New Fallout 3 screens

[Starwars]

His dungeon tracks for Oblivion were also quite good and most definetely ambient.

 

I would've actually liked him to have a go at Fallout if that interview snippet is true, and if that meant he used a more electronic feel in his ambient stuff.

I hope Morgan gets back into cRPG composing at some point though, maybe for Alpha Protocol or Alien... *cough Obsidian cough*

 

I don't really mind Tactics much as a stand-alone game. But it suffers from it being Fallout in name, and stuffing the setting up a bit. And secondly, even as a tactical game and not a RPG, it's just not *that* good at what it does if you ask me. It's sort of OK, but not much more.

[mkreku]

Would Obsidian ever be interested in hiring the talents of Jesper Kyd? His work in Hitman: Blood Money really impressed me.. It's been a long time since I've been so impressed with a game soundtrack (outside the Gothic games, but I suspect that has something to do with my fanboy-ism for the games as much as the quality of the tunes..).

 

Of course, I have no idea how much his services would cost or if he even freelances like that.. But still, it would be really cool to see what he could add to a RPG!

[Musopticon?]

His dungeon tracks for Oblivion were also quite good and most definetely ambient.

 

I would've actually liked him to have a go at Fallout if that interview snippet is true, and if that meant he used a more electronic feel in his ambient stuff.

I hope Morgan gets back into cRPG composing at some point though, maybe for Alpha Protocol or Alien... *cough Obsidian cough*

I agree, the dungeon tracks were so unprominent and, unlike the constant fantasy concerto in the forests and on the plains, never took the foreground, so they were perfect at evoking ambience for the setting.

 

As for Aliens rpg, oh god I wish that this intro iwould be an omen for what direction Obs is going with the music in that game. Alpha Protocol almost needs a chaos of different influences, genres and themes to fit the constantly changing flair of the settings and it still has to lure the player into the world of super-espionage. Bourne movies, James Bond, even Austin Powers, it's an interesting and varied world for music and I'm anxious to hear what we'll get.

 

But Aliens...I hope they'll cook up an evil bastard of an ambient soundscape which drones on, only momentarily giving you full-on distortion and otherwise relying on the low-tech echoes of dystopic bureau planets and submarine-like starships, so that the scenes of the game unnerve the crap out of you even when they are not currently accomodating alien skullrape imagery. Same goes for the sounds in general, when my character janks the servos on a military exoskeleton and shoots a pulserifle underbarrel frag grenade, I want to feel it in my gut.

[Humodour]

I subscribe to the Tactics love, minus the endgame

robot snoozefest

. Somebody should take up that license and do the gaming world a favor.

 

Tactics was a great game, but it wasn't Fallout in many ways. The violence and crude humour were way over the top, for example. The art direction also shifted a bit for the worse (especially deathclaws and mutants).

 

I also was annoyed that in the late-game, melee/stealth basically got abandoned. They could have really made them good.

[Pop]

Tactics had humor? That's how I distinguish it from the other Fallouts. It was a much more dour game. If they had changed its name to "Mad Max Tactics" I wouldn't have noticed.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Pop

[Tigranes]

On the original Codex thread, which Xard quoted the Soule interview from, someone reports that although the interview is supposed to be from the latest Game Informer, the said issue features no such thing. Probably hoax until we get some more proof, I guess?

 

Thank me guys, I had to look through some random guy claiming he had a personal flame war with Jeremy Soule to get to that.

[mkreku]

It doesn't matter if it's a hoax or not, it's still what the haters will believe. Just look at this thread and read the responses to the "interview". People are actually gloating over how bad and not-Fallout Fallout 3 will be and how utterly dumb all Bethesda's decisions are.. without knowing ANYTHING about the game and/or the decisions they've made. It's gone so far that they've started hoping the game will be a disaster just so it proves their negative attitudes right. Because it's more important to be right in their bitterness than getting another good game!

 

Tiresome.

[Humodour]

Thank me guys, I had to look through some random guy claiming he had a personal flame war with Jeremy Soule to get to that.

 

Yeah, I saw that too. I was reading that thinking "wtf?". It was clearly faked, but why did that guy have such a personal vendetta against Soule? He wrote like 10 pages. It was horrible garbage.

[Humodour]

^ Actually, it's about preserving the atmosphere of Fallout, really. Ever had a good book/movie/TV series ruined by sequels?

[Xard]

On the original Codex thread, which Xard quoted the Soule interview from, someone reports that although the interview is supposed to be from the latest Game Informer, the said issue features no such thing. Probably hoax until we get some more proof, I guess?

 

Thank me guys, I had to look through some random guy claiming he had a personal flame war with Jeremy Soule to get to that.

 

Yeah, ****ing ****. I was just about post about that

 

It doesn't matter if it's a hoax or not, it's still what the haters will believe. Just look at this thread and read the responses to the "interview". People are actually gloating over how bad and not-Fallout Fallout 3 will be and how utterly dumb all Bethesda's decisions are.. without knowing ANYTHING about the game and/or the decisions they've made. It's gone so far that they've started hoping the game will be a disaster just so it proves their negative attitudes right. Because it's more important to be right in their bitterness than getting another good game!

 

Tiresome.

 

You're the one being stupid here. Yes you can form quite good picture about the game already

[random n00b]

Ever had a good book/movie/TV series ruined by sequels?

Eh, no. I really don't see how the quality of a sequel affects its predecessors. Will a poor Fallout 3 make Fallout 2 and 1 suck? What's this sense of holiness around everything Fallout that makes attempting a sequel something so neccesarily formulaic?

 

LOLOLOgic.

 

 

You're the one being stupid here. Yes you can form quite good picture about the game already

Yeah. Because if you don't jump in the hatewagon, you are stupid.

 

I find quality in that flamebait to be severely lacking, even when compared to what we're used from you. At least put some effort into it.

[Istima Loke]

Ever had a good book/movie/TV series ruined by sequels?

Eh, no. I really don't see how the quality of a sequel affects its predecessors. Will a poor Fallout 3 make Fallout 2 and 1 suck? What's this sense of holiness around everything Fallout that makes attempting a sequel something so neccesarily formulaic?

 

LOLOLOgic.

 

...

 

Who said that Fo1 or Fo2 will suck? Nobody, it's just you using strawman to raise an argument. People were expecting something else and they are disappointed by what they saw. Is that strange? Or hard to understand? You expect your parents to give you that awesome medieval tower for your 8th birthday and you get socks. Does that mean that the previous gifts they gave you suck? No. Does that mean that you are happy with socks? No. It's not that hard to understand, isn't it?

Edited May 18, 2008 by Istima Loke

[random n00b]

Yes. Read the "movie/book ruined by sequels" quote I was specifically replying to before accusing me of putting up strawmen.

 

And better luck next time.

[Tigranes]

It's possible to be a juvenile hater, just as it's possible to be stupidly blind: equally, it's possible to dislike or like or remain ambivalent without indulging in stupidity. Keep the personal attacks out people - and may I suggest that keeping blanket polarisations out would also benefit our discussions.

 

I will have to mentally erase whatever influence the Soule interview had on my overall perspective, certainly, making sure that little piece of hoax affects my judgement as little as possible. But certainly there are lots of real info floating about and I think it's enough to make some intelligent guesses about where the game is heading, under the proviso that on release day they might be proven wrong,

[Istima Loke]

Yes. Read the "movie/book ruined by sequels" quote I was specifically replying to before accusing me of putting up strawmen.

 

And better luck next time.

 

 

Ok, ruining a series means that they remove the things that made a series awesome/nice/fun/interesting from the next sequel. That way the series lose what made it nice, thus it's ruined.

 

EDIT: I don't really think there are many (if any) people that believe that Fo1 and 2 will be ruined by Fo3 and I fail to see, why that's the argument everybody uses against those who say that beth is "ruining the series". Do you really believe that anyone who says that thinks that the previous games will be ruined?

Edited May 18, 2008 by Istima Loke

[Humodour]

Ever had a good book/movie/TV series ruined by sequels?

Eh, no.

 

Well a lot of us have. Poor quality sequels and such dilute the atmosphere of the original.

[random n00b]

Ok, ruining a series means that they remove the things that made a series awesome/nice/fun/interesting from the next sequel. That way the series lose what made it nice, thus it's ruined.

That's assuming they will remove said things (as opposed to update), and assuming they will not replace them by equally good things.

 

That's a lot of assumptions, and to me, it's blindly jumping in the hatewagon. Don't let that stop you from hating away at your leisure, though. Because it's the cool thing to do.

