[J-Pak]

Does anyone have any hope for this being good? I've avoided reading too much about it, but my surface impressions are that Bethesda is trying to do things to please fans. The last piece of information I read they licensed music from The Inkspots

 

[Bob_McBob]

I have very high hopes for Fallout 3, and I'm reserving judgement until it's released. I know I'll be shut in for a few days

If Bethesda ****s it up, I'll be very sad.

 

[2deadeyes]

Let's just say I wasn't entirely elated when Bethesda bought the rights to Fallout. I had some hope but recent previews of it killed off any that I had for the game.

 

[GuyMe]

I'm much more interested in the new STALKER game. Similar setting and a creative team behind it.

 

[crazyface]

They are "Trying to do things to please the fans," ... of Oblivion.

Not of Fallout 1 and 2. The website No Mutants Allowed has some good articles about this subject, they are always very fair, unlike the previews in the big magazines and commercial websites. The articles by "Brother None" are VERY different from the Bethesda-bashing that goes on at the various forums, you cannot judge "Fallout 3 pessimism" by those sorts of posts.

I do not think that they are doing "everything wrong," but I just expect that Fallout 3 will lack the atmospheric involvement (quests, dialogues, black humor, environment, enemy design) and solid stats system of the first two games.

My difficulty being optimistic about the game is that:

1) While Elder Scrolls Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind were all pretty good, the Bethesda employees who were responsible for their distinctive elements are now long-gone.

2) Oblivion had a lot of technical, gameplay and design problems, and from what I've read in the Bethesda blogs/interviews, the employees there don't have the kind of experience to overcome them (their "previous projects" are not very impressive, and the answers that they give to various questions seem insipid to me.)

3) The hype machine before Oblivion's release was nuts, and it looks like Fallout 3's is set to equal it. I was really excited about Oblivion before it came out, but playing it disappointed me completely. I still like Morrowind though.

But anyway, "once bitten, twice shy," you know?

4) Fallout should have turn-based combat. VATS isn't turn-based, because there's no "you go, I go," which is the definition of a turn-based system. I don't care about what they do with perspectives (third person, first person, isometric, etc.) but a game called "Fallout 3" should share fundamental design with its preceding entries in the series. There were plenty of real-time RPGs when Fallout 1 was released, so the whole "moving forward with technology" argument just doesn't play here. I've enjoyed numerous turn-based combat games in the past few years, even on my X-Box system, so turn-based is not "old tech." The issue is, of course, that they want the game to appeal to the FPS/Halo fans, and that's the overall problem I see with Fallout 3's development.

5) I get the impression from Bethesda's method of marketing, and what Oblivion turned out to be, that they are a company that places a greater emphasis on flash and hype than on quality (think EA instead of Blizzard.) They want to implement all of this ambitious technology, or hire big name voice actors - but it seems like they do it in order to try to free themselves from making very good designs in the first place. Radiant AI was hilariously stupid, for example - but because of it, they did not need to give individual dialogues and scripting. So I don't think that they have the level of expertise - or the inclination to quality - required to make Fallout as atmospheric in terms of quests and personalities as Black Isle did in the first two games. Yes, there will be less NPCs in Fallout3, but you cannot make up for the fact that the writers still were not very good on Oblivion, and only a little better on Shivering Isles. It is a question of experience and mindset, not a mathematical question of #'s of characters versus #'s of writers. Writing is not a "monkey at a typewriter" affair!

6) Bethesda does not strike me as being very honest when it comes to matters of dealings with Fallout fans, and I think this indicates that they anticipate disappointing and frustrating them. For example, Bethesda claims at different times that they have and have not worked with former Black Isle employees for "input," while those same employees say they've had no contact at all. There are also many examples of strange things said by Bethesda that contradict one another, and they do not work very hard to clear up the confusion. I also do not think that they have been fair to No Mutants Allowed, by rejecting them from previews while accepting much less substantial websites.

7) The details revealed so far make it seem to me that Bethesda does not really understand the nature of Fallout's atmosphere. They give "Mr Handy" a British accent and have him call the player a "stupid git." They change the ghouls to look like zombies, and the supermutants to look like something out of REsident Evil or Lord of the Rings. They make the music very "epic," like a fantasy film's. Their dialogue choices have many seemingly "Cosmetic" choices, but few real variables, like Bioware tends to do. They are making a big emphasis on "good, bad and neutral," when Fallout had no such emphases - it was much more natural, and "karma" was largely incidental. And then of course there is the silliness of drinking from toilets and being able to cause cars to have nuclear explosions by shooting them... It seems very juvenile compared to dark tongue-in-cheek sophistication of the first two Fallouts.

I will not argue with anyone here, that would be silly, but I would ask you to read the articles at No Mutants Allowed, and keep in mind the great difference between articles written by the owners of this website and the typical rabid posts made in forums by people who in fact have no relation to the website. They make very good points that deserve consideration.


all that having been said, videogames are just a big waste of time

fallout3 will be the only thing i play this year, and only to see whether i was right or wrong about it, not necessarily to complete it.

 

[J-Pak]

NMA has some great articles. But the forums are far from unbiased.

I do think Bethesda is going to turn the Fallout series into their new cash cow, which is a bit disappointing. I can understand making one big blockbuster after acquiring the license (I'm all for younger people and people that missed Fallout 1 and 2 discovering them), but to run it into the ground is a bit of a shame.

I tried to explain this to my friend: I truly believe the game would have sold nearly as well if they kept it in a top down overhead view (ala the old games) and kept it turn based as well. Given the processing and graphical capability of modern computers the game still could have looked stunning with high res backgrounds and character models.

 

[HiGHFLYiN9]

Despite all the hurdles listed above, I have high hopes that the game will be worthwhile. I have a feeling that if Bethesda hadn't purchased the rights, we might not be seeing a sequel at all, so at least we are getting something here. There are quite a few other companies I can think of that would have been a lot worse

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiGHFLYiN9 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Despite all the hurdles listed above, I have high hopes that the game will be worthwhile. I have a feeling that if Bethesda hadn't purchased the rights, we might not be seeing a sequel at all, so at least we are getting something here. There are quite a few other companies I can think of that would have been a lot worse

It'll be worthwhile, it just won't be Fallout. Oblivion with Gunz (and a sane leveling system) is never a bad thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyface /img/forum/go_quote.gif 4) Fallout should have turn-based combat. VATS isn't turn-based, because there's no "you go, I go," which is the definition of a turn-based system. I don't care about what they do with perspectives (third person, first person, isometric, etc.) but a game called "Fallout 3" should share fundamental design with its preceding entries in the series. There were plenty of real-time RPGs when Fallout 1 was released, so the whole "moving forward with technology" argument just doesn't play here. I've enjoyed numerous turn-based combat games in the past few years, even on my X-Box system, so turn-based is not "old tech." The issue is, of course, that they want the game to appeal to the FPS/Halo fans, and that's the overall problem I see with Fallout 3's development.

Honestly, Fallout 1/2's combat sucked. It was tactical combat lite and easily the weakest point of the game when compared to it's peers. What good is a turn based combat system where you can't implement tactics much more complicated than peek/shoot/scoot? Fratricidal NPCs didn't help matters either.

It's also the one area where a change would net Bethesda a ton of money without adversely affecting the Fallout experience. Outside of Pokemon, turn based is a rather small niche. Even the Fallout name wouldn't help push be beyond a middling size hit given that the franchise hasn't had a hit for a decade and most current gamers started gaming well after it's heyday. After factoring in opportunity cost, Bethesda can't afford to take the risk.

RTwP or something like GRAW's CrossCom would make it much more user accessible while giving a much deeper combat experience than Fallout 1/2. Possible not as great as the best turn based ones (Temple of Elemental Evil, Fallout: Tactics, Silent Storm, Cyberstorm), but it also cuts a lot of the tedium in such games.

KotOR or VATS though... A bit too far in the wrong direction.

 

[splaz]

I've been wondering, why didn't someone like Obsidian or Bioware do Fallout 3 ?

Seems like a more logical choice...

 

[J-Pak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by splaz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've been wondering, why didn't someone like Obsidian or Bioware do Fallout 3 ? Seems like a more logical choice...

Just my opinion but I think Obsidian screwed up KotOR 2 big time. And Bioware has their own style of doing things, I don't think Fallout is their pace.

At this point I can see Fallout 3 being a very good game. My main concern is how they handle NPC interaction. I hope they don't make it like Oblivion where everyone is placed on the same level as you. One of the fun things about Fallout was being a late game badass.

 

[HiGHFLYiN9]

Anyone reserve the collectors edition with the bobblehead?

 

[J-Pak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiGHFLYiN9 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone reserve the collectors edition with the bobblehead?

Yeah I reserved the PC version at Amazon.

 

[crazyface]

I agree that the turn-based combat of Fallout could have been better. I do not think that Bethesda should just replicate it - there's room for improvement. But nevertheless, to be rid of turn-based combat entirely seems a stark break with the spirit of the series.
If their take on "real time pause" had more turn-based nature to it, for example in-between rounds you could move in real time, or something of that nature, then it would be okay. But Bethesda has said that they have designed the game so that you can play through the whole thing like any other first-person shooter, without using VATS at all, and I think that this will upset the stat system and rid the series of even the modest amount of tactical gameplay that it had until now.

One cannot be certain of that until the game is out, of course, but it just seems likely so far.

 

[dgbiker1]

Looks great. If it's half as good as GTA IV, 2008 will have been a great year for gaming between those two and Ninja Gaiden II (my most anticipated game of the year).

 

[tiggers]

I remember playing and enjoying Fallout 1 and 2. (Except for the end in Fallout 2 where a bug screwed up the last couple of screens, keeping me from finishing the game

)

Wasn't there a spin-off or something like that after Fallout 2?