least could) have been universal.

Bethesda has access to these "tools" to do what they want with the canon:

-East Coast Vaults

-Passage of Time

-Rogue Factions

-"Misinformation" (what was explained of the world / east coast / etc in the first Fallouts was simply misinformation or mistold).

how do you think they're going to explain super mutants being on the East coast?RobbieH1234

After the defeat of the Master, the super mutant army divided into factions (due to lack of central leadership). One of these factions wandered East, where they became the group of super mutants the player will encounter in Fallout 3. So, the Super Mutants in Fallout 3 are either directly the Super Mutants from Fallout, or they are a a generation of super mutants created by one of the remaining "intelligent" mutants.

Bethesda has another tool here - the Master was experimenting with FEV to enhance his own powers - remember his interest in the Vault Dwellers was in that they were the "cleanest" humans (radiation / airborne FEV exposure) so, it's possible that he equipped other facilities with supplies of FEV injections (it doesn't just have to be vats, if you recall) so that his Super Mutant armies could restock. The Super Mutants may have overwhelmed an East Coast vault, allowing them to recruit new ranks in the East.

Any changes to the super mutants can be explained simply because it was never entirely discovered why FEV makes some mutants into morons and some into brilliant beings - FEV may react differently with a different population of Vault Dwellers. It's also possible the supply of FEV that the Super Mutants were carrying was altered from the one in Fallout, hence there are several sources of possible alteration.

Now obviously Bethesda's view of BOS / Fallout Universe and such is now borrowing from the spinoff games (BoS and Tactics). This is why I said their explanation won't satisfy Fallout fans - because concepts like Radiation, the goals of factions, et cetera that should (or at least could) have been universal.

subrosian

Why o' why o' why. They trying to ride off the sucess of the GeOW 'badass' characters?

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

Now obviously Bethesda's view of BOS / Fallout Universe and such is now borrowing from the spinoff games (BoS and Tactics). This is why I said their explanation won't satisfy Fallout fans - because concepts like Radiation, the goals of factions, et cetera that should (or at least could) have been universal.

skrat_01

Why o' why o' why. They trying to ride off the sucess of the GeOW 'badass' characters?

I don't like how powerful the Vault Dweller is being seen as being here. Being the "Chosen One" was sort of a cruel joke. As the genius behind Fallout said:

• I always thought of Fallout's story of drawing straws was something the Overseer thought of. "Look, someone has to go outside, and they may die out there, so let's draw straws". Someone, probably not the Overseer since he wouldn't have gone outside no matter what, demanded that EVERYONE draw a straw in order to be truly fair. But to be honest, the vault dwellers were simpy terrified of going outside, and terrified people do not always make the wisest decisions.
  Anyway, when big dumb Larry drew the straw, maybe the Overseer saw a way to rid their limited gene pool of some really bad alleles. - Tim Cain at DAC forum

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

Now obviously Bethesda's view of BOS / Fallout Universe and such is now borrowing from the spinoff games (BoS and Tactics). This is why I said their explanation won't satisfy Fallout fans - because concepts like Radiation, the goals of factions, et cetera that should (or at least could) have been universal.

skrat_01

Why o' why o' why. They trying to ride off the sucess of the GeOW 'badass' characters?

I'm not liking the way they described to BOS either but they do seem to get that there is a radical shift from the old BOS as there were some who left the new faction because of the policy changes, according to their write up anyway.

I don't like how powerful the Vault Dweller is being seen as being here. Being the "Chosen One" was sort of a cruel joke. As the genius behind Fallout said:

• I always thought of Fallout's story of drawing straws was something the Overseer thought of. "Look, someone has to go outside, and they may die out there, so let's draw straws". Someone, probably not the Overseer since he wouldn't have gone outside no matter what, demanded that EVERYONE draw a straw in order to be truly fair. But to be honest, the vault dwellers were simpy terrified of going outside, and terrified people do not always make the wisest decisions.
  Anyway, when big dumb Larry drew the straw, maybe the Overseer saw a way to rid their limited gene pool of some really bad alleles. - Tim Cain at DAC forum

subrosian

I'm not liking the way they described to BOS either but they do seem to get that there is a radical shift from the old BOS as there were some who left the new faction because of the policy changes, according to their write up anyway.

pieatorium

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

I don't like how powerful the Vault Dweller is being seen as being here. Being the "Chosen One" was sort of a cruel joke. As the genius behind Fallout said:

