New Fallout 3 screens

[Pidesco]

It's a kind of street cred factor. Like how Bioshock's image was improved by being associated with System Shock 2, even if the majority of gamers have never touched SS2.

[Hurlshort]

I can't believe someone just called the Adam miller mods crappy. That is insane. INSANE.

[Rhomal]

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.

 

And that my friend is a case of rose colored glasses.

 

I was on board with one of the first PWs for nwn1. And it was a NIGHTMARE the first 18 months of its existence. The memory leak bugs causing the server applet to crash every hr or two, very bad lag, instability when more then a dozen ppl logged in and so on. It took bioware about 18-24 months and many patches later to make running a PW or even a long mp session fairly reasonable hobby.

 

> 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.

 

Agreed.

 

> 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.

 

Are we not jumping the gun a bit? We have a handful of screens so go by. Many of which which I am sure contain place holder art or designs that are going to change. Granted they are trying some new concepts/ideas and I say good for them. So you want to play FO3 or FO1:Redux?

 

At least they are TRYING to do more then just make a clone game. Do I agree with all the changes? Not really but I give them A for effort and will reserve final judgment until I see a finished product. Who's to say the things they do try that don't mesh well with the game/setting will be continued in FO4? This is a new franchise for them and I think they need to learn by doing as it were. I think, if they learn from their follies with this title and take those lessons to FO4 that title will perhaps be a bit more to the old time fans liking. Before someone asks they have the option with the license to do up to FO6 If I recall.

 

To be honest as a WHOLE I like the idea of getting out of cali, different theme, places and people. If I wanted to play FO1 with better graphics (back to FO1:Redux) I'd play one of the total conversions of a more modern game.

 

> 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.

 

They bought it to make money. period. As a secondary reson I do beleive there are some real FO fans in their midst so thats a bonus. However, they think some of the changes will bring in new fans which they will need. I hate to break it to you but if they make a game for only the remaining old time FO fans this will be a loosing venture. They need to make the game interesting to get new blood into this VERY stagnant, dying fanbase and bring some mass appeal to it. Its a bitter pill but one that needs to be taken if the series is going to move forward.

 

I don't know about you but I rather have a game that changes with the times but survives in essence then ceases totally because people were too meek to accept times have changed. Would you rather have a bit of a re visioned FO to play or none at all? Simple choice.

 

On a final note, the FO community cant event come to agreement except in the very BROADEST terms what in FO makes FO. SPECIAL, post appoc, black humor, 50's retro and vault/pipboy. Anything else is debatable. So if FO3 has those things in them then its starting on the right foot. ANYTHING else a person says 'this makes fallout...' is mere opinion and I am sure can find someone in the FO community to dispute such. I find it humorous ppl start thumping their FO bibles yet these same people cant even agree beyond vague themes what makes FO FO.

[Rhomal]

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?

 

I see your point and don't 100% dispute it. However see my previous post for specifics as it applies here as well.

[Starwars]

And that my friend is a case of rose colored glasses.

 

I was on board with one of the first PWs for nwn1. And it was a NIGHTMARE the first 18 months of its existence. The memory leak bugs causing the server applet to crash every hr or two, very bad lag, instability when more then a dozen ppl logged in and so on. It took bioware about 18-24 months and many patches later to make running a PW or even a long mp session fairly reasonable hobby.

 

Oh, I won't argue with that. Not at all. But I can see how people would want a more functional and working MP right from the start with NWN2. I think a lot of people were more interested in having NWN1 "built on", instead of starting a new so to speak (even though most features are kept). I can totally understand that view, though I prefer what Obsidian is doing.

 

Are we not jumping the gun a bit? We have a handful of screens so go by. Many of which which I am sure contain place holder art or designs that are going to change. Granted they are trying some new concepts/ideas and I say good for them. So you want to play FO3 or FO1:Redux?

 

At least they are TRYING to do more then just make a clone game. Do I agree with all the changes? Not really but I give them A for effort and will reserve final judgment until I see a finished product. Who's to say the things they do try that don't mesh well with the game/setting will be continued in FO4? This is a new franchise for them and I think they need to learn by doing as it were. I think, if they learn from their follies with this title and take those lessons to FO4 that title will perhaps be a bit more to the old time fans liking. Before someone asks they have the option with the license to do up to FO6 If I recall.

 

To be honest as a WHOLE I like the idea of getting out of cali, different theme, places and people. If I wanted to play FO1 with better graphics (back to FO1:Redux) I'd play one of the total conversions of a more modern game.

 

I don't really think we are, since there are so many previews out there at the moment. And many of them even downright saying that a Fallout fan can expect a very different game than the previous ones. There are also a few previews who have even made mention of it being a FPS, and a few who have even said that it's reminiscant of the fabled "Oblivion with guns". Now, I'm not saying that those previews are right (because a lot of them contain factual errors), but I really do think we have enough material to judge some of what Bethesda tries to do with the gameplay. Don't get me wrong, my final judgement will be playing the game myself. But the previews are also there to inform people what is going on with games, and tell people about how they play.

 

I initially really liked the idea of placing the game on the East Coast as well, it was actually one of the most positive news I heard about Fallout 3 back then. I think it was a great idea to A) allow Bethesda to "inject" some of their original ideas into the game and B) to not have to worry as much about keeping in line with the canon of the older games.. So I'm rather disappointed to see stuff like the BoS, Super Mutants, Dogmeant etc making a return. Time will tell whether the presence of these feel warranted, but I personally doubt it (at least judging from the writeup on BoS from previews as well as the blurb on the official site a while back).

I'd personally like it a lot more if they ditched the factions and stuff and focused their own creative juices there, and kept the gameplay of the older games (of course, lots of improvements should be made).

I don't really think most hardcore fans would want a "FO remake", simply a game that is more recognizable as a sequel in terms of the gameplay.

 

They bought it to make money. period. As a secondary reson I do beleive there are some real FO fans in their midst so thats a bonus. However, they think some of the changes will bring in new fans which they will need. I hate to break it to you but if they make a game for only the remaining old time FO fans this will be a loosing venture. They need to make the game interesting to get new blood into this VERY stagnant, dying fanbase and bring some mass appeal to it. Its a bitter pill but one that needs to be taken if the series is going to move forward.

 

I don't know about you but I rather have a game that changes with the times but survives in essence then ceases totally because people were too meek to accept times have changed. Would you rather have a bit of a re visioned FO to play or none at all? Simple choice.

 

On a final note, the FO community cant event come to agreement except in the very BROADEST terms what in FO makes FO. SPECIAL, post appoc, black humor, 50's retro and vault/pipboy. Anything else is debatable. So if FO3 has those things in them then its starting on the right foot. ANYTHING else a person says 'this makes fallout...' is mere opinion and I am sure can find someone in the FO community to dispute such. I find it humorous ppl start thumping their FO bibles yet these same people cant even agree beyond vague themes what makes FO FO.

 

Yes, but explain to me why I, as a consumer who care quite a bit for this franchise, should flat out accept that Bethesda "just wants to make money"? Sure, I won't stop them myself, but consumers should voice their displeasure for products if they don't like them. Not just go "I really dislike this, but it's ok since they're a company and they want to make money".

 

Even if the game was built solely for the Fallout fans, due the very nature of the industry now and Bethesdas cred and PR department, I believe they would still bring a lot of new fans. Now, don't get me wrong, not enough to make a big-budget game like this worthwhile. But I truly believe there is a balance there that could be struck which would be a lot more faithful to the original games, and still bring in new people. And again, I don't see any point in taking a license and changing it around to something else that it was not intended to be from the start. You say that Fallout fans have different views on what makes Fallout Fallout, yes, obviously. But there is a definite design behind the games (documented by quotes from the developers) and what they were trying to accomplish (and IMO mostly succeeded). Whether or not this should be respected or not is up to the inidividual, but those designs are the facts of what Fallout is per the developers themselves.

 

And once again, Fallout was not some sort of "sign of the times" when it was released. It was out of left field, a game that was definetely not representative of the mainstream of 1997. Turnbased post-apocalyptic roleplaying games was *far* from the hot thing back then. Even so, Fallout seemed to be a success in terms of its development costs and money return on that. Bethesda could've done other things to secure their cash. Lower budget games to bring in smaller income/lower risk beside their Elder Scrolls "blockbusters", or (and this is my favourite) develop something new of their own, and letting a 10 year old license rest in piece (or until Interplay releases a Fallout MMORPG). They chose to take a 10 year old low-budget game that was intially made by P&P enthusiasts for a more "hardcore" crowd, and turn it into a mass appeal mainstream title that some previews are now mistaking for a FPS game. Obviously something rather important has changed or even disappeared completely. Again, you don't have to agree with the views of the hardcore Fallout people, but it's again not hard to see why they would be pissed off IMO.

[skuld1]

Whether or not this should be respected or not is up to the inidividual, but those designs are the facts of what Fallout is per the developers themselves.

 

Those designs are the facts of what FO1/FO2 were per the developers themselves. I don't agree with the premise that the design documents, etc. from Fallout 1 must carry over to ALL future games in the series, regardless of developer, current owner of the IP, etc.

 

The hardcore fans don't have to agree with this and they are free to make suggestions and lodge complaints, but they are hardly in a position to make demands (which is what quite a few of them do... strange sense of entitlement there, unless they recently acquired the IP and I didn't hear about it). Also, the manner in which some of them communicate is extremely vile and distasteful... this doesn't exactly help their case. When I read posts on how they want FO3 to fail, it makes me think of a brat who, after tasting his/her ice cream cone and finding he/she hates the flavor, runs around and knocks everyone else's ice cream cone to the ground (the "If I can't enjoy it, NO ONE CAN!" sentiment).

