NMA Fallout 3 preview and Q&A session

[aVENGER]

This preview is based on the demo shown at the Game Conference in Leipzig, Germany, by Pete Hines. It is the same demo shown at the earlier press showing and E3. Pete Hines noted that the demo build is 2 months old by now. NMA's main previews provides a walkthrough of the entire demo, then some opinions on several topics, then a final judgement. A dozen-question Q&A conducted by NMA's staff on the spot is also available.

 

Preview

Q&A

[Pop]

I saw that. Clever, clever. You'd think Bethesda would know who to look for. Haven't read the Q&A. I could barely sit through Borat :D

 

I suppose I'd trust Brother None's word, he seems a level enough sort, but there's honestly nothing described from the demo that I either didn't know already or couldn't explain away as fixable in the time up until release (the AI problems) or things that I can't make peace with (the combat system). Then again, if the game came out just like they described, I'd probably be bored by it.

 

Besides, I've got my VB campaign up and running again

 

I wonder what actions, if any, Bethsoft's going to take given they were hoodwinked.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Pop

[mkreku]

Gee, how interesting. A group of people hating on a game they've set out to hate before they even had a chance to see it for themselves. Because Bethesda can't do role-playing, Oblivion was console crap, Fallout should be turn-based (ALWAYS HAS BEEN!!), 3D is bad for your eyes and causes masturbation, anything newer than 1999 is eeevil etc etc.

 

How utterly meaningless and boring. And old. Don't forget old. We know you hate everything already. Get over it.

[Pidesco]

Pete Hines: Yes, all combat is governed by die rolls. So if you fire in real time and aim perfectly, you might still fail a roll and miss your target.

 

 

I'd really like to know how the hell is it that they think they can get away with that.

[Sand]

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

 

That does not make any sort of sense. If you want to use current tech and style, thusly ditch the way the originals were done, how the hell are you making a true sequel to the past games?

 

Its not that I am against them using all the new technology and different gaming styles that is found in today's games but its not Fallout. Just don't call it Fallout.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Sand

[Deraldin]

Pete Hines: Yes, all combat is governed by die rolls. So if you fire in real time and aim perfectly, you might still fail a roll and miss your target.

 

 

I'd really like to know how the hell is it that they think they can get away with that.

 

Wasn't this a major complaint with Morrowind (I think)? That if you are going to have it control like a first person shooter, all you are going to do is frustrate people when they can't seem to kill anything despite having "perfect accuracy"?

[Tale]

Pete Hines: Yes, all combat is governed by die rolls. So if you fire in real time and aim perfectly, you might still fail a roll and miss your target.

 

 

I'd really like to know how the hell is it that they think they can get away with that.

They can get away with it because using die rolls for to-hit is an RPG convention. It may be awkward to do it from a first-person perspective, but oh well.

[Sand]

It shouldn't be used in a first person view. Kind of defeats the purpose of it being in first person.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Sand

[Tel Aviv]

Gee, how interesting. A group of people hating on a game they've set out to hate before they even had a chance to see it for themselves. Because Bethesda can't do role-playing, Oblivion was console crap, Fallout should be turn-based (ALWAYS HAS BEEN!!), 3D is bad for your eyes and causes masturbation, anything newer than 1999 is eeevil etc etc.

 

How utterly meaningless and boring. And old. Don't forget old. We know you hate everything already. Get over it.

 

 

Brother None seems semi-rational at least. I can't physically make myself visit Codex no more, Vault Dweller's slanted deconstruction and word-in-mouth commentary makes my head explode.

[Morgoth]

I agree with Sand. In fact, Bethesda could just have started their own new PA IP, instead of throwing out these 5 million $ to revive something the "wider audience" isn't even aware of. It's not like Fallout stands for "critical financial success" or something, or that many players today even played F1/2. Beth could just have make a new game, and avoid the anger and hassle the fanboys give them. HA!

Edited August 29, 2007 by Morgoth

[kirottu]

Hmm, from the preview I got impression that they are making Fallout 3 to be mix Fallouts and Oblivion. Oblivion part comes from their need to modernize Fallout to new audience and frankly I

[Tale]

I miss the Hulk look of the super mutants. It was a bit of a retro-nuclear design itself with the Hulk being a 60s version of nuclear monstrosity. Hopefully they won't be just monsters and you can interact with one or two to exploit their stupidity.

[Brother None]

I saw that. Clever, clever. You'd think Bethesda would know who to look for. Haven't read the Q&A. I could barely sit through Borat :D

 

Pete Hines does know my name. They didn't handle applications themselves, though, Lunch PR did. I guess I'm going on the *forbidden* list now, tho'

 

Wasn't this a major complaint with Morrowind

 

Indeed it was, which is why it's surprising to see it return. Maybe they'll rebalance it somehow. I have no problem with it, it may get annoying, but it's a good way to apply stat-checking to combat.

