Jump to content

BREAKING NEWS: NEW EXCLUSIVE FALLOUT 3 TRAILER


Recommended Posts

Its the only way for Bethesda to be part of a "Legend" in the PC RPG game franchise history that will be likely to remain classic for many more years to come.

 

Oblivion on the other hand? I think everyone's forgotten about it by now.

Edited by Zoma
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm fully expecting a more role-playey (great word there) STALKER. If it manages to bring me back into the Fallout/Wasteland mood, even better. I don't expect it to be able to do that though. It can still be a good game, despite not being what everyone wishes it to be.

 

Certainly that would be better than nothing.

RS_Silvestri_01.jpg

 

"I'm a programmer at a games company... REET GOOD!" - Me

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that, Zoma. PlanetElderscrolls.com is still going strong and getting new Oblivion content every day.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care what the game is like as long as it doesn't suck. And frankly, shooting teddy bears at raiders smells like suck to me. Not so much the actual act itself, but if that is the tone Bethesda has gone for, if that is the level of silliness and irreverence that they have gone for, if that is what Todd Howard thinks is "cool" in a crpg, then well, hmmm...

Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it is an easter egg and not the meat of the game it is no silly than finding a crashed Federation shuttle pod or the TARDIS.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as it is an easter egg and not the meat of the game it is no silly than finding a crashed Federation shuttle pod or the TARDIS.

 

 

True. But even the idea of a gun that hurls junk is pretty insipid. From what I understand part of Bethesda's design approach is to throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks. Probably some dev asked: "What can we do with all this junk that we are putting in the loot containers?" And some other dev said: "I know! Lets make a gun and let the pc shoot all their junk at enemies!" and they all laughed and said "WOw what a great idea! All the hoi polloi will really love it."

 

I woudl have prefered to see a Feces Flinger that allowed me to fling giant chunks of super mutant poo at my enemies. Now that's a chuckle!

Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The gun shoots any object, not just teddy bears, kind of like the gravity gun in HL2, what's wrong with that? As far as Oblivion being already forgotten, it starts a flame war every time the name is mentioned, so I don't think so.

"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan

Link to post
Share on other sites
The gun shoots any object, not just teddy bears

 

No one claimed that

 

It is still as retarted

How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them.

- OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its the only way for Bethesda to be part of a "Legend" in the PC RPG game franchise history that will be likely to remain classic for many more years to come.

 

Oblivion on the other hand? I think everyone's forgotten about it by now.

 

That doesn't even make any sense. The people constantly complaining about Fallout 3 being "Oblivion with Guns" have forgotten about Oblivion? You contradict yourself by the very fact that you are talking about it.

 

I don't care what the game is like as long as it doesn't suck. And frankly, shooting teddy bears at raiders smells like suck to me. Not so much the actual act itself, but if that is the tone Bethesda has gone for, if that is the level of silliness and irreverence that they have gone for, if that is what Todd Howard thinks is "cool" in a crpg, then well, hmmm...

 

There is a launcher weapon in the game that apparently allows you to use the junk you find as ammunition. In one of the demonstration videos even Todd mentions that launching teddy bears is pretty ridiculous. Do you really think this is an important part of Fallout 3, and an example of what the game is all about, or are you just looking for stuff to complain about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The gun shoots any object, not just teddy bears, kind of like the gravity gun in HL2, what's wrong with that?

 

Well, to say that least, it does not exactly fit within the Fallout universe and seems like a bad gravity gun clone. :shifty:

"A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation."
-H. H. Munro

 

"Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum."

-Hurlshot

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The gun shoots any object, not just teddy bears

 

No one claimed that

 

No, but they are focusing on it to a ridiculous degree.

 

Any preview that is at all positive is accused of being nothing more than a copy of the press release, and any silly thing is focused on as being a major part of the game. People decided they didn't like the game a long time ago, and now they're simply looking for evidence to justify their position.

 

Well, to say that least, it does not exactly fit within the Fallout universe and seems like a bad gravity gun clone.

 

As far as silly nonsense in the Fallout games is concerned, this ranks pretty low. Of course I've no doubt when you make mention of the "Fallout universe" you're not including the stuff you don't like.

 

As for a gravity gun clone, that doesn't even make any sense. It doesn't allow you to move objects around, it's a rocket launcher that uses junk as ammunition.

Edited by Hell Kitty
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt the junk launcher is just a small part of the game, an easter egg to some degree, as Sand points out. Which is fine, OK, I can ignore it. I ignore tons of crappy design issues in Oblivion, so ignoring one small one in Fallout 3 shouldn't be a problem.

 

My issue is that Todd Howard obviously think's shooting teddy bears at raiders is cool. He thinks it cool enough to show off repeatedly on an E3 playthrough. He doesn't think that shooting teddy bears at raiders clashes with all his talk about a serious and mature and dark and gritty gameworld. If he doesn't think so, then there may very well be other bigger issues with the game.

 

Right now, I see a game where the focus is blowing body parts off of people in slow motion, nuclear explosions, and teddy bear combat.

 

That's what I see because THAT IS MOST OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SHOWN.

 

If Todd Howard has more depth and content that wil show me that there is more to this game, then all he has to do is show it and I will shut up and stop trying to guess what the game is going to be like.

 

 

edit: I forgot about the beards. Most beards ever in a game. Or something. Haven't actually seen that though. Just what we've been told.

Edited by CrashGirl
Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no doubt the junk launcher is just a small part of the game, an easter egg to some degree, as Sand points out.

 

It's just another weapon. It's not a "crappy design issue", it's just something you don't like. See: Pop's post.

 

Todd Howard obviously think's shooting teddy bears at raiders is ridiculous.

 

Fixed.

 

Actually I do think Howard is pretty bad at showing off games, but then you're pretty bad when it comes to what to focus on, so it all evens out. See: beards.

 

Read that interview I linked to. No, on second thought, don't bother, becauseanything that sounds remotely positive probably isn't true anyway. Obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep... I don't think anybody has a problem with the teddy bear launcher being in there as an easter egg... or if they do have a problem, its not that big a deal. The problem is how it's taken up half the E3 coverage with Todd and 'journalists' like that Adam Sessler going WOW THATS COOL DUDE x50. I mean, how would you feel if Chris Avellone went to E3 1998 (or whatever) and spent half his time showing people the holy grenade easter egg and talking about how cool that is?

 

There's 2 things that are probably interrelated. One, Todd & co. actually think that's the coolest thing about their game, and it's really driven how they've made the game. Two, based on whatever market research or imagination or whatever they've done, they decided that it's going to be a very effective market strategy to talk about this stuff and nearly completely exclude actual RPG elements. (1) tells you that the game is not going to be very good an RPG (though it might be good at other things); (2) may be being 'realistic', but that doesn't mean I have to applaud them for being so radically 'realistic' about the market to the point that they're pretty much showering fans of the franchise with mud as they splash by with their fast cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust is earned, not freely given.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no doubt the junk launcher is just a small part of the game, an easter egg to some degree, as Sand points out.

 

It's just another weapon. It's not a "crappy design issue", it's just something you don't like. See: Pop's post.

 

Todd Howard obviously think's shooting teddy bears at raiders is ridiculous.

 

Fixed.

 

Actually I do think Howard is pretty bad at showing off games, but then you're pretty bad when it comes to what to focus on, so it all evens out. See: beards.

 

Read that interview I linked to. No, on second thought, don't bother, becauseanything that sounds remotely positive probably isn't true anyway. Obviously.

 

 

I think I already read that one. Its hard to keep track since they are all pretty similar.

 

 

Its not just another weapon. Its a ridiculous weapon used in a ludicrous way. If Todd Howard comes out and says: "Fallout 3 is a farcical game where you shouldn't take anythingly seriously in it; it's all just meant to make you laugh" then fine, the junk launcher fits right in. That's not the way he and Pete Hines have been selling Fallout though.

 

 

The beard comment was intended just the way you read it. I focused on it, bceucase Pete Hines focused on it. That was my entirely my point.

Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How often do videos for RPGs show off actual "RPG elements"? I remember when the reaction to the Vampire Bloodlines video on the Interplay forums was "oh, it's an FPS".

 

I think it's more a case of use the video to sell the game to shooty blam blam fans, and the expectation that RPG fans, rightly or wrongly might be willing to dig a little deeper for info, like, say, read the interview I linked to earlier. Sure, you can still dismiss it all as lies or whatever, but the info is there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How often do videos for RPGs show off actual "RPG elements"? I remember when the reaction to the Vampire Bloodlines video on the Interplay forums was "oh, it's an FPS".

 

I think it's more a case of use the video to sell the game to shooty blam blam fans, and the expectation that RPG fans, rightly or wrongly might be willing to dig a little deeper for info, like, say, read the interview I linked to earlier. Sure, you can still dismiss it all as lies or whatever, but the info is there.

 

 

So what are you saying, that crpg fans are the only ones who can read? That Bethesda has a innovative marketing strategy of putting all rpg-releated info into text and all goofy blow stuff up into video?

 

Is that the article where the person doing the playthrough tralks about meeting the boy in the town overrun with ants? And he has dislogue options that range from being polite to rude? And the kid tosses off a couple fbombs?

 

 

Here's dialogue from one of the main quests in Oblivion. The Battle for Castle Kvatch. Its from memory, but I believe its totaly accurate:

 

 

Savlian Mattius: Where is the count? WHy is he not with you?

 

 

PC:

 

Reply 1) I'm sorry he didn't make it.

Reply 2) Face down in a bucket of blood.

 

If you choose reply 1, Savlian gives you his (crappy) magic armor. If you choose reply 2 his dispositon drops and he gets all pissy. Other than the use of Fbombs, I fail to see any difference between that and the ant town dialogues with the kid. What we are told is that there are larger impacts of negative responses in Fallout 3 then Oblivion. Great. Nobody's actually really seen that in action yet, as far as I know.