 

 

EDIT: I don't really think there are many (if any) people that believe that Fo1 and 2 will be ruined by Fo3 and I fail to see, why that's the argument everybody uses against those who say that beth is "ruining the series". Do you really believe that anyone who says that thinks that the previous games will be ruined?

I don't know what most people believe. That's why I stick to what they post instead of building my arguments around some questionable leap of logic, or some arbitrary interpretation of their post. If he didn't mean that previous installments will be ruined by FO3 sucking, why did he ask that?

 

It's the argument I'm using because it's the argument he posted.

[random n00b]

Ever had a good book/movie/TV series ruined by sequels?

Eh, no.

 

Well a lot of us have. Poor quality sequels and such dilute the atmosphere of the original.

Ok. I'm going to accept this is how it is for you, because not everyone reacts the same.

 

Can you explain how this happens? Will any future playthroughs of FO1/2 be less enjoyable because of a lackluster FO3? I'm not being facetious, btw. I'm genuinely interested.

[H]

That's assuming they will remove said things (as opposed to update), and assuming they will not replace them by equally good things.

Super-orcs and Paladins of the Wastes aren't as good as super-mutants and Brotherhood of Steel.

 

P.S. Curative fluids.

Edited May 18, 2008 by H

[Istima Loke]

Ok, ruining a series means that they remove the things that made a series awesome/nice/fun/interesting from the next sequel. That way the series lose what made it nice, thus it's ruined.

That's assuming they will remove said things (as opposed to update), and assuming they will not replace them by equally good things.

 

That's a lot of assumptions, and to me, it's blindly jumping in the hatewagon. Don't let that stop you from hating away at your leisure, though. Because it's the cool thing to do.

 

That's assuming that I said that they will remove them and assuming that I said that they will not replacing them with something better, which I didn't. You are now changing the argument, because my argument was about the definition of "ruining the series" rather than that the fallout series will be ruined. I said, assuming that someone believes that the series is ruined would that imply that Fo1 and 2 will suck. I never said anything about what Fo3 will be like. That's your assumption.

 

Still it seems (from Krezack's post) that I was wrong, so I will pass.

[Morgoth]

I don't need references to previous Fallout games to make conclusions about F3 - all it need is to look at Beths track record and I know there's nothing really extraordinary good coming out. How long are they in business now? 10 years? 15 years? Have their games ever improved? No? Why do people think they're gonna make a so much better job with F3 then?

Edited May 18, 2008 by Morgoth

[Sand]

The totally destroyed the central design philosophy of Fallout. To emulate PnP gaming on the PC with the use of the SPECIAL rules system. That is one of the ways Bethesda ruined FO3. Also, random n00b, I am with Krezy, and I am sure there are a lot of us who share this view, that poorly made sequels, which Fallout 3 is a proud member of that group, overall brings ruin to the series. Not that FOT and FOPOS didn't finish FO years ago.

[random n00b]

Yeah. It's a well known Natural Law that Beth's games must suck. I read it on Science somewhere.

[Humodour]

Ok, ruining a series means that they remove the things that made a series awesome/nice/fun/interesting from the next sequel. That way the series lose what made it nice, thus it's ruined.

That's assuming they will remove said things (as opposed to update), and assuming they will not replace them by equally good things.

 

That's a lot of assumptions, and to me, it's blindly jumping in the hatewagon. Don't let that stop you from hating away at your leisure, though. Because it's the cool thing to do.

 

That's assuming that I said that they will remove them and assuming that I said that they will not replacing them with something better, which I didn't. You are now changing the argument, because my argument was about the definition of "ruining the series" rather than that the fallout series will be ruined. I said, assuming that someone believes that the series is ruined would that imply that Fo1 and 2 will suck. I never said anything about what Fo3 will be like. That's your assumption.

 

Still it seems (from Krezack's post) that I was wrong, so I will pass.

 

Err, I'm not saying FO3 will make FO1 and 2 suck. I'm saying that it will potentially destroy the uniqueness and atmosphere of the series, I guess. It's like with a TV series how people say "it sucks now" - adding more and more seasons can ruin a show. I'm hoping for new seasons of Burn Notice, but at the same time, I think season one was pretty damn ace, and I don't want to see something less than that.

 

Picture somebody telling you that Bethesda was going to do a sequel to Planescape: Torment.

[Sand]

Picture somebody telling you that Bethesda was going to do a sequel to Planescape: Torment.

 

Ew.