27 Things About Fallout 3... and then some.

Status
Not open for further replies.
xdarkyrex said:
To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

I know what a bloody strawman is. I asked how was I strawmanning you.

Vault 69er said:
It is very much part of it. And so is everything else about the game. to make another game, they have to make some new things, why is that hard to understand? Just because something wasn't in Fallout 1 and 2 does NOT make it non-canon, unless it undermines the canon of the first games. Thats how canon works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

It *contradicts* Fallout 1 + 2 and Bethesda is contradicting them for no reason whatsoever.

No, Fallout is TWO games. T W O. A pattern is not defined by TWO things.

I don't care if it's a series of 2 or 2 million. Many, many aspects of this universe have been established, and their cars not exploding when you sneeze on them is one of them.

No, not at all. Not all cars are nuclear.

That's a complete assumption. There's some evidence that this might be so, but to arbitrarily declare that every single car in Junktown wasn't fusion powered even though it was common is ridiculous.
 
That's not quite right. First of all, the game does use the SPECIAL system, and I'd bet money you still upgrade your skills with skill points, so it's not going to be like in oblivion where you have to pummel things with a dagger for hours to get your blade skill up. And the world is going to look a fucking lot different than Oblivion's serene grasslands, or Morrowind's harsh ashlands for that matter. The only things Oblivion shares in common with FO3 is that it uses the same engine, and apparently real-time combat is an option. I can't imagine you have a problem with the game using the Oblivion engine (it's a pretty solid engine, after all). As for real-time combat, I know a lot of you are pretty pissed off about that, but honestly I'm willing to give it a go.

As for not wanting to see a rehash of the previous games: I think I may need to clarify, here. I've played the fallout games so much that I've become tired of them, and indeed tired of the isometric turn-based genre (one of the reasons I never got into the Baldur's Gate games aside from Dark Alliance, actually). I'm not saying Fallout needs a complete dramatic overhaul, but if it was just the same combat and dialogue systems with a shiny new engine and story the game would be kind of boring.

Sander said:
I think 'who says HD is useless' pretty much sums it up. Who, indeed?
Black said:
Isometric games nowadays can't have fully 3d world, hd and other useless shit? Who said so?
Well, Black does, apparently.

Sander said:
Wrong. It's about what the game and the interface is designed around. You can have a free-floating camera, and we wouldn't mind, as long as the interface is designed to work well with an isometric(-like) perspective. Go play the Van Buren demo, you'll see what we mean.
Actually the best thing I can see is an interface that works equally well in normal free-floating view and in isometric, then making a toggle between free-floating and isometric so that you guys can play in isometric the way God intended, and us heathen isometric naysayers can have our controllable camera. Good enough?
 
PhoenixUltima said:
apparently real-time combat is an option.
I'm tired of this.
What is the other option?


Well, Black does, apparently.
Yep, HD is useless shit for me. I couldn't care less about it.
If I recall correctly, F1, F2, Arcanum, Torment didn't have HD.
But hey, don't mind an idiot who's placing gameplay and story above graphics.
 
Phoenix said:
The only things Oblivion shares in common with FO3 is that it uses the same engine, and apparently real-time combat is an option.
There's also the ridiculous minigames, and we have yet to see an example of actual *sensible* choices and consequences. And no, nuke one city or else you don't get into another city ever is not a sensible consequence.

PhoenixUltima said:
As for not wanting to see a rehash of the previous games: I think I may need to clarify, here. I've played the fallout games so much that I've become tired of them, and indeed tired of the isometric turn-based genre (one of the reasons I never got into the Baldur's Gate games aside from Dark Alliance, actually). I'm not saying Fallout needs a complete dramatic overhaul, but if it was just the same combat and dialogue systems with a shiny new engine and story the game would be kind of boring.
And this I don't understand. All I've been able to play, when it comes to new games, over the past *years* have been essentially first-person, real-time games. I don't see how you get tired of Fallout's system, but not of the real-time, first-person crap that pervades the market.

PhoenixUltima said:
Actually the best thing I can see is an interface that works equally well in normal free-floating view and in isometric, then making a toggle between free-floating and isometric so that you guys can play in isometric the way God intended, and us heathen isometric naysayers can have our controllable camera. Good enough?
Yes, that is good enough. Note that we are(or at least, I am) not against a free-floating camera. The isometric view is mostly good because of its predilection for turn-based combat, and the fact that you can strategically view the battlefield.
Again, play the Van Buren tech demo, and you'll see what I mean.
 
PhoenixUltima said:
The only things Oblivion shares in common with FO3 is that it uses the same engine, and apparently real-time combat is an option. I can't imagine you have a problem with the game using the Oblivion engine (it's a pretty solid engine, after all). As for real-time combat, I know a lot of you are pretty pissed off about that, but honestly I'm willing to give it a go.

The Oblivion engine was solid for Oblivion... The engine was probably not one of the game's faults. I am one of those that is willing to wait and see on FO3, but I am not optimistic.

As for not wanting to see a rehash of the previous games: I think I may need to clarify, here. I've played the fallout games so much that I've become tired of them, and indeed tired of the isometric turn-based genre (one of the reasons I never got into the Baldur's Gate games aside from Dark Alliance, actually).