[Tigranes]

*shrug* Indeed, but I don't think there's anybody here that feels that sense of entitlement. If FO3 turns out to be a veteran fanboy's worst nightmare...

 

(Worst nightmare = VATS is just an excuse to see bullet time high-gore explodeys; Emil Pagliarulo's horrible gratuitous example about what he thinks of 'black humour' turns out to be the norm in FO3, which basically becomes a moderated Postal; abandoned buildings and bunkers are generic loot-pickup points a la Oblivion caves; conversations are still Obliviony...)

 

...then I will be sad for two reasons; one, it probably won't be very enjoyable or immersive at all for me, and two, it probably will represent a kind of trajectory that isn't good for the industry as a whole. But that's about as far as any 'entitlement' stuff goes.

[Foamhead]

Whether or not this should be respected or not is up to the inidividual, but those designs are the facts of what Fallout is per the developers themselves.

 

Those designs are the facts of what FO1/FO2 were per the developers themselves. I don't agree with the premise that the design documents, etc. from Fallout 1 must carry over to ALL future games in the series, regardless of developer, current owner of the IP, etc.

 

The hardcore fans don't have to agree with this and they are free to make suggestions and lodge complaints, but they are hardly in a position to make demands (which is what quite a few of them do... strange sense of entitlement there, unless they recently acquired the IP and I didn't hear about it). Also, the manner in which some of them communicate is extremely vile and distasteful... this doesn't exactly help their case. When I read posts on how they want FO3 to fail, it makes me think of a brat who, after tasting his/her ice cream cone and finding he/she hates the flavor, runs around and knocks everyone else's ice cream cone to the ground (the "If I can't enjoy it, NO ONE CAN!" sentiment).

 

I only did that a couple of times! And it was after I gave fair warning that I hate tigertail.

[mkreku]

Not exactly a new Fallout 3 screen, but..

 

 

A PIP BOY BOBBLEHEAD FIGURINE!!

 

It comes with the Collector's Edition:

 

"This premium Fallout 3 package, presented in a customized, metal Vault-Tec lunch box, includes the highly-anticipated game, a collectible 5

[Dark_Raven]

OMFG!!

[Xard]

So far that is best thing I've seen of F3

[Tigranes]

Yeah, NMA seem to hate it, but I don't mind. But then, I never get CE's, anyway. Maybe once I have real disposable income in my life.

 

I thought the bobblehead was pretty cool, the lunchbox was a pretty silly idea - what would have been fun was a GECK, Repair Kit or something of the sort. Stylised can of nuka-cola. Gecko-skin eraser/magnet/plasticthingy.

[Xard]

Even though I normally distance myself from fanboy legions I can't help but agree with them on F3

 

By all means it looks like certain disaster

[CoM_Solaufein]

It looks tacky to me. Surely they can include something better than this in the collectors edition.

[Slowtrain]

It looks tacky to me. Surely they can include something better than this in the collectors edition.

 

 

Like Icewind Dale's Ice Dice?

 

I'm as skeptical as anybody about FO3, but let's not go overboard on smacking it around. Save the smacks for when they are really deserved. CE's almost always have goofy cruddy stuff that no sane person should really actively desire.

[mkreku]

But it's supposed to be tacky!!

[mr insomniac]

Yep, its a PIPboy bobblehead... I wonder if Bethesda will make it available for purchase at their online store sometime after the game's release. I'll buy one, and I'll bury it in a time capsule thing in the backyard, so someone in the real post-apocalyptic world will find it in the future and trade it for ammo.

[Slowtrain]

How many caps is a PIPboy bobblehead worth, do you think? Does it have more or elss value than an inguana-on-a-stick?

 

These are the important questions.

[mr insomniac]

It's gotta be worth an iguana on a stick at least. It will be an ancient artifact from ago.

[mkreku]

Again, no new screens, BUT..

 

Combat including the VATS (Vault-tec Assisted Targeting System) is also demonstrated - and here my expectations are somewhat confounded. I came not entirely convinced by the VATS system's utility - it struck me as the worst of both possible real-time and turn-based worlds - and leaving quietly impressed.

 

Eurogamer's usually quite good at looking past hype. Sounds interesting. Read the full story (preview) here:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?artic...4466&page=1

[Starwars]

Thanks, nice preview. Exactly stuff like that I'd like to see more off in the previewing business, he clearly has a positive attitude but doesn't gush all over it, and can provide some points of criticism. I think that his point about the gunplay outside of VATS (and how it compares to other games) is a good one.

 

I'm glad to see that they're continuing to "hype" the choices & consequences. If this part is well-done, then it could really "save" the game for me and make it enjoyable at least. There are some point of doubt though, mainly just due to it being Bethesda to be honest. We'll see if their writing has gotten better, and I really hope that the whole father storyline won't have to much of a presence in the game (as in a long questline like the main quest in Oblivion). Or if it does, I really hope there will be *plenty* of options on how to tackle it.

[Slowtrain]

Again, no new screens, BUT..

 

Combat including the VATS (Vault-tec Assisted Targeting System) is also demonstrated - and here my expectations are somewhat confounded. I came not entirely convinced by the VATS system's utility - it struck me as the worst of both possible real-time and turn-based worlds - and leaving quietly impressed.

 

Eurogamer's usually quite good at looking past hype. Sounds interesting. Read the full story (preview) here:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?artic...4466&page=1

 

 

Isn't that exactly the same preview that made the rounds a few weeks ago? All coming from Pete Hines' sitdown with a bunch of game jounalists, where they watched him playthrough a few minutes of the game. It certainly appears to contain all the same info: a bunch of dialogue options about cutting the cake at your tenth birthday party, that you can make your baby pc cry by pressing the F key, that Dogmeat will show in a non-scripted event sometime in the first thirty seconds of gameplay (but its not scripted, no, of course not). blah blah blah.

 

I don't spend a huge amount of time on Bethsoft's FO3 forums, but I do stop by almost every day, so here is the real deal about FO3, no hype:

 

No one has any idea. That's right, none. Bethesda has realased so little info about the game that no one knows enough about it to pass any sort of preliminary judgement. No one has seen any of the skills, the real dialogue of quests, how the levelign system is going work. ANyone who says FO3 is going to suck has no basis for making that statement as there is every chance it will be a brilliant game and nothing has shown otherwise. Anyone who says FO3 is THE game of 2008 and will be brilliant has absolutely no basis for making that statement as there is every chance that the game will be a huge boring suckfest and nothing has hown otherwise.

 

The game is finished and is undergong testing and tightening and revision. It is due for release in Fall of 2008. There will not be a demo.

[Moatilliatta]

No one has any idea. That's right, none. Bethesda has realased so little info about the game that no one knows enough about it to pass any sort of preliminary judgement. No one has seen any of the skills, the real dialogue of quests, how the levelign system is going work. ANyone who says FO3 is going to suck has no basis for making that statement as there is every chance it will be a brilliant game and nothing has shown otherwise. Anyone who says FO3 is THE game of 2008 and will be brilliant has absolutely no basis for making that statement as there is every chance that the game will be a huge boring suckfest and nothing has hown otherwise.

 

The game is finished and is undergong testing and tightening and revision. It is due for release in Fall of 2008. There will not be a demo.

I just wanted to mention that that is possibly the best description of the status of Fallout 3 that I've seen.

 

I shouldn't say too much though as I'm the one who gets excited by the mere mention of DoW2.

[Tigranes]

There is SOME info, but yeah, CG isn't far wrong in saying that 'no one has any idea'. I've been following this for af ew reasons and check various places including Beth forums, and well.. yep. CG's right.

 

The decision not to release a demo is pretty stupid as well. There is no way in the world I'm giving Beth my money then, not until I've borrowed the game off a friend or something and played a substantial amount of it. Their excuse doesn't even make sense, they're just not trying.

 

Anyway, I read the Eurogamer preview mkreku, it is a regurgitation of the old press release in terms of info but it isn't quite as bow-down-and-worship as the others, I guess. Still, it seems that the minute everyone's seen the cake conversation they're raving about dialogue being awesome now, but we really need to wait and see.

[Slowtrain]

Well, all I know is if I have six dialogue options for slicing a cake and I can make my baby player character cry and gurgle by pressing F then I am already 90% sold on pre-ordering the collector's edition. lol.

 

I'm just kidding around. FO3 may be awesome. (or maybe not ). Bethesda's PR process is just so darn funny. And you got to admit that the way so many of these game magazines are hyping FO3 is pretty over the top. I think we aall re entitled to be a little skeptical over such obviously unfounded hyperbole, especially in the wake of Oblivion.

 

Here's a little thing I ran into on James Berardinelli's Reelviews website the other day. (He's my favorite movie reviewer btw). It is not directly related to gaming but it immediately made me think of Oblivion and Fallout 3 and Bethesda and game reviews:

 

A review I wrote of Blade for Playboy ran afoul of the magazine's desire to put the movie in the best possible light. It goes to show that you should understand exactly what you're being asked to write before writing it. I got paid by Playboy but the review never saw the light of day, except on this website where the magazine graciously allowed me to post it (See here). They had wanted a "puff piece" to go alongside their 20 Questions with Wesley Snipes, and the review was deemed to be "too negative." Sorry about that.

 

 

Heres a link to the whole column. It is the second article as of today if you are interested. http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.html