Fallout

[TwinkieGorilla]

All I ordered is something tasty and Fallout 3 is tasty. Certainly it isn't gourmet quality, but it is buffalo wings and ranch dressing tasty.

 

As in all areas of life the lower your expectations are, the lower your chances for disappointment. Hopefully for your sake you don't choose your dates or mates that way ("Yeah, I've got AIDS now but all I wanted was to get laid, and I got laid!")

 

 

 

 

p.s. yes I am saying Fallout 3 is like AIDS.

 

[mkreku]

You know why Van Buren is so good in the minds of the nerdcore? Because it was never made. It's untouchable.

 

But I love that some dudes are still fapping vehemently over it.

[Starwars]

Nah, it's because the design documents revealed that there was a lot of good stuff and great design ideas in the game. There are quite a few things in it that I'm not so crazy about but on paper (which obviously doesn't mean in practice) I'd say it looked a lot better than both Fallout 2 and Fallout 3. Again, on paper. But still, there are many great ideas in there.

 

And yep, if there's one thing I'm really hoping for them to carry over in New Vegas, it's the idea of rewarding the different character focuses (combat, science, stealth and speech). The science stuff in particular looked really cool.

[Pop]

There are a number of things I really liked about Van Buren, enough that I attempted to recreate it on pen and paper (let it be said now that the vanilla Fallout system is really hard to get right in a tabletop setting. SIMPLE looked promising but even with some help from Josh it was unfinished and difficult to navigate.) Some of the things -

 

1. The aforementioned "Science/Combat/Speech Boy" character system - Where different character archetypes had relatively distinct playthrough experiences. Like how a Doctor / Science character could cure jet addiction and augment himself with bionic plates in Fallout 2, but on a wider scale. The design documents of the game areas make clear that this was something that the game was designed around.

 

2. The planned reactivity of the game world and the general design centered around a "rival group" - This is the thing that would've been hardest to implement, but it sounds cool. Basically the villain and his cronies are not sitting at the end of the game waiting for you as they do in most games. Presper and his dudes have their own agenda (several steps ahead of yours, by necessity) and depending on where you are in the critical path, they will be at different stages of implementation of that agenda. For example, I believe they started out in Boulder. If you traveled to Boulder before a certain point you could actually meet Presper, although you wouldn't know he's the Big Bad at that point. If you show up in Boulder later, or first arrive there after a certain point, he's not there anymore. As well there were certain far-reaching consequences to your actions, particularly as they related to certain in-game factions like the Daughters of Hecate or the Reservation Ghouls.

 

3. Interesting villain - I liked the idea of Presper a lot. Even though he was more outlandish (Fallout 2-ish?) in his original incarnation before he was adapted by MCA - Presper was originally a prewar scientist awoken from cryostasis after the war, and in MCA's version he was an advisor to NCR President Tandi who goes rogue as the NCR dissolves. ULYSSES and ARGOS were interesting as well, and the Limit 15 virus angle, while left fairly mysterious in the design documents, was a pretty good twist in the story.

 

4. Locations, locations, locations - There were 2 design documents that creeped the **** out of me, Reservation and Boulder, particularly Reservation. Some of them I didn't like (Jericho / New Canaan, specifically) but most had interesting areas and questlines. The idea of infiltrating the waterlogged depths of the Hoover Dam was really interesting.

 

5. Odds and Ends - There were just little planned cool things that were neat, but not really "awesome game material" on their own. For instance there were numerous ways by which the player could "give up" and end the game early ala Fallout 1.

 

I'm not expecting a lot of it to show up again in New Vegas - I'm expecting it to be more or less its own game, and besides there were some things from Van Buren that I think ended up being recycled into existing Obsidz games (specifically, there were some nods to the VB endgame at the beginning of KOTORII, and the whole Telos thing was sort of reminiscent of the Nursery. All that could just be me, though.)

Edited January 9, 2010 by Pop

[Tigranes]

Van Buren received a lot of criticism, doubt and in fact the same kind of discussion about whether it is Fallout-y during its development. The marked difference was that it was evident the developers were trying a lot harder to recreate the original Fallouts in every sense of the word, whereas Bethesda deliberately wanted to, to a large extent, reimagine the series. Thus, those unhappy with the way in which Bethesda reimagined the series, or didn't even want a reimagining, obviously have accumulated a somewhat unfairly positive sense of nostalgia about VB. But the core difference is sound.