 

We were also told the radiant AI in Oblivion was going to be groundbreaking. It turned out to be retarded.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with holding off taking their word for something until I actually see it.

Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not just another weapon. Its a ridiculous weapon used in a ludicrous way.

 

Whatever gets your knickers in a knot. Sounds like a boring weapon to me that I probably won't bother using. I have more of an issue with Fallout 2 featuring both imaginary generic weapons and specific real life weapons. One or the other please. I also don't try to claim it's anything more than a personal gripe.

 

If Todd Howard comes out and says: "Fallout 3 is a farcical game where you shouldn't take anythingly seriously in it; it's all just meant to make you laugh" then fine, the junk launcher fits right in.

 

So it's either "everything in this game is serious" or "everything in this game is silly"? Basically you've decided that Fallout 3 is a silly game that shouldn't be taken seriously because it includes a launcher uses junk as ammunition. As long as that's in the game nothing else matters, and you want Howard to "admit" this so you can be proven right and give yourself a pat on the back.

 

That's not the way he and Pete Hines have been selling Fallout though.

 

Because funnily enough stuff you might fun silly or humorous isn't the focus of the game, just like the previous Fallouts!

 

I focused on it, bceucase Pete Hines focused on it.

 

Since when does mentioning something equal focusing on it? Please provide a link to the interview he gave in which beards was the focus. Now you definitely shouldn't read that interview I linked because at some point Pete mentions humour. He also talks quite a bit about achievements. You heard it here folks, Fallout 3 is going to be all about achievements and everything in the game is going to revolve around collecting them. Todd Howard should just come out and admit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing Bethesda does not do well is dialogue.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not just another weapon. Its a ridiculous weapon used in a ludicrous way.

 

Whatever gets your knickers in a knot. Sounds like a boring weapon to me that I probably won't bother using. I have more of an issue with Fallout 2 featuring both imaginary generic weapons and specific real life weapons. One or the other please. I also don't try to claim it's anything more than a personal gripe.

 

Why are you bring up previous iterations of Fallout? I never did.

 

 

If Todd Howard comes out and says: "Fallout 3 is a farcical game where you shouldn't take anythingly seriously in it; it's all just meant to make you laugh" then fine, the junk launcher fits right in.

 

So it's either "everything in this game is serious" or "everything in this game is silly"? Basically you've decided that Fallout 3 is a silly game that shouldn't be taken seriously because it includes a launcher uses junk as ammunition. As long as that's in the game nothing else matters, and you want Howard to "admit" this so you can be proven right and give yourself a pat on the back.

 

 

Nope. Totally wrong interpretation of what I said. I am trying to rationalize the things Pete Hines and Todd Howard have said about the game with the things they actually shown us in the game. If TOdd Howard says the world is serious and dark and then makes a big deal of shooting raiders with teddy bears, then I try to make those pieces fit together as best I can. Of course a game that is dark and somber and gritty and mature and adult (I believe Pete and TOdd have used all these words to describe the gameworld at variosu times) can have moments of humor and levity. But don't just show us the levity, show us the grimness and the darkness as well. But they refuse to do that for whatever reason. SO I'm left with the assumption that the focus in Fallout 3 is going to be goofy humor and exploding bodies and nuclear explosions.

 

That's not the way he and Pete Hines have been selling Fallout though.

 

Because funnily enough stuff you might fun silly or humorous isn't the focus of the game, just like the previous Fallouts!

 

 

What do the previous Fallouts have to do it Fallout 3? They were made by a different company and different developers ten years ago.

 

 

I focused on it, bceucase Pete Hines focused on it.

 

Since when does mentioning something equal focusing on it? Please provide a link to the interview he gave in which beards was the focus. Now you definitely shouldn't read that interview I linked because at some point Pete mentions humour. He also talks quite a bit about achievements. You heard it here folks, Fallout 3 is going to be all about achievements and everything in the game is going to revolve around collecting them. Todd Howard should just come out and admit it.

 

He talked about it in his fan Q and A. I posted the link a few pages back. As I recall he brought up the beard thing without even been prompted. So I guess he thought it was worth talking about. I agree he probably doesn't think it is the most important thing in the game. But I don't either, which is why I added it back into my post as an editl.

Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So what are you saying, that crpg fans are the only ones who can read? That Bethesda has a innovative marketing strategy of putting all rpg-releated info into text and all goofy blow stuff up into video?

 

Promotional material focusing on style rather than substance is nothing new. When you see trailers for summer blockbuster movies do you wonder why they focus more on action than character development? Do you think everyone who watches movie trailers also has a subscription to Empire?

 

An RPG generally requires more from the player than a simple action action, a greater investment of time and energy. It's really not a crazy assumption to think that RPG fans might like to dig a little deeper for info on their favourite genre.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with holding off taking their word for something until I actually see it.

 

There is nothing wrong with taking a "wait and see" attitude, but when you only do that with anything that sounds good, while assuming anything that sounds bad is the absolute truth and representative of the game as a whole, then it's obvious you've already made your choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...