The Official FALLOUT 3 Hype-Thread | (56k warning)

[QUOTE="RobbieH1234"][QUOTE="NAPK1NS"][QUOTE="RobbieH1234"]You might want to edit the plot synopsis of Fallout and Fallout 2 in the original post. I know they are numerous people on these forums who want to play the originals before Fallout 3 and the OP kind of gives away everything.NAPK1NS

Sure, how do you do it?

Remove the stars.

[QUOTE="NAPK1NS"]

[QUOTE="RobbieH1234"][QUOTE="NAPK1NS"][QUOTE="RobbieH1234"]You might want to edit the plot synopsis of Fallout and Fallout 2 in the original post. I know they are numerous people on these forums who want to play the originals before Fallout 3 and the OP kind of gives away everything.RobbieH1234

Sure, how do you do it?

Remove the stars.

Not working. :(

[QUOTE="ironcreed"]

Most excellent thread, for what will undoubtedly be an excellent game, which in my mind will be an easy front runner for GOTY 2008. And despite the cries of a few elitist hermits who want to live in the past, (TeY BAstArdIZed mUh GAMe aNd maDE iT tEh oBLIvioN WIth gUnz.:cry: ) there is nothing on the contrary to suggest that this:

will end up being inferior to Fallout 1 and 2, regardless of any new gameplay mechanics that hermits consider to be the "casualization of the series."

Look at it this way, the Fallout series as a whole will get more exposure than it ever would have. But again, there are that elitist few who feel as if the game is somehow "theirs", and it should not be "consolized for TeH N00BZ". As if instead, the original devs should have kept the series, made it themselves according to the whims of the elitist fans of the first 2 games, instead of selling the game to a bigger and better developer who can modernize the series and introduce it to an entirely new audience, who never played Fallout 1 or 2 because they are not PC gamers....such as myself. How very selifish and self centered indeed. Grow up already.

Bottom line, the old Fallout games are not coming back, and Fallout 3 is going to be the redefining of the series, whether you dig it or not. And just because the game is going to be a bit more accessible to console gamers, it in no way means that the game is going to just flat suck, or that "Teh SerIeS iz DeAd." :cry:

So, I suggest that you move on with the times, accept change as it comes, and make the best of what is looking to be an extraordinary game that will be the rebirth of a renowned series that many will be introduced to for the first time. Which is not a bad thing at all for the series as a whole, by the way.:|

DragonfireXZ95

Great, you should try playing the first 2 games before you tell us what we want and don't want. You sound more elitist than us hermits.

Seriously, play the first 2 games, and then you can voice your opinion. In fact, you can get them both on Amazon right now in a package for like 10 or 15 bucks. Do yourself a favor and buy them, you can run them on windows 95 or 98 even!

Where did I even try to tell you what you do and do not want? I sound more elitist than the PC gamers you say? How so, when all I was suggesting in summary, is that introducing the series to a broader audience and making the game more accessible to console gamers is in no way destroying the series? It is the elitist PC gamers that are claiming otherwise. So, on the contrary, my friend.;)

As for picking up the first 2, I actually plan on doing so before the release of Fallout 3. Although, old turn based combat is not my preferred type of gameplay any more, so that is a major plus that they did not include it in Fallout 3, in my view. It even wore extremely thin on me with a more recent game, in Lost Odyssey.

The player can defeat the Master and destroy the Super Mutants' Military Base in either order. When both threats are eliminated, a cut-scene ensues in which the player automatically returns to Vault 13. There he is told that he has changed too much and his return would negatively influence the citizens of the Vault as a negative role model. Thus he is rewarded with exile into the desert, for, in theOverseer's eyes, the good of the vault. There is an alternate ending (available if the player has the "Bloody Mess" trait, or has accrued significant negative karma throughout the game) in which the Vault Dweller draws a handgun and shoots the Overseer after he is told to go in exile.

It is revealed that the dwellers of Vault 13 were captured as well, to be used as test subjects for FEV (Forced Evolutionary Virus). Vault 13 was supposed to be closed for 200 years as part of an Enclave experiment, this makes them perfect test subjects. The Enclave modified the Forced Evolutionary Virus into an airborne disease, designed to attack any living creatures with mutated DNA. With all genetic impurities removed, the Enclave (who remain protected from radiation) could take over . The player frees both his village (Arroyo) and the Vault 13 dwellers from Enclave control, and destroys the Enclave's oilrig. In the ending, the inhabitants of Vault 13 and Arroyo villagers create a new prosperous community with the help of the GECK. [/spoiler]

Quote it and then copy+paste the history section (including the spoiler tags).

Not working. :(

NAPK1NS

Dude, it works. Put [spoiler.] before the first word, and [/spoiler.] after the last word, but remove those periods after "spoiler".

[spoiler]

The player initially has 150 days before the Vault's water supply runs out. This time limit can be extended by 70 days if he commissions merchants inthe Hubto send water caravans to Vault 13. Upon returning the chip, the Vault Dweller is then tasked with destroying a mutant army that threatens humanity. A mutant known as "The Master" (previously known asRichard Grey) has begun using a pre-war, genetically engineered virus calledForced Evolutionary Virusto convert humanity into a race of "Super Mutants", and bring them together in theUnity, his plan for a perfect world. The player is to kill him and destroy theMilitary Basehousing the supply of FEV, thus halting the invasion before it can start.

If the player does not complete both objectives within 500 game days, the mutant army will discover Vault 13 and invade it, bringing an end to the game. This time limit is shortened to 400 days if the player divulged Vault 13's location to thewater merchants. A cinematic cut-scene of mutants overrunning the vault is shown if the player fails to stop the mutant army within this time frame, indicating the player has lost the game. If the player agrees to join the mutant army, the same cinematic is shown.

In version 1.1 of the game, the time limit for the mutant attack on Vault 13 is eliminated, allowing players to explore the game world at their leisure.

The player can defeat the Master and destroy the Super Mutants' Military Base in either order. When both threats are eliminated, a cut-scene ensues in which the player automatically returns to Vault 13. There he is told that he has changed too much and his return would negatively influence the citizens of the Vault as a negative role model. Thus he is rewarded with exile into the desert, for, in theOverseer's eyes, the good of the vault. There is an alternate ending (available if the player has the "Bloody Mess" trait, or has accrued significant negative karma throughout the game) in which the Vault Dweller draws a handgun and shoots the Overseer after he is told to go in exile.

During 2241, Arroyo suffered the worst drought on record. Faced with the difficulty, the village elders asked the direct descendant of theVault Dweller, referred to as theChosen One, to perform the quest of retrieving aGarden of Eden Creation Kit(GECK) for Arroyo. The GECK is a device that can create thriving communities out of the post-apocalyptic wasteland.

The player, assuming the role of the Chosen One, is given nothing more than the Vault Dweller's jumpsuit, a RobCoPIPBoy 2000handheld device, aVault 13water flask, and some cash to start the mission.

The player eventually findsVault 13(the first place possible to obtain a GECK) devoid of the majority of its former human inhabitants. The Chosen One returns to find his village captured by the remnants of theUnited Statesgovernment known as "The Enclave". The player, through variety of means, activates an ancient oil tanker and its autopilot, thus allowing him to reach the Enclave's main base on an offshore oilrig.

It is revealed that the dwellers of Vault 13 were captured as well, to be used as test subjects for FEV (Forced Evolutionary Virus). Vault 13 was supposed to be closed for 200 years as part of an Enclave experiment, this makes them perfect test subjects. The Enclave modified the Forced Evolutionary Virus into an airborne disease, designed to attack any living creatures with mutated DNA. With all genetic impurities removed, the Enclave (who remain protected from radiation) could take over . The player frees both his village (Arroyo) and the Vault 13 dwellers from Enclave control, and destroys the Enclave's oilrig. In the ending, the inhabitants of Vault 13 and Arroyo villagers create a new prosperous community with the help of the GECK. [/spoiler]

Quote it and then copy+paste the history section (including the spoiler tags).

PBSnipes

Thanks. That did the trick. :)

I'm hoping Fallout 3 will be a good Fallout game but I won't know until it comes out. That doesn't mean that no one can bash the game or certain aspects of it before it's out though. It's kind of ridiculous to be allowed to praise the game but unable to criticize it.

Some of you airheads think that change is always good when change is actually a subjective matter. In the case of Fallout 3, A LOT of thigns have been changed from the original so I don't see how anyone can begin to criticize the Fallout fans for being too critical. How would ya'll feel if Halo 4 had turn-based combat and was ISO? I wouldn't expect any one of you to say "Oh wel, it isn't out yet it COULD be good." I can almost bet that 99% would be pissed like the Fallout fans.

And before anyone says it, turn-based was a DESIGN DECISION. They didn't make it turn-based due to limitation and in fact real-time is JUST AS OLD as turn-based. Also, it was isometric because of a DESIGN DECISION not due to limitations. Most RPGs before Fallout were played from the first-person view anyways. So Fallout being iso was pretty different.

Not fallout. Why not just call it post apocalyptic oblivion with guns? :|thrones

Hey! That's actuallt pretty catchy.

I'm hoping Fallout 3 will be a good Fallout game but I won't know until it comes out. That doesn't mean that no one can bash the game or certain aspects of it before it's out though. It's kind of ridiculous to be allowed to praise the game but unable to criticize it.

Some of you airheads think that change is always good when change is actually a subjective matter. In the case of Fallout 3, A LOT of thigns have been changed from the original so I don't see how anyone can begin to criticize the Fallout fans for being too critical. How would ya'll feel if Halo 4 had turn-based combat and was ISO? I wouldn't expect any one of you to say "Oh wel, it isn't out yet it COULD be good." I can almost bet that 99% would be pissed like the Fallout fans.

And before anyone says it, turn-based was a DESIGN DECISION. They didn't make it turn-based due to limitation and in fact real-time is JUST AS OLD as turn-based. Also, it was isometric because of a DESIGN DECISION not due to limitations. Most RPGs before Fallout were played from the first-person view anyways. So Fallout being iso was pretty different.

VoodooGamer

I can completely respect and understand criticism from that point of view. All I was referring to in my post was the completely closed minded fans of the originals who are already completely and utterly convinced that the game will be horrible because it is being modernized by the hands of a different developer. They have already prematurely, and ignorantly made up their minds that the series is dead, and that Fallout 3 is destined to suck in their eyes because it is being "n00bified", if you will.

And yes, 'change' is a completely subjective thing. And from the point of view of alot of console gamers like myself, what Bethesda is doing in regards to "changing" Fallout 3 actually sounds very appealing, rather than "bastardized." Such as doing away with turned based combat and being able to go through the entire game without even engaging in any combat....both of which I would find to be terribly boring. But, indeed, 'change' is a subjective thing, lol. Different strokes, for different folks.

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"]

I'm hoping Fallout 3 will be a good Fallout game but I won't know until it comes out. That doesn't mean that no one can bash the game or certain aspects of it before it's out though. It's kind of ridiculous to be allowed to praise the game but unable to criticize it.

Some of you airheads think that change is always good when change is actually a subjective matter. In the case of Fallout 3, A LOT of thigns have been changed from the original so I don't see how anyone can begin to criticize the Fallout fans for being too critical. How would ya'll feel if Halo 4 had turn-based combat and was ISO? I wouldn't expect any one of you to say "Oh wel, it isn't out yet it COULD be good." I can almost bet that 99% would be pissed like the Fallout fans.

And before anyone says it, turn-based was a DESIGN DECISION. They didn't make it turn-based due to limitation and in fact real-time is JUST AS OLD as turn-based. Also, it was isometric because of a DESIGN DECISION not due to limitations. Most RPGs before Fallout were played from the first-person view anyways. So Fallout being iso was pretty different.

ironcreed

I can completely respect and understand criticism from that point of view. All I was referring to in my post was the completely closed minded fans of the originals who are already completely and utterly convinced that the game will be horrible because it is being modernized by the hands of a different developer. They have already prematurely, and ignorantly made up their minds that the series is dead, and that Fallout 3 is destined to suck in their eyes because it is being "n00bified", if you will.

And yes, 'change' is a completely subjective thing. And from the point of view of alot of console gamers like myself, what Bethesda is doing regards to "changing" Fallout 3 actually sounds very appealing, rather than "bastardized." Such as doing away with turned based combat and being able to go through the entire game without even engaging in any combat....both of which I would find to be terribly boring. But, indeed, 'change' is a subjective thing, lol. Different strokes, for different folks.

As what today is considered an "Internet Curmudgeon with a Heart of Radioactive Gold", a "fan whose ideas are retarded by 8 years" or even a "Glittering Gem of Hatred", I can't help but see my (and NMA's) expectations about the game being confirmed. It looks as if someone peripherally interested in the Fallout games took a few core elements that they liked and made a game out of it without really respecting the old game, deeply researching what made the old games tick or even trying to please the old but still very alive fanbase. It is as if they took some Fallout flavour and sprinkled it over what "they do best". I wouldn't go as far as saying it is Oblivion with Guns, but it certainly isn't what we'd like call a true Fallout sequel.

Taken from http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=38622 , who are both fans of teh game and have SEEN it in action. So I guess fallout fans have a right to be pissed imo.

The TC is right so let me just say that, having never played Fallout 1 or 2, I am hereby hyping Fallout 3 as AAA and possible game of the year. Who's with me?MentatAssassin

So wait you never played either yet rag on a guy who has when he complained about them changing it away from fallout's roots. I have played both 1 and 2 not extensively but enough to see what people loved about them and that was the freedom the games gave you and the extensive charcter development, the varied gameplay styles and vast amount of choices and options they gave you in how and which way you wanted to play the game.

While I think fallout 3 is going to be great I agree with the people who say it will disappoint some fans simply because they decided to focus it as a shooter you will automatically lose some of the variety and choice the series is know for because of the focus on that gameplay. I'm sure bethesda will add tons and tons of stuff to do more than most games and rpgs, but I like others are concerned not at how much they give you to do but how the options available to you may or may not limit how to acheive that whereas in the first 2 the structured it to be as open as possible.

Guess we'll have to wait and see I am still looking forward to how it turns out though.

[QUOTE="ironcreed"][QUOTE="VoodooGamer"]

I'm hoping Fallout 3 will be a good Fallout game but I won't know until it comes out. That doesn't mean that no one can bash the game or certain aspects of it before it's out though. It's kind of ridiculous to be allowed to praise the game but unable to criticize it.

Some of you airheads think that change is always good when change is actually a subjective matter. In the case of Fallout 3, A LOT of thigns have been changed from the original so I don't see how anyone can begin to criticize the Fallout fans for being too critical. How would ya'll feel if Halo 4 had turn-based combat and was ISO? I wouldn't expect any one of you to say "Oh wel, it isn't out yet it COULD be good." I can almost bet that 99% would be pissed like the Fallout fans.

And before anyone says it, turn-based was a DESIGN DECISION. They didn't make it turn-based due to limitation and in fact real-time is JUST AS OLD as turn-based. Also, it was isometric because of a DESIGN DECISION not due to limitations. Most RPGs before Fallout were played from the first-person view anyways. So Fallout being iso was pretty different.

jangojay

I can completely respect and understand criticism from that point of view. All I was referring to in my post was the completely closed minded fans of the originals who are already completely and utterly convinced that the game will be horrible because it is being modernized by the hands of a different developer. They have already prematurely, and ignorantly made up their minds that the series is dead, and that Fallout 3 is destined to suck in their eyes because it is being "n00bified", if you will.

And yes, 'change' is a completely subjective thing. And from the point of view of alot of console gamers like myself, what Bethesda is doing regards to "changing" Fallout 3 actually sounds very appealing, rather than "bastardized." Such as doing away with turned based combat and being able to go through the entire game without even engaging in any combat....both of which I would find to be terribly boring. But, indeed, 'change' is a subjective thing, lol. Different strokes, for different folks.

As what today is considered an "Internet Curmudgeon with a Heart of Radioactive Gold", a "fan whose ideas are retarded by 8 years" or even a "Glittering Gem of Hatred", I can't help but see my (and NMA's) expectations about the game being confirmed. It looks as if someone peripherally interested in the Fallout games took a few core elements that they liked and made a game out of it without really respecting the old game, deeply researching what made the old games tick or even trying to please the old but still very alive fanbase. It is as if they took some Fallout flavour and sprinkled it over what "they do best". I wouldn't go as far as saying it is Oblivion with Guns, but it certainly isn't what we'd like call a true Fallout sequel.

Taken from http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=38622 , who are both fans of teh game and have SEEN it in action. So I guess fallout fans have a right to be pissed imo.

Well, if they are pissed, then so be it. Nothing that can be done about it now, so keep listening to the tune of those violins. The old games are not coming back.

All I am saying is at least give the game the benefit of the doubt instead of taking an article such as that as gospel. Besides, there has been quite a bit more positive impressions of the game thus far than there has been anything negative, that's all I know.

Well, if they are pissed, then so be it. Nothing that can be done about it now, so keep listening to the tune of those violins. The old games are not coming back.

All I am saying is at least give the game the benefit of the doubt instead of taking an article such as that as gospel. Besides, there has been quite a bit more positive impressions of the game thus far than there has been anything negative, that's all I know.

ironcreed

No one is saying this is going to be a bad game.. we are saying it's not going to be a true sequel. Positive impression of a game don't mean much.. I mean lair had them and look how that turned out. The fact is the game is being almost turned into a shooter to please the console market. Which sucks Imo... but as we said it would be a good game.

[QUOTE="ironcreed"]

Well, if they are pissed, then so be it. Nothing that can be done about it now, so keep listening to the tune of those violins. The old games are not coming back.

All I am saying is at least give the game the benefit of the doubt instead of taking an article such as that as gospel. Besides, there has been quite a bit more positive impressions of the game thus far than there has been anything negative, that's all I know.

jangojay

No one is saying this is going to be a bad game.. we are saying it's not going to be a true sequel. Positive impression of a game don't mean much.. I mean lair had them and look how that turned out. The fact is the game is being almost turned into a shooter to please the console market. Which sucks Imo... but as we said it would be a good game.

I find it interesting that the console market gets blamed for it becoming a shooter when the PC market has been considered king of shooters for a long time. Did you ever consider that it's possibly just "the" market in general?

Just a note, I'm noy saying it's going to be a bad game, I suspect it will be an excellent game!

Just that it won't quite be Fallout really, they've even called Fallout's humour immature for godsakes :|

[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="ironcreed"]

Well, if they are pissed, then so be it. Nothing that can be done about it now, so keep listening to the tune of those violins. The old games are not coming back.

All I am saying is at least give the game the benefit of the doubt instead of taking an article such as that as gospel. Besides, there has been quite a bit more positive impressions of the game thus far than there has been anything negative, that's all I know.

-RPGamer-

No one is saying this is going to be a bad game.. we are saying it's not going to be a true sequel. Positive impression of a game don't mean much.. I mean lair had them and look how that turned out. The fact is the game is being almost turned into a shooter to please the console market. Which sucks Imo... but as we said it would be a good game.

I find it interesting that the console market gets blamed for it becoming a shooter when the PC market has been considered king of shooters for a long time. Did you ever consider that it's possibly just "the" market in general?

very true, and also bethesda don't know how to make games any other way. So why blame consoles? Blame Bethesda.

[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="ironcreed"]

Well, if they are pissed, then so be it. Nothing that can be done about it now, so keep listening to the tune of those violins. The old games are not coming back.

All I am saying is at least give the game the benefit of the doubt instead of taking an article such as that as gospel. Besides, there has been quite a bit more positive impressions of the game thus far than there has been anything negative, that's all I know.

-RPGamer-

No one is saying this is going to be a bad game.. we are saying it's not going to be a true sequel. Positive impression of a game don't mean much.. I mean lair had them and look how that turned out. The fact is the game is being almost turned into a shooter to please the console market. Which sucks Imo... but as we said it would be a good game.

I find it interesting that the console market gets blamed for it becoming a shooter when the PC market has been considered king of shooters for a long time. Did you ever consider that it's possibly just "the" market in general?

I blame console market because it was turn based on PC and did fine. Now for some reason the minute it's coming to consoles the turn based aspect is somehow dated, people who say turn based is dated haven't played LO because that is a very good game (coming from a JRPG hater) and it's a very old school type of gameplay, and it's still fun. Oh well I just call them as I see them, it's my perspective and even though it may not be true Bestheda has a track record of dumbing down games to put them on consoles.. which imo isn't needed.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="ironcreed"]

Well, if they are pissed, then so be it. Nothing that can be done about it now, so keep listening to the tune of those violins. The old games are not coming back.

All I am saying is at least give the game the benefit of the doubt instead of taking an article such as that as gospel. Besides, there has been quite a bit more positive impressions of the game thus far than there has been anything negative, that's all I know.

jangojay

No one is saying this is going to be a bad game.. we are saying it's not going to be a true sequel. Positive impression of a game don't mean much.. I mean lair had them and look how that turned out. The fact is the game is being almost turned into a shooter to please the console market. Which sucks Imo... but as we said it would be a good game.

I find it interesting that the console market gets blamed for it becoming a shooter when the PC market has been considered king of shooters for a long time. Did you ever consider that it's possibly just "the" market in general?

I blame console market because it was turn based on PC and did fine. Now for some reason the minute it's coming to consoles the turn based aspect is somehow dated, people who say turn based is dated haven't played LO because that is a very good game (coming from a JRPG hater) and it's a very old school type of gameplay, but that doesn't say it's still isn't fun. Oh well I just call them as I see them, it's my perspective and even though it may not be true Bestheda has a track record of dumbing down games to put them on consoles.. which imo isn't needed.

Bethesda don't know how to make games any other way. Blaming consoles is total BS.

Bethesda don't know how to make games any other way. Blaming consoles is total BS.

xsubtownerx

Well I guess I'm being too dramatic here, I should say the current market like RP pointed out.

I just get kinda iffy when my favourite games get dumbed downed too much, I really hope the health regen is the only sort of casualisation ninja gaiden gets.. honestly and the difficulties (higher ones) surpass that of the originals.

[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="ironcreed"]

Well, if they are pissed, then so be it. Nothing that can be done about it now, so keep listening to the tune of those violins. The old games are not coming back.

All I am saying is at least give the game the benefit of the doubt instead of taking an article such as that as gospel. Besides, there has been quite a bit more positive impressions of the game thus far than there has been anything negative, that's all I know.

xsubtownerx

No one is saying this is going to be a bad game.. we are saying it's not going to be a true sequel. Positive impression of a game don't mean much.. I mean lair had them and look how that turned out. The fact is the game is being almost turned into a shooter to please the console market. Which sucks Imo... but as we said it would be a good game.

I find it interesting that the console market gets blamed for it becoming a shooter when the PC market has been considered king of shooters for a long time. Did you ever consider that it's possibly just "the" market in general?

I blame console market because it was turn based on PC and did fine. Now for some reason the minute it's coming to consoles the turn based aspect is somehow dated, people who say turn based is dated haven't played LO because that is a very good game (coming from a JRPG hater) and it's a very old school type of gameplay, but that doesn't say it's still isn't fun. Oh well I just call them as I see them, it's my perspective and even though it may not be true Bestheda has a track record of dumbing down games to put them on consoles.. which imo isn't needed.

Bethesda don't know how to make games any other way. Blaming consoles is total BS.

So.... is that even a real excuse?

'They don't know how to do it any other way, don't blame them!'

I blame console market because it was turn based on PC and did fine. Now for some reason the minute it's coming to consoles the turn based aspect is somehow dated, people who say turn based is dated haven't played LO because that is a very good game (coming from a JRPG hater) and it's a very old school type of gameplay, but that doesn't say it's still isn't fun. Oh well I just call them as I see them, it's my perspective and even though it may not be true Bestheda has a track record of dumbing down games to put them on consoles.. which imo isn't needed.

jangojay

Just b/c it did fine, and now a decade (I enjoy how this is spun into "the minute" like is was actually recent that a TB version came ot market) later is being changed doesn't mean it's b/c of the console market. Again, I'll reiterate, the PC has been the king of shooters, I hear time and time again how the PC sells them like hotcakes and how they do so well. I don't see how the console market only is to blame for this change.

They only had two games release on consoles (not including the unheard of drag racing garbage), and Oblivion was the only one many considered "dumbed down". That's not much of a "track record", it's not even a trend.

[QUOTE="jangojay"]I blame console market because it was turn based on PC and did fine. Now for some reason the minute it's coming to consoles the turn based aspect is somehow dated, people who say turn based is dated haven't played LO because that is a very good game (coming from a JRPG hater) and it's a very old school type of gameplay, but that doesn't say it's still isn't fun. Oh well I just call them as I see them, it's my perspective and even though it may not be true Bestheda has a track record of dumbing down games to put them on consoles.. which imo isn't needed.

-RPGamer-

Just b/c it did fine, and now a decade (I enjoy how this is spun into "the minute" like is was actually recent that a TB version came ot market) later is being changed doesn't mean it's b/c of the console market. Again, I'll reiterate, the PC has been the king of shooters, I hear time and time again how the PC sells them like hotcakes and how they do so well. I don't see how the console market only is to blame for this change.

They only had two games release on consoles (not including the unheard of drag racing garbage), and Oblivion was the only one many considered "dumbed down". That's not much of a "track record", it's not even a trend.

[QUOTE="jangojay"]I blame console market because it was turn based on PC and did fine. Now for some reason the minute it's coming to consoles the turn based aspect is somehow dated, people who say turn based is dated haven't played LO because that is a very good game (coming from a JRPG hater) and it's a very old school type of gameplay, but that doesn't say it's still isn't fun. Oh well I just call them as I see them, it's my perspective and even though it may not be true Bestheda has a track record of dumbing down games to put them on consoles.. which imo isn't needed.

-RPGamer-

Just b/c it did fine, and now a decade (I enjoy how this is spun into "the minute" like is was actually recent that a TB version came ot market) later is being changed doesn't mean it's b/c of the console market. Again, I'll reiterate, the PC has been the king of shooters, I hear time and time again how the PC sells them like hotcakes and how they do so well. I don't see how the console market only is to blame for this change.

They only had two games release on consoles (not including the unheard of drag racing garbage), and Oblivion was the only one many considered "dumbed down". That's not much of a "track record", it's not even a trend.

Morrowind was also a dumbed down game, and several of the old Daggerfall fans didn't like it :|

I liked Morrowind myself but..eh.

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

Bethesda don't know how to make games any other way. Blaming consoles is total BS.

jangojay

Well I guess I'm being too dramatic here, I should say the current market like RP pointed out.

I just get kinda iffy when my favourite games get dumbed downed too much, I really hope the health regen is the only sort of casualisation ninja gaiden gets.. honestly and the difficulties (higher ones) surpass that of the originals.

Don't get me wrong, man. I'm a HUGE HARDCORE Fallout fan. I'm glad I get to play it on a console, but I'm sad that Bethesda is making it. I have my fingers crossed though. I don't understand how a Fallout 3 (which is coming like 10 years after F2) can be called dumbed down. And I can use the witcher as an example of a PC RPGs being played like a console game yet is only on the PC.

You sure about that? Bethesda EXPLICITLY stated, "They are going with these changes in leau of the casual audiences of today" which predominately reside wheeereeee?Vandalvideo

I didn't realize that the PC market was pretty much void of a casual market. Must be hard for people to own a PC and install a game on it... way too hard for these so called casuals.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] You sure about that? Bethesda EXPLICITLY stated, "They are going with these changes in leau of the casual audiences of today" which predominately reside wheeereeee?-RPGamer-

I didn't realize that the PC market was pretty much void of a casual market. Must be hard for people to own a PC and install a game on it... way too hard for these so called casuals.

Reading the comments in this thread, I'm reminded of Resident Evil 4. RE4 is very different from earlier Resident Evil games, such that many hardcore fans of the franchise were disappointed in it. But to everyone else, the game was incredibly fun, and it won GOTY here.

There's no reason to assume that Fallout 3 will be anywhere near as good as RE4, but just because it won't be a great Fallout game doesn't mean it won't be a great game despite that.

[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

Bethesda don't know how to make games any other way. Blaming consoles is total BS.

xsubtownerx

Well I guess I'm being too dramatic here, I should say the current market like RP pointed out.

I just get kinda iffy when my favourite games get dumbed downed too much, I really hope the health regen is the only sort of casualisation ninja gaiden gets.. honestly and the difficulties (higher ones) surpass that of the originals.

Don't get me wrong, man. I'm a HUGE HARDCORE Fallout fan. I'm glad I get to play it on a console, but I'm sad that Bethesda is making it. I have my fingers crossed though. I don't understand how a Fallout 3 (which is coming like 10 years after F2) can be called dumbed down. And I can use the witcher as an example of a PC RPGs being played like a console game yet is only on the PC.

Even though witcher plays a little like a console game, it's alchemy system as well as overall RPG system is very very deep.

Here is my thoughts on it, it has nothing to do with being on PC or console, but the fact of the matter it seems that the changes of this third one are so far from what the previous two games were. There were changes from Fallout 1 to Fallout 2 that made both a bit different. From what I heard and seen on this third entry, so much the appealed me in Fallout 1 and 2 are gone or been diminished down. It is no wonder why people are quite on their toes, frankly.

The the dramatic changes don't make it into a bad game, it may in fact be great, but what I want out of it is not there or at least it seems to be. It felt like that went skimpy on Fallout material and just did whatever they wanted to do it, instead of making a game that would been liked by both outsiders and fans of the series. With what they wanted, they could simplely made a New IP game based off that. As a sequal, it just feel like one. There could been changes, without damaging what Fallout was to alot of people and why they played them.

I thought the main quest would only take 20 hours, not over 70, thats a big difference.

LINK

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] You sure about that? Bethesda EXPLICITLY stated, "They are going with these changes in leau of the casual audiences of today" which predominately reside wheeereeee?Vandalvideo

I didn't realize that the PC market was pretty much void of a casual market. Must be hard for people to own a PC and install a game on it... way too hard for these so called casuals.

Yes b/c games like WOW, SimCity 4, Call of Duty 4, The Sims 2 scream hardcore gamer...

Reading the comments in this thread, I'm reminded of Resident Evil 4. RE4 is very different from earlier Resident Evil games, such that many hardcore fans of the franchise were disappointed in it. But to everyone else, the game was incredibly fun, and it won GOTY here.

There's no reason to assume that Fallout 3 will be anywhere near as good as RE4, but just because it won't be a great Fallout game doesn't mean it won't be a great game despite that.

sonicmj1

Well, there's a big difference there, since Resident Evil 4 was created by the same team that made every previous Resident Evil.

Besides, I don't think anyone here is saying that Fallout 3 can't be a good game, but rather that it won't necessarily represent a true Fallout game.

Yes b/c games like WOW, SimCity 4, Call of Duty 4, The Sims 2 scream hardcore gamer...-RPGamer-

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

Reading the comments in this thread, I'm reminded of Resident Evil 4. RE4 is very different from earlier Resident Evil games, such that many hardcore fans of the franchise were disappointed in it. But to everyone else, the game was incredibly fun, and it won GOTY here.

There's no reason to assume that Fallout 3 will be anywhere near as good as RE4, but just because it won't be a great Fallout game doesn't mean it won't be a great game despite that.

Zeliard9

Well, there's a big difference there, since Resident Evil 4 was created by the same team that made every previous Resident Evil.

Besides, I don't think anyone here is saying that Fallout 3 can't be a good game, but rather that it won't necessarily represent a true Fallout game.

Bingo, same with RE4.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] You sure about that? Bethesda EXPLICITLY stated, "They are going with these changes in leau of the casual audiences of today" which predominately reside wheeereeee?-RPGamer-

I didn't realize that the PC market was pretty much void of a casual market. Must be hard for people to own a PC and install a game on it... way too hard for these so called casuals.

Yes b/c games like WOW, SimCity 4, Call of Duty 4, The Sims 2 scream hardcore gamer...

WoW may not seem like it... but it is in reality.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

Reading the comments in this thread, I'm reminded of Resident Evil 4. RE4 is very different from earlier Resident Evil games, such that many hardcore fans of the franchise were disappointed in it. But to everyone else, the game was incredibly fun, and it won GOTY here.

There's no reason to assume that Fallout 3 will be anywhere near as good as RE4, but just because it won't be a great Fallout game doesn't mean it won't be a great game despite that.

Zeliard9

Well, there's a big difference there, since Resident Evil 4 was created by the same team that made every previous Resident Evil.

Besides, I don't think anyone here is saying that Fallout 3 can't be a good game, but rather that it won't necessarily represent a true Fallout game.

And they're blaming it on consoles, which to me isn't right.

this game almost sounds too good to be true

one of my most anticapited at the moment

Here is my thoughts on it, it has nothing to do with being on PC or console, but the fact of the matter it seems that the changes of this third one are so far from what the previous two games were. There were changes from Fallout 1 to Fallout 2 that made both a bit different. From what I heard and seen on this third entry, so much the appealed me in Fallout 1 and 2 are gone or been diminished down. It is no wonder why people are quite on their toes, frankly.

The the dramatic changes don't make it into a bad game, it may in fact be great, but what I want out of it is not there or at least it seems to be. It felt like that went skimpy on Fallout material and just did whatever they wanted to do it, instead of making a game that would been liked by both outsiders and fans of the series. With what they wanted, they could simplely made a New IP game based off that. As a sequal, it just feel like one. There could been changes, without damaging what Fallout was to alot of people and why they played them.

ArisShadows

Just want to put some context around the changes and how much of a change there was/is. Time span between Fallout 1, and Fallout 2... one year. Time span between Fallout 2, and Fallout 3... one decade. I don't like all the changes, but a great deal of time can explain why some changes happened.

Just want to put some context around the changes and how much of a change there was/is. Time span between Fallout 1, and Fallout 2... one year. Time span between Fallout 2, and Fallout 3... one decade. I don't like all the changes, but a great deal of time can explain why some changes happened.-RPGamer-

WoW may not seem like it... but it is in reality.

jangojay

I know people in my family and people on my team at work who play only WoW, and no next to nothing about other games, or gaming in general. The only thing hardcore about them is that they play a ton of WoW. Not saying hardcore gamers can't play WoW, I'm saying it's not an overly hardcore type game, and is not an indicator of a hardcore market.

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

WoW may not seem like it... but it is in reality.

-RPGamer-

I know people in my family and people on my team at work who play only WoW, and no next to nothing about other games, or gaming in general. The only thing hardcore about them is that they play a ton of WoW. Not saying hardcore gamers can't play WoW, I'm saying it's not an overly hardcore type game, and is not an indicator of a hardcore market.

They play a ton of WoW because that's the only way to get things done in it. I won't have time for that in the coming months but most things take ages to do in WoW, hell when I have to clear black temple that takes us two days of 4 hour raids times.. and that's just 1 of the instances out of 3 that we do :X. Even the PVP route.. or free gear.. takes hours upon hours to get a starter set, and depending how good you are the real pvp set can take from 2 months to 6months to acquire.. all with alot of playtime. WoW definitely isn't casual even though blizzard is trying to change that.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]Yes b/c games like WOW, SimCity 4, Call of Duty 4, The Sims 2 scream hardcore gamer...Vandalvideo

I just went from NPD numbers so I picked some in the top 10.

WoW can be hardcore, but tons of non-hardcore (ie casual gamers) can easily play it and do. It's not a title that supports your supposed hard to find casual market on PC.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]Just want to put some context around the changes and how much of a change there was/is. Time span between Fallout 1, and Fallout 2... one year. Time span between Fallout 2, and Fallout 3... one decade. I don't like all the changes, but a great deal of time can explain why some changes happened.Vandalvideo

And you guys make it sound like a decade isn't a long time for change to happen. We're not going to agree on this subject, we've had this talk many times.