 

Ironically, I was very happy with one of the biggest ways in which Bethesda re-imagined the series; the transformation into a persistent 3D world that you explore in first-person view. The exploration was really good, much better than in MW and OB i think. The decision to go for real-time combat, in the context of such a game-world, did sort of come in tandem, and I think the pity is really that it just wasn't very good or balanced, not that it was real-time.

 

In fact, even more ironic, is the fact that the areas of FO3 that the 'insane hardcore fans' that killed mkreku's dog criticise the most, isn't the areas in which Bethesda changed Fallout. It's the areas in which Bethesda tried their best to stay true to the series and recreate the feel of the original Fallouts. The story. The moral ambiguity. The SPECIAL. The choice and consequences. The sardonic style. The 'R18' parts. The black humour. The dog. Apart from some extremists who will accept nothing other than a turn-based 2D Fallout (by the way, mkreku, that is very much a minority even amongst your hated enemies ), most people who felt FO3 was not a 'true' Fallout did so because of these areas.

 

It was sort of inevitable because Bethesda, both as a collection of individual people and as a corporate entity, have a vastly different culture, attitude and principles in terms of game design and what is 'cool' or 'fun'. A 'Fallouty' FO3 was never going to happen if Bethesda made it, that's just not their thing, and that's not their 'fault'. I think as far as it was reasonable, Bethesda did hit a good balance in their direction, a good level of compromise between what they do well and the essence of Fallout. My only regret is that the implementation was pretty poor in some crucial areas, so that it remains a not-very-Fallouty-but-very-fun-game.

[Kjarista]

EDIT: @Dogmeat - hey, I never played Oblivion and never will. I hate Bethesda's style of game and only played FO3 because it was...well...Fallout, and even BOS deserved a shot back in the day. Also, I will never, ever be happy about receiving spaghetti when I've ordered pizza. If the chefs make me a special surprise pizza which is actually good, despite the fact it's not exactly what I ordered, I'm sure I'd be pleasantly surprised. Change my order too much and you've simply got an angry customer.

 

That argument, of course, cuts both ways. As a Fan of Beth style sandbox games, I expected a Beth style game and I got one. If Obsidian delivers something sufficiently similar, i will buy it. Otherwise, i will consider buying it.

 

What I won't do, however, is bitch about it for years if it turns out to be a game I don't like.

[Starwars]

In fact, even more ironic, is the fact that the areas of FO3 that the 'insane hardcore fans' that killed mkreku's dog criticise the most, isn't the areas in which Bethesda changed Fallout. It's the areas in which Bethesda tried their best to stay true to the series and recreate the feel of the original Fallouts. The story. The moral ambiguity. The SPECIAL. The choice and consequences. The sardonic style. The 'R18' parts. The black humour. The dog. Apart from some extremists who will accept nothing other than a turn-based 2D Fallout (by the way, mkreku, that is very much a minority even amongst your hated enemies ), most people who felt FO3 was not a 'true' Fallout did so because of these areas.

 

It's funny because when it was first announced that Beth was setting the game on the East Coast, I thought it was a *great* idea. I was one of the people who never thought that stuff like the factions (BoS, Super Mutants, Enclave), characters and that stuff was what made Fallout Fallout. And so I was actually really looking forward to seeing what Bethesda could come up with for Washington in terms of the story and all that. I thought it'd be great because A) it'd be exciting to head to new territory, see new factions and stuff and it'd allow Beth to put their own stamp on it and B) it would save them the trouble of having to make sure everything fits story/faction/lore wise with the other two games.

 

So I was really disappointed when I saw how much of that returned, and how much of it that was in my opinion totally screwed up when compared to the other two games. *That* was the area where I wanted Bethesda to do new stuff, to populate Washington with their own creations and so forth. But it all pretty much turned out the way I did not want it. Factions returned, even characters, plot items. While the gameplay was remade completely and re-fitted into the gamebryo Elder Scrolls style.

SPECIAL remained but was butchered and stripped down. The general roleplaying and writing was a step up from Oblivion to be sure but still left a lot to be desired (really came apparant when I tried to replay the game with a totally different character than my first).

 

The one area where I think they did really well was the visual side of things. While there some bits I don't like (the Super Mutants for example), I think they did really well in transferring the "50s of the future" vibe to 3d. And some places, when you're out in the wasteland, are just really eerie when you look around. I'd say that excelled in that for the most part.

[Slowtrain]

You know why Van Buren is so good in the minds of the nerdcore? Because it was never made. It's untouchable.

 

But I love that some dudes are still fapping vehemently over it.

 

 

That's true, but it's almost always the case isn't it?

 

In American football the best player on the team is always the backup quaterback, until he actually has to play...

[TwinkieGorilla]

Van Buren received a lot of criticism, doubt and in fact the same kind of discussion about whether it is Fallout-y during its development. The marked difference was that it was evident the developers were trying a lot harder to recreate the original Fallouts in every sense of the word, whereas Bethesda deliberately wanted to, to a large extent, reimagine the series. Thus, those unhappy with the way in which Bethesda reimagined the series, or didn't even want a reimagining, obviously have accumulated a somewhat unfairly positive sense of nostalgia about VB. But the core difference is sound.

 

Ironically, I was very happy with one of the biggest ways in which Bethesda re-imagined the series; the transformation into a persistent 3D world that you explore in first-person view. The exploration was really good, much better than in MW and OB i think. The decision to go for real-time combat, in the context of such a game-world, did sort of come in tandem, and I think the pity is really that it just wasn't very good or balanced, not that it was real-time.

 

In fact, even more ironic, is the fact that the areas of FO3 that the 'insane hardcore fans' that killed mkreku's dog criticise the most, isn't the areas in which Bethesda changed Fallout. It's the areas in which Bethesda tried their best to stay true to the series and recreate the feel of the original Fallouts. The story. The moral ambiguity. The SPECIAL. The choice and consequences. The sardonic style. The 'R18' parts. The black humour. The dog. Apart from some extremists who will accept nothing other than a turn-based 2D Fallout (by the way, mkreku, that is very much a minority even amongst your hated enemies ), most people who felt FO3 was not a 'true' Fallout did so because of these areas.

 

It was sort of inevitable because Bethesda, both as a collection of individual people and as a corporate entity, have a vastly different culture, attitude and principles in terms of game design and what is 'cool' or 'fun'. A 'Fallouty' FO3 was never going to happen if Bethesda made it, that's just not their thing, and that's not their 'fault'. I think as far as it was reasonable, Bethesda did hit a good balance in their direction, a good level of compromise between what they do well and the essence of Fallout. My only regret is that the implementation was pretty poor in some crucial areas, so that it remains a not-very-Fallouty-but-very-fun-game.

 

Damn. That was an excellent post, mang. Well said (though I don't necessarily agree 100% on every aspect of it, still a great diplomatic post).

 

 

What I won't do, however, is bitch about it for years if it turns out to be a game I don't like.

 

Um...congratulations? I guess? Way to assert yourself as a shining beacon of light (hehe) on an internet message board? You do realize everything about my obsessiveness is something I admit to yet is limited to the fairly superficial realm of the internet, right (like, my friends, family, girlfriend and I don't exactly discuss "what I've posted about Fallout today").

 

So I was really disappointed when I saw how much of that returned.

 

This is actually a very interesting discussion and one I've had many times since pre-release. I think Bethesda knew that they had to make a game which would and could cash in on something tried and true so the best "first step" in owning the franchise is to revive a dead series while keeping a great deal of familiarity with what made the game a favorite for so long. I don't have much invested emotionally in FO4 because FO3 was such a letdown, but it will certainly be interesting to see if Bethesda are capable of creating something as memorable as any of the beloved factions, characters, lines of dialogue...etc as the original games did. I certainly won't be holding my breath.

 

The one area where I think they did really well was the visual side of things.

 

The one major credit I will give them.

Edited January 10, 2010 by TwinkieGorilla

[Killian Kalthorne]

I don't really give a damn about games that fail to be released. Van Buren failed. May it be on part of its design or the design of its publisher and developers, it failed. Whinging on about it years and years and years later doesn't change the fact that it failed. Only thing that matters are the games that have been released. I use to whinge on and on about crap on how things are in name only but then I realize that is just a bunch of elitist bullocks. The only thing that matters in a game, regardless if it is called Fallout 3 or Ring-Around-The-Roses is that the game is fun. If a game is fun to play then it is worth playing. If it isn't fun to play, then toss it aside, forget about it, and find a game that is fun to play.

 

Life is to short to whine about such irrelevancy.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Whinging on about it years and years and years later doesn't change the fact that it failed.

 

Who the heck are you talking about? I've certainly seen people lament that the game never got made but who whines about that fact? People exclaim, usually in detail (or with a series of fairly purple adjectives), about how and why Fallout 3 deserves it's "Failout 3" title. But whine about VanBuren? What?

[Malcador]

Wait, how did Van Buren fail ? Didn't it just die due to the studio dissolving ?

[Radek Smektala]

Wait, how did Van Buren fail ?

 

To materialize

[Malcador]

Wait, how did Van Buren fail ?

 

To materialize

 

 

Hah, well you've got me there.

[jaguars4ever]

Wait, how did Van Buren fail ?

 

To materialize

 

 

Hah, well you've got me there.

-for I've got you.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Whinging on about it years and years and years later doesn't change the fact that it failed.

 

Who the heck are you talking about? I've certainly seen people lament that the game never got made but who whines about that fact? People exclaim, usually in detail (or with a series of fairly purple adjectives), about how and why Fallout 3 deserves it's "Failout 3" title. But whine about VanBuren? What?

 

They are whining about what will never be when they should focus on things that part of reality. If these people don't like what Fallout 3 is then they should not bother to play it. If these people don't like the fact that Van Buren failed then they shouldn't buy products from those responsible for its failure. Going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on years later is tiresome. Move on already!

[TwinkieGorilla]

They

 

Who?! I asked you "who", partner. I get the message you're spewing out in the ether, but I'm asking you "who" is whining about VanBuren? As I said, when the topic comes up I see people lament about the way things went and the fact some of those great ideas will never be realized, but who is whining and where is this happening? Calling Fallout 3 crap and lamenting about the demise of Interplay (and VB along with it) are not parallel lines reaching the same end. They're two different things. Also, VanBuren didn't fail...Herve and Interplay failed. Big difference. Alsoplustoo, do you honestly think Bethesda had something to do with Interplay's failure to manage their business? Really, dude? Really?

[Slowtrain]

They are whining about what will never be when they should focus on things that part of reality. If these people don't like what Fallout 3 is then they should not bother to play it. If these people don't like the fact that Van Buren failed then they shouldn't buy products from those responsible for its failure. Going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on years later is tiresome. Move on already!

 

 

*shrugs*

 

It doesn't bother me. It's in the nature of people to focus on and repeat the things that are important to them. Having emotional attachments and commitments to things, ideas, desires, beliefs, is what make people interesting.

 

And just looking at things a bit more philosphically: nobody who was satisfied with the status quo ever changed the world.

[Oner]

And just looking at things a bit more philosphically: nobody who was satisfied with the status quo ever changed the world.

Now someone's going to say "But this is just a video game!"

[Slowtrain]

And just looking at things a bit more philosphically: nobody who was satisfied with the status quo ever changed the world.

Now someone's going to say "But this is just a video game!"

 

 

And then I am going to say: It's a video game forum. That's what we talk about here.

 

The things that one focuses on while on a video game forum are not neccessarily the things that are focused on in other times and areas of one's life.

[Nihilus5078]

Seems like we've drifted light years off topic.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Nihilus5078

[Killian Kalthorne]

They

 

Who?! I asked you "who", partner. I get the message you're spewing out in the ether, but I'm asking you "who" is whining about VanBuren? As I said, when the topic comes up I see people lament about the way things went and the fact some of those great ideas will never be realized, but who is whining and where is this happening? Calling Fallout 3 crap and lamenting about the demise of Interplay (and VB along with it) are not parallel lines reaching the same end. They're two different things. Also, VanBuren didn't fail...Herve and Interplay failed. Big difference. Alsoplustoo, do you honestly think Bethesda had something to do with Interplay's failure to manage their business? Really, dude? Really?

 

Who? The NMA peeps. The RPGCodex freaks. Those types of people who haven't joined the 21st century of gaming yet.

[Oner]

Van Buren would've been published after 01.01.2000.

[Starwars]

Van Buren would've been published after 01.01.2000.

 

[Killian Kalthorne]

Yeah, but the current century started in 2001. HA!