 

I was really impressed by the start, the intro was cool and the vault was well done (if you ignore Mr Handy). I absolutely loved the Protectron and the look of nuclear explosions. I just wasn't very impressed otherwise. People who already decide up ahead that any preview/review by Fallout 3 is invalid can freely do so, I guess (though it's delightfully ironic to apply a preconception on a site claiming they have inherent, huge preconceptions. Teh funnt)

 

None of the new info is huge, but it's good to have it in one place, and I hope I provided curious people with enough info. Information was my primary goal, people can skip the third page if they want.

 

The bland supermutants are a pity. Maybe they look better closer up, but I kinda doubt it. The Behemoth wasn't terrible, if the whole endboss thing was way overdone.

 

It's the BoS that's really going to get on old fan's nerves, though.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Brother None

[mkreku]

It wasn't a review/preview though. It was just a bunch of drivel written for the thousandth time using slightly different words.

[Brother None]

It wasn't a review/preview though. It was just a bunch of drivel written for the thousandth time using slightly different words.

 

If you say so. You must know, since you obviously have a very level-headed, clear, non-biased view of our website.

[mkreku]

No, I don't. But at least I'm not twisting my words, pretending to be objective.

[Brother None]

Who's pretending to be objective? The preview is written from a fan's viewpoint. It never claims to be especially objective, and clearly marks where it moves into opinion territory.

 

Did you even read it?

[Hurlshort]

So if a die roll can cause you to miss even when you aim perfectly, can it also cause you to hit even when you don't aim at a target? That would be interesting

 

Anyone that thinks Bethesda should just create an IP isn't using their business sense. The buzz around this game is huge. Sure, there is a good deal of negative attention from hardcore Fallout fans, but the gaming press and the rest of the internet are all over this game. You don't see IP's getting this much attention very often, particularly for a post-apocalyptical RPG.

[mkreku]

I was going to write a real reply, but this is so pointless. You've made up your mind about Fallout 3 before anyone even started working on the game and it's clear that nothing's going to change that, no matter how good the actual game might become. You're not interested in the game, you're just interested in confirming your own prejudices. A thousand times over.

 

"The only times this game really shines is when it is copying from the originals directly."

 

I guess that quote says it all.

[Sand]

The preview was definitely biased but it was done so in a polite manner. If you are going to make a game with the name Fallout on the box people are going to expect a Fallout game. Plain and simple. That is just the way it is, Mkreku. People are going to judge its worth as a Fallout game, for better or ill. If you can't get that through your skull then the deficiency is yours, not the previewer or the reviewer, Mkreku.

 

If Pete Hines and crew didn't see how this was going to end up that is also a deficiency on Bethesda. None and SuaSide (msp?) were very polite and made clear points on what they consider strengths and weaknesses of Fallout 3. In fact I think both previewers did a very professional job writing the preview up and overall reflects well on both Bethesda and NMA.

 

After all, Bethesda has to think thier game is shaping up nicely if they are letting NMA get a crack at it.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Sand

[Monte Carlo]

As a gamer with no dog in this fight, it's highly amusing to see the Fallout Taleban reacting precisely as their dogma demanded and Bethseda getting hosed down for taking the franchise on in the first place.

 

Fallout 3 should have been a niche-undergroundy, niche community thing done using that funky FIFE engine thingy. We could all have bought into that.

 

Me? Boot up Tactics, best game of the series.

 

Ho ho ho!

 

MC

[MLMarkland]

So if a die roll can cause you to miss even when you aim perfectly, can it also cause you to hit even when you don't aim at a target? That would be interesting

 

I think Hellgate:London uses a soft-targeting scheme like that (though I might be remembering incorrectly).

[Hurlshort]

The preview was definitely biased but it was done so in a polite manner. If you are going to make a game with the name Fallout on the box people are going to expect a Fallout game. Plain and simple. That is just the way it is, Mkreku. People are going to judge its worth as a Fallout game, for better or ill. If you can't get that through your skull then the deficiency is yours, not the previewer or the reviewer, Mkreku.

 

But you should take into account that Fallout does not mean the same thing to everyone.

[Sand]

But you should take into account that Fallout does not mean the same thing to everyone.

 

True, but in the context of the preview provided here the authors stated their opinion of the game based on their views of what makes a proper Fallout game. If Mkreku gets the chance to write up his own preview of the demo as seen in NMA's webpage I am sure we would get quite a different article that the one we got from NMA.

[Pop]

DONNY YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT.