New Fallout 3 screens

[Slowtrain]

Given Bethesda's recent history I'm sure the graphics wil be fine. Whether they can conjure up atmosphere like STALKER is a question mark, but not a super critical one. Both MW and Ob were OK atmospheric games.

 

I don't think too many people are worried about the graphics for this game.

 

Gameplay footage and NPC dialogue options will be much more interesting when/if they are are ever released..

[Gorth]

Actually, here is a better link (if you don't mind the German..):

 

http://www.pcgames.de/aid,638781/Bildergal...t_zu_Fallout_3/

 

15 new screens! Not bad!

Yay, we've got undeads and orcs. All we need is elves now

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Well, it looks cool - but it also looks like "Oblivion with guns."

[random n00b]

Those look quite nice. But Beth's strong points *are* graphics and atmosphere, so nothing new there. Maybe they aren't releasing anything on NPC interaction on purpose?

 

Besides, there's only muties in those pics. Needs moar raiders plz

 

Well, it looks cool - but it also looks like "Oblivion with guns."

No, not really.

[mr insomniac]

I never really got into Morrowind, and never played Oblivion at all, but I'm still looking forward to this game, and I have to say it looks very cool. The pic of the mutant getting his foot shot off while crashing headfirst to the ground is now my new desktop.

[Guard Dog]

Any game you can get a dog in is a must buy in my book!

[mkreku]

You can get a dog in The Sims 2

[Morgoth]

I have a real dog!

[Pidesco]

You can get a dog in The Sims 2

 

Which is a fine game.

[Pop]

Also a ripping RPG!

[Moatilliatta]

And it gives you an unprecedented amount of Choices! You can like choose between cooking your food or ordering it in! Surely the RPG of the millenum.

 

Also you have a choice of gender, flabbergasting!

[Rhomal]

Bethesda is hardly 'working with core FO fans', though.

 

I agree with you in general Rhomal, that some FO fans will never be satisfied and there's no point trying to do so, and that there's nothing wrong with changing some things in the franchise in a new iteration. But I think the design process of Bethesda was actually hurt by the buying of the franchise. Bethesda themselves admit that their design process 'begins small' and 'gets bigger'; they have a core 'experience' they want to deliver (i.e. Oblivion=big big world you can explore, alternate dimension, lifelike towns, etc), then as they go along they mix and match every new idea as long as it fits into that general principle. The problem with doing this when you take over an existing franchise is that some of them have never or hardly played Fallout, and come up with their own ideas; others have played Fallout and think of interesting things from it they can adapt into FO3. The end result is a hodge-podge of some things that are very faithfully adapted from FO (e.g. Pipboy), some things which don't have much Fallout in them at all, but mostly, thiings that are oddly Fallouty but oddly not. It is a curious perversion (meant in a literal and not derogatory sense) of the existing atmosphere and image, the identity of what Fallout was, and the real problem is not that it is dissimilar to Fallout of old; the problem is that this new game becomes a misdirected, chaotic hodgepodge of various design motivations and the way in which some FO traditions are involved even hurts the game (i.e. the BOS, the VATS).

 

And its their right to do so quite frankly. This sense of entitlement FO fans seem to have is borderline arrogance at best. The same case been be said with the bioware vs obsidian fans from nwn1 to nwn2. There were some (but not nearly as much as the FO topic) cries of 'killing' the spirit of nwn with the changes obsid made with nwn2. Personally I think those that said so were a bunch of fruitnuts as obsid did what it needed to do. Also the same can be said over the evolution of the mechwarrior series and the changes the various dev houses made from mw1 to mw4. But thats not here nor there at this point, just bringing it up for the fact evolution happens to a wide range of titles/series.

 

Yet the FO fans seem oblivious to this. That the title the hardcore FO fans want simply wouldn't sell to be worthwhile in todays market.

 

As I said above its the developers right to evolve the title so it SELLS. Their job is to find a balance between upholding the title legacy AND sell units. When one comes into conflict with the other the smart dev choice is the sell units aspect. When someone does push the legacy aspect over selling point it usually ends badly for someone in todays dev environment. (ie Ferret).

 

With all that said don't take me wrong, I certainly would enjoy the feel and gameplay of yesterdays fallout. Yet I am also a realist. This is a different era, different technology and different studio/team. NOTHING but a act of the gods is going to make a FO that follows in the -exact- footsteps of the first 2. Thats not pessimism, thats simple fact.

 

Like all things it evolves or dies over time, and PC gaming is no different.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Rhomal

[Starwars]

I would agree with you say about some of the NWN1 fans complaints about NWN2. I think some of it is fair, like the multiplayer complaints for example. Cases where it just doesn't work that well as of yet.

But the gameplay is pretty much the same. Same combat system, some updated graphics, still has a toolset, still has the multiplayer support, still continuing the tradition of a strong general support for the game. I respect Obsidian for that. Their overall direction for the sequels as of yet (KOTOR2 and NWN2) is pretty much spot-on I think. They feel like they are part of the same series.

 

But compare the jump that Bethesda does with Fallout 3, and it just does not make sense to me why they didn't develop their own license. Gameplay has to be judged first and foremost IMO when talking about game sequels, and Fallout 3 has a completely different focus than the previous games.

It's not surprising to me why Fallout fans (as in the "angry ones!11!") are bitter about Fallout 3. Any fanbase of a game that I can think of would be very pissed off if that particular license did a similarily big change of gameplay. I will give you that Fallout fans are vocal though, and I think that's a fair point for anyone. But I honestly can't understand how anyone can not see why. It's not hard to understand at all. And sure it would be hard to sell a Fallout game to the mainstream. But why buy the thing and then make it a huge budget game then? Noone is forcing studios to do this, noone is forcing them to make games that have to become blockbusters in order to make their money back. Fallout itself was largely a B-title, and a lot of its design values was definetely *not* the same as the mainstream of 1997.

 

I'm not willing to excuse Bethesda and the fact that they have to make money, because they *chose* to buy it for whatever sum of money it was, and they *chose* to develop it as a big-budget game.

[mkreku]

What if they chose the Fallout franchise because they also happened to love the Fallout games?

 

They're a business, they have a plan for the game, they happen to love Fallout. Fallout 3 is a product of these factors. I don't think it's any more complex than that.

[Tigranes]

And its their right to do so quite frankly.

 

There's really not much point talking about who has the right to do what. Unless you talk to the most die-hard, deluded fan, you're not going to have somebody, much less me, say that they have 'no right' and 'cannot' do what they are doing with the franchise. No problem there, and it's really a banal point, though I understand why you are making it.

 

The argument is really about 'should' - what consequences for the game do these decisions have, in context of the original game and the RPG climate of 2008? And my argument above was that Bethesda's development process is not a good one for their own purposes, never mind what NMA or Duck and Cover might want. Bethesda clearly have some fans of the franchise in their dev-pot. They clearly want to, or have decided to, integrate a lot of old Fallout style and features while making new ones. But their development process, as I have argued above, does not seem to, based on presented evidence, be a very good one for making that happen. It is silly to say that Fallout 3 should be judged without comparisons to its prequels anyway - maybe in an alternate universe, but those who know of the first two games (which is a lot of people) will make comparisons. And in comparison, maybe even by itself, I think theres a good chance Fallout 3 will have a rather fractured feel in terms of setting and atmosphere.

 

Just like anything else, mkreku, video game development is a work of passion and committment. I think there is a point in investigating such a thing in more depth than that.

[Slowtrain]

As a Fallout fan since the day it was released away back when, I would like to point out that I have no particular desire for FO3 to be like FO1 and FO2. If such is OK, but if not then that is fine too.

 

However, I DO have a very strong desire for Fallout 3 to be NOT AT ALL like Morrowind and Oblivion, because for me neither one was a very interesting crpg.

 

 

I only bring this up to illustrate that not all Fallout fans who are concerned about Bethsoft's development of FO 3 are concerned because they want FO3 to be just like the Fallout crpgs of yore, but rather that some of us are concerned that Bethsoft is going to repeat some of the brutal mistakes and bad design decsions that have plauged their two most recent crpgs.

[mkreku]

Just like anything else, mkreku, video game development is a work of passion and committment. I think there is a point in investigating such a thing in more depth than that.

Passion and commitment? Not really. When there were seven guys in a basement making the game they wanted to play themselves, yes. Nowadays when they have to pimp their incredibly generic and formulaic projects to publishers to get the green light, not so much. Also, from seeing what developers of today make in salaries, I'd say they're in it for the money. Passion is a lost virtue.

 

Ever wonder why it costs 40 million to make an AAA game nowadays? Is it because it takes so many more man hours to complete one such project? Or is it because game developers have fallen for the myth surrounding them and demand rock star money to get out of bed each morning? I don't know, but in the end it's the consumer that's paying the bill and it bugs me.

[Pop]

I'd go for the former, actually. New tech and all.

[random n00b]

And in comparison, maybe even by itself, I think theres a good chance Fallout 3 will have a rather fractured feel in terms of setting and atmosphere.

Um, why? One of Beth's strong point *is* atmosphere. And any post-apoc setting with 50's references, mutants and blue jumpsuits would be indistinguishable from Fallout, alright. I don't think it's quite the Holy Grail of CRPG settings, really.

 

I could understand your comment if it were about gameplay or graphics, as those are going to be completely reworked for FO3, but atmosphere?

[Tigranes]

Yep. If I can quote myself:

 

I agree with you in general Rhomal, that some FO fans will never be satisfied and there's no point trying to do so, and that there's nothing wrong with changing some things in the franchise in a new iteration. But I think the design process of Bethesda was actually hurt by the buying of the franchise. Bethesda themselves admit that their design process 'begins small' and 'gets bigger'; they have a core 'experience' they want to deliver (i.e. Oblivion=big big world you can explore, alternate dimension, lifelike towns, etc), then as they go along they mix and match every new idea as long as it fits into that general principle. The problem with doing this when you take over an existing franchise is that some of them have never or hardly played Fallout, and come up with their own ideas; others have played Fallout and think of interesting things from it they can adapt into FO3. The end result is a hodge-podge of some things that are very faithfully adapted from FO (e.g. Pipboy), some things which don't have much Fallout in them at all, but mostly, thiings that are oddly Fallouty but oddly not. It is a curious perversion (meant in a literal and not derogatory sense) of the existing atmosphere and image, the identity of what Fallout was, and the real problem is not that it is dissimilar to Fallout of old; the problem is that this new game becomes a misdirected, chaotic hodgepodge of various design motivations and the way in which some FO traditions are involved even hurts the game (i.e. the BOS, the VATS).

 

So I am not saying Fallout's setting was super-awesome and Bethesda aren't up to it (because it wasn't that super-awesome for me, either). The point is that Bethesda are trying to make their own atmosphere with lots of bits of old Fallout injected here and there, but the piecemeal manner in which they develop the game (to which they have admitted in the past) now result in what you can deduce from the screenshots - a game which really feelsl ike it should be more '24 Days Later' than 'Fallout', but has odd, disconcerting bits of Fallout pasted over in places.

 

This was the case with the later two Elder Scrolls worlds, as well, for me. People point to the staggering amount of 'lore' and 'backstory' for the TES world, but most of it is extremely generic and completely meaningless. I tried out dozens of those 'books' you find in Morrowind and Oblivion, but they are, well, 95% crap, as if generated from some kind of Babelfish of High Fantasy. Most of it, naturally, isn't really integrated into the world anywhere else. The core stories and characters, and places/events, which have their distinct feel (especially architectural, in case of Morrowind), did well for atmosphere and setting; the rest was basically meaningless fluff. Finally, Morrowind had some very unique architecture, but Oblivion had a pretty but extremely generic world, and so far there is nothing in Fallout 3 screenies to distinguish that setting or make it 'come to life'; its just a very bland transposition of just about every movie scene in the last 15 years that contains bombed cities or desolate wastelands.

[random n00b]

So I am not saying Fallout's setting was super-awesome and Bethesda aren't up to it (because it wasn't that super-awesome for me, either). The point is that Bethesda are trying to make their own atmosphere with lots of bits of old Fallout injected here and there, but the piecemeal manner in which they develop the game (to which they have admitted in the past) now result in what you can deduce from the screenshots - a game which really feelsl ike it should be more '24 Days Later' than 'Fallout', but has odd, disconcerting bits of Fallout pasted over in places.

I see. I'm not familiar with the development process at Beth, so I'll take your word for it. I do think, however, that even if they work that way, it's a long shot to assume that the setting will not be Fallout-ish enough. After all, it is post-apoc. And I can only take so many 50's references before it starts getting silly for me. I think it would be a mistake for them to try too hard to be Fallout, and end up saturating the game world with winks to the previous settings in an attempt to appease a sense of failed continuity in the fanbase.

 

 

This was the case with the later two Elder Scrolls worlds, as well, for me. People point to the staggering amount of 'lore' and 'backstory' for the TES world, but most of it is extremely generic and completely meaningless. I tried out dozens of those 'books' you find in Morrowind and Oblivion, but they are, well, 95% crap, as if generated from some kind of Babelfish of High Fantasy. Most of it, naturally, isn't really integrated into the world anywhere else. The core stories and characters, and places/events, which have their distinct feel (especially architectural, in case of Morrowind), did well for atmosphere and setting; the rest was basically meaningless fluff. Finally, Morrowind had some very unique architecture, but Oblivion had a pretty but extremely generic world, and so far there is nothing in Fallout 3 screenies to distinguish that setting or make it 'come to life'; its just a very bland transposition of just about every movie scene in the last 15 years that contains bombed cities or desolate wastelands.

All right. I didn't play Oblivion much (my comp couldn't handle it at the time), but I didn't think Morrowind was generic, at all. From the look of the Roman... I mean, Imperial Legion armor, to the architecture of Vivec, the design of Daedra, the Ordinators, the races... well. That, if anything, was what kept me from dumping the game. Perhaps if you point to some game whose setting you don't find generic, and explain your reasons, I will be better able to understand where you're coming from. Edited April 9, 2008 by random n00b

[Pidesco]

While in terms of setting, and also aesthetically speaking, Morrowind was quite unique, in terms of actual content Morrowind was actually very bland and repetitive. The quests were as generic as they come, the dungeons were all very samey, 99% of the NPCs had nothing to say, and the combat was awful.

[Tigranes]

rn, let me make clear that I don't have any 'inside information' of any sort. A lot of what I am saying is conjecture. It mainly comes from their statements about how they start small and 'add things on' as different members come up with 'cool' things; how not all artists, or designers, need to have even played fallout for a little bit; and I am simply matching them to what we see in screenies, which I feel to be really really similar to 24 Days Later, but with random 50's things throwni n.

 

Also, yes, Morrowind was a lot better than Oblivion on that. I have to hand it to their architecture and aesthetic style, it was really quite unique. I should have made that clearer - Oblivion is a looot more guilty, perhaps because they chose the imperial country or whatever it is.

[Lokey]

As I said above its the developers right to evolve the title so it SELLS. Their job is to find a balance between upholding the title legacy AND sell units. When one comes into conflict with the other the smart dev choice is the sell units aspect. When someone does push the legacy aspect over selling point it usually ends badly for someone in todays dev environment. (ie Ferret).

So why even try to make a sequel to a game that sold fewer copies than some NWN1 crappy community efforts were downloaded (i.e. a Stefan Gagne or Adam Miller module)?

[Gorth]

As I said above its the developers right to evolve the title so it SELLS. Their job is to find a balance between upholding the title legacy AND sell units. When one comes into conflict with the other the smart dev choice is the sell units aspect. When someone does push the legacy aspect over selling point it usually ends badly for someone in todays dev environment. (ie Ferret).

So why even try to make a sequel to a game that sold fewer copies than some NWN1 crappy community efforts were downloaded (i.e. a Stefan Gagne or Adam Miller module)?

Name/Brand recognition? Even if it wasn't an impressive seller on release, it has been dragged out of its coffin and put on display so many times the last decade, that the gaming press knows about Fallout, even if they don't know jack about what it means.