• I always thought of Fallout's story of drawing straws was something the Overseer thought of. "Look, someone has to go outside, and they may die out there, so let's draw straws". Someone, probably not the Overseer since he wouldn't have gone outside no matter what, demanded that EVERYONE draw a straw in order to be truly fair. But to be honest, the vault dwellers were simpy terrified of going outside, and terrified people do not always make the wisest decisions.
  Anyway, when big dumb Larry drew the straw, maybe the Overseer saw a way to rid their limited gene pool of some really bad alleles. - Tim Cain at DAC forum

skrat_01

I'm not liking the way they described to BOS either but they do seem to get that there is a radical shift from the old BOS as there were some who left the new faction because of the policy changes, according to their write up anyway.

pieatorium

That's basically what Bethesda did.

In Fallout 3 the BoS were sent to the East Coast to find new technology - the Paladin leading this expedition found the Pentagon, a treasure trove of technologies. For his discovery this Paladin was promoted to being an Elder. The BoS encountered their old rivals, the Super Mutants, in DC, and fought them off. They built a base inside the Pentagon known as The Citadel. The Elder here, however, decided that protecting the people of DC from Super Mutants was important - which made the BoS upset, since their primary goal is to gather technology.

Those still loyal to the main BoS therefore took as much power armor, weapons, et cetera as they could carry and left the Citadel, and those who remained were branded as traitors. This traitor legion has lost its technology-seeking and training focus (hence the cobbled together armor) and are more intent on fighting Super Mutants than engineering / science.

-

That's Bethesda's explanation paraphrased in a way that explains how they shoehorn it into Fallout lore. As I said, not a bad game, but they're making a game that's decidely not much like the first two Fallouts to play, and then sort of tieing in as much as they can while still having made a radically different game.

I think that Bethesda will do a fine job of tying the lore from Fallout 1 and 2 together with Fallout 3. Their may be a few casualties in the realism/logic department on the way, like the phonebooths and the fatman, but overall I think they will do a pretty solid job with the mythology connection.

However, lore continuity isn't what I'm most worried about with this game, and I couldn't care less about feral ghouls :roll:. More than anything I'm worried that the things that made Fallout 1 and 2 so great for me, like the sense of place, the absolute freedom, the complex morality, and the brutal, harsh, gritty, nature of the world, are going to be lost in translation.

And that would be a damn shame.

*Shrugs* As long as it captures that incredible sense of atmosphere and immersion that made its predecessors so memorable, I'm fine with Fallout 3. I'm not going to boycott a game and miss out on fun because Bethesda didn't make the third installment exactly like the other two. I game for entertainment, but I guess I'm just old fashioned like that.Verge_6

Beathsoft said that they didn't like fallout's sick humor :|

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]*Shrugs* As long as it captures that incredible sense of atmosphere and immersion that made its predecessors so memorable, I'm fine with Fallout 3. I'm not going to boycott a game and miss out on fun because Bethesda didn't make the third installment exactly like the other two. I game for entertainment, but I guess I'm just old fashioned like that.the1stfandb

Beathsoft said that they didn't like fallout's sick humor :|

Okay...hrmn, nope, still not wanting to strap explosives to myself and run into the Bethesda HQ and blow myself up.

As I said, give me the memorable atmosphere and setting, along with fun gamepaly, and I'm fine.

[QUOTE="the1stfandb"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]*Shrugs* As long as it captures that incredible sense of atmosphere and immersion that made its predecessors so memorable, I'm fine with Fallout 3. I'm not going to boycott a game and miss out on fun because Bethesda didn't make the third installment exactly like the other two. I game for entertainment, but I guess I'm just old fashioned like that.Verge_6

Beathsoft said that they didn't like fallout's sick humor :|

Okay...hrmn, nope, still not wanting to strap explosives to myself and run into the Bethesda HQ and blow myself up.

As I said, give me the memorable atmosphere and setting, along with fun gamepaly, and I'm fine.

It it turns out good I'll play it too. I just think that they shouldn't call it fallout 3 but there is not much I can do about that.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

I don't like how powerful the Vault Dweller is being seen as being here. Being the "Chosen One" was sort of a cruel joke. As the genius behind Fallout said:

• I always thought of Fallout's story of drawing straws was something the Overseer thought of. "Look, someone has to go outside, and they may die out there, so let's draw straws". Someone, probably not the Overseer since he wouldn't have gone outside no matter what, demanded that EVERYONE draw a straw in order to be truly fair. But to be honest, the vault dwellers were simpy terrified of going outside, and terrified people do not always make the wisest decisions.
  Anyway, when big dumb Larry drew the straw, maybe the Overseer saw a way to rid their limited gene pool of some really bad alleles. - Tim Cain at DAC forum

skrat_01

I'm not liking the way they described to BOS either but they do seem to get that there is a radical shift from the old BOS as there were some who left the new faction because of the policy changes, according to their write up anyway.

pieatorium

There will be 2 factions of BoS in FO3 both originated from a group that was sent to DC in search of new(old) tech. The main group decided that the teachings, beliefs and everything the had known since they were children were no longer top priority (for some unknown reason) and decided instead to become the saviours of the DC wastes (this is what i don't like about theri BoS), some members didn't like this and wanted to remain loyal to the old ways and formed a seperate splinter group. (this is the part which shows they at least realise that they have butchered the BoS)

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="the1stfandb"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]*Shrugs* As long as it captures that incredible sense of atmosphere and immersion that made its predecessors so memorable, I'm fine with Fallout 3. I'm not going to boycott a game and miss out on fun because Bethesda didn't make the third installment exactly like the other two. I game for entertainment, but I guess I'm just old fashioned like that.the1stfandb

Beathsoft said that they didn't like fallout's sick humor :|

Okay...hrmn, nope, still not wanting to strap explosives to myself and run into the Bethesda HQ and blow myself up.

As I said, give me the memorable atmosphere and setting, along with fun gamepaly, and I'm fine.

It it turns out good I'll play it too. I just think that they shouldn't call it fallout 3 but there is not much I can do about that.

Im considering getting the collectors edition because i MUST have that god damn awesome Vault Tek Lunchbox.

Do Want.

I think that Bethesda will do a fine job of tying the lore from Fallout 1 and 2 together with Fallout 3. Their may be a few casualties in the realism/logic department on the way, like the phonebooths and the fatman, but overall I think they will do a pretty solid job with the mythology connection.

However, lore continuity isn't what I'm most worried about with this game, and I couldn't care less about feral ghouls :roll:. More than anything I'm worried that the things that made Fallout 1 and 2 so great for me, like the sense of place, the absolute freedom, the complex morality, and the brutal, harsh, gritty, nature of the world, are going to be lost in translation.

And that would be a damn shame.

jethrovegas

Those are what I'm most concerned about - I was just answering questions.

Those area ALL already confirmed to be gone. Complex morality is replaced with black & white moral system, brutal world replaced with a forgiving, cush world full of people wanting to protect you, freedom replaced with an MMO-esque quest system, and sense of place lost in the transition from Black Isle's vision to Bethesda's - that's pretty much all gone - it's now an action / horror RPG - it might still be a "fun" game but it's not really going to play like Fallout - hence the audience divide.

Those area ALL already confirmed to be gone. Complex morality is replaced with black & white moral system, brutal world replaced with a forgiving, cush world full of people wanting to protect you, freedom replaced with an MMO-esque quest system, and sense of place lost in the transition from Black Isle's vision to Bethesda's - that's pretty much all gone - it's now an action / horror RPG - it might still be a "fun" game but it's not really going to play like Fallout - hence the audience dividesubrosian

People are still going on about this?

I guess while we are on the topic of what truly defines a sequal, we should discuss FF. They are now no FF13 and the characters aren't the same as the first game, the world isn't the same, the city and the rules of the world aren't the same. How dare they call it FF13 when they aren't following the cannon of the FF world set out in the first game!

People are still going on about this?

I guess while we are on the topic of what truly defines a sequal, we should discuss FF. They are now no FF13 and the characters aren't the same as the first game, the world isn't the same, the city and the rules of the world aren't the same. How dare they call it FF13 when they aren't following the cannon of the FF world set out in the first game!

ZIMdoom

it's now an action / horror RPG - it might still be a "fun" game but it's not really going to play like Fallout - hence the audience divide.subrosian

I would even go so far as to say thatit's not even an RPG anymore.

One could argue that the game has RPG qualites. But one could just as easily argue that, because you're able to sneak past some enemies in Kill-Switch (albeit, it's almost impossible), that would make that quality substantive enough to be mentioned in the genre title. But no one is going to be near-sighted enough to allow Kill-Switch to be dubbed, even minutely, a sneaker. Thus, it doesn't exactly make sense to do it for a game that simply has a few RPG qualities.