I'm probably in the minority on this forum, but FO and BG make up four of my favorite RPG's. Probably my favorite ones. And DA was a shameful way to whore the series to reach a broader audience, even though I'm told it was a good game, as far as hack-n-slash goes. They should have made it a different series if they made it at all. Hey wait, that is what most people are saying about FO3!!!

It is now obvious to me that we are on opposite sides of the RPG spectrum. <<edit: that sounded critical. It wasn't. It was a flash of insight.
 
After reading this thread it seems like the main dispute is between what some people like and don't like, basically personal preference. The way I see it is, if the man himself Brian Fargo thinks an idea is cool for Fallout 3 then I don't care what anyone else says.

I quote this from GI's site:
http://www.gameinformer.com/Magazine/Insider/Articles/Article/200705/A07.0423.1022.50484.htm?Page=3

GI: Do you feel like Bethesda is a good fit for carrying on the legacy of Fallout?

Fargo: I think they’re in the top three. I don’t think there are many companies who could take that legacy and run with it. I think they’re a great fit. I’m glad it ended up there.


GI: What ideas or gameplay mechanics in your mind should be present to make Fallout 3 a real Fallout experience?

Fargo: It’s all the elements I talked about before. I think the sandbox experience has been ratcheted up a notch, so I think that needs to be played up even more so. And I think it’s time to introduce vehicles. That Mad Max genre – that’s what people are really wanting. So I feel like in this franchise, they really need to be introduced. I don’t know if they’re doing it or not, but it would be great if they were.

It should probably also be a little more action oriented, because, knowing them, they’ll want to release it on console as well. So my guess is that the combat system, you’re going to have to change it from before, if it’s not going to be a pure PC SKU.

GI: Do you think it can still be Fallout without it being a turn-based game?

Fargo: Yeah, I think so. I mean, look at Knights of the Old Republic. That was a nice combo. That’s kind of turn based. I think you can do it along those lines. Just so techy as having movement points and the like. That might not work for today’s gamer.


Well there you have it. Brian Fargo is confident that it will still be "Fallout", so why shouldn't you be?
 
Gemini from CD-Action?


After reading this thread it seems like the main dispute is between what some people like and don't like

Not really.
Example- I don't mind exploding cars in games like Max Payne. I don't want them in Fallout.
Also, tb combat and iso view for Fallout isn't subjective.


The way I see it is, if the man himself Brian Fargo thinks an idea is cool for Fallout 3 then I don't care what anyone else says.
Actually, I don't think that Brian Fargo had THAT much to do with Fallout. 'Brian Fargo presents' and that's it.

Well there you have it. Brian Fargo is confident that it will still be "Fallout", so why shouldn't you be?
See above.
+
Why should we? There's enough information out there and it isn't looking too good.
Hell, it's looking crappy as hell for Fallout game. For another-generic-fps-with-skills-and-inventory it may be cool but we're talking about Fallout here.


Hah, found Brother None's post

No, no, and no, Seraphim. Tim Cain had an idea, Leonard Boyarsky added to it, all Fargo did was not cancel it at any point. He is responsible for the fact that the game exists, but he was not involved in the process of making it.
 
Because we have minds of our own and Brian Fargo is not "the man himself" in a Fallout context by any stretch of the mongoose?
 
G3m1n1 said:
After reading this thread it seems like the main dispute is between what some people like and don't like, basically personal preference. The way I see it is, if the man himself Brian Fargo thinks an idea is cool for Fallout 3 then I don't care what anyone else says.
Brian Fargo had jack shit to do with Fallout's design. And I think that Tim Cain's design is a shitload more relevant to Fallout than Brian Fargo's remarks. You also have to remember that Brian Fargo is in the industry, and isn't going to piss off Bethesda or other publishers for no reason.
 
Does it mean that we can forget about TB mode in W2 (especially that W1 was phase based)?
 
Actually, I don't think that Brian Fargo had THAT much to do with Fallout. 'Brian Fargo presents' and that's it.

That's not true, he made sure that everything put into Fallout was philosophically and psychologically appropriate to the Fallout theme. Fallout came from an idea to do a sequel to Wasteland, which Fargo helped create. Do you really think his name would be on both Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 if he didn't have THAT much to do with them?

Because we have minds of our own and Brian Fargo is not "the man himself" in a Fallout context by any stretch of the mongoose?

So who then exerted creative control over the games? Who determined if a feature or idea was appropriate for Fallout? Brian Fargo perhaps?

Hah, found Brother None's post

Quote:
No, no, and no, Seraphim. Tim Cain had an idea, Leonard Boyarsky added to it, all Fargo did was not cancel it at any point. He is responsible for the fact that the game exists, but he was not involved in the process of making it.

Well, that's just not true actually. Read Brian's own words here. He admits he wasn't too involved with Fallout 2, but after Fallout he really only had to make sure the Fallout vision was blurred or sidetracked.

Game Informer: Both of those first two Fallout games had your name prominently attached to them. Was that a conscious decision of how you wanted to orient the games – with a specific name behind them?

Brian Fargo: That really had more to do with the fact that I had more involvement with this than I did with some of the other series. Typically, when it came to the role-playing games I was most involved in those sort of things. It really goes back to Wasteland. That was my product also that I produced in 1988, and I had always wanted to do a sequel to Wasteