Some extra info for ya :

 

D

All I know is it isn't made by the original devs and it will suck.

The true meaning of this e mail:

 

"

We are doing everything possible to ruin the game. We have great ideas.

 

Thanks for your interest in Fallout 3.

"

Why do you guys hate the idea of Fallout 3 so much?

Just because the development team is different?

 

Might be worth checking out.

Yes. They will change all gameplay mechanics. Simply, F3 isn't Bethasda's cup of tea.

Why do you guys hate the idea of Fallout 3 so much? 

Just because the development team is different?

 

Might be worth checking out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Surely you realise by now, they are in the possesion of the magical crystal ball of futuristic doom.

Oddly enough, I kind of agree that Fallout 3 will probably bear little or no resemblence to the game we all know and love beyond the title and setting.

 

I wish Obsidian had gotten the Fallout contract, but will nonetheless take a wait-and-see attitude, and hope for the best. I'm not going to bad-mouth Bethesda on something they may or may not do at some unspecified future time, though. I'm optimistic enough to hope something good might come out of it. If it sucks, oh well, we're still no worse off than we are now.

As long as it feels like Fallout and is consistant with the story of Fallout 1 and 2 I dun care what it looks like.

 

Morrowind with guns and a 100% Fallout story/feel is fine by me.

Morrowind with guns and a 100% Fallout story/feel is fine by me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think, this is the worst case possible

"IGNPC: Can we expect something similar to the work done on Morrowind, in terms of that style of game experience?

 

Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in style. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well."

 

Go go Bethesda!

That's the one thing I am happy about. Top-down isometric sucks for immersion (at least for me). The rest of their promises.. Well, time will tell. I won't hate the game before it is even released.

All I know is it isn't made by the original devs and it will suck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At least Bethesda have plenty of money to throw at F3, if they throw enough at the dialogue and story they'll (hopefully) be halfway there.

Edited January 15, 200620 yr by Jumjalum

"IGNPC: Can we expect something similar to the work done on Morrowind, in terms of that style of game experience?

 

Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in style. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well."

 

Go go Bethesda!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yay! Fallout In Name Only

Morrowind had 6 novels worth of writing. That didn't make it good. They didn't lack resources when it came to writing, only relevance.

Games have to evolve eventually. Otherwise they just die off. I'm hoping that Fallout 3 is a great porduct that captures the post-apocalyptic environment. Bethesda is a very solid developer. But it's not in our hands, so there is no real reason to worry.

I hope someday, Bethesda will take Diablo rights too

Edited January 16, 200620 yr by karka

Games have to evolve eventually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why does a niche game or franchise forcefully have to 'evolve' into a mainstream title?

Games have to evolve eventually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why does a niche game or franchise forcefully have to 'evolve' into a mainstream title?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

$$$$$

$$$$$

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fallout already was a commercially successful franchise. It already made money. Of course, it didn't made as much money as something like Knights of the Old Republic. Question is, why does it need to sell that much?

$$$$$

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fallout already was a commercially successful franchise. It already made money. Of course, it didn't made as much money as something like Knights of the Old Republic. Question is, why does it need to sell that much?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because game companies are companies, and companies need profits to stay in business.

 

Game developers may desire to make the players happy... but they need to stay in business as well.

This is why every game needs to be The Sims.

Troika needed some profit to survive. Profit from Fallout. But, because of Bethesda, they couldn't take the rights of Fallout sequels. They tried, but Bethesda was richer.

 

So, the only developer which deserves to make Fallout 3 is dead now. I think this is a good reason to hate Bethesda.

Edited January 16, 200620 yr by karka

Troika needed some profit to survive. Profit from Fallout. But,  because of Bethesda, they couldn't take the rights of Fallout sequels. They tried, but Bethesda was richer.

 

So, the only developer which deserves to make Fallout 3 is dead now. I think this is a good reason to hate Bethesda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Troika did not deserve to make Fallout 3.

Then Bethesda should just make their own Post Apocalyptic CRPG instead of ruining Fallout even more. The game will be crap. The game will be Fallout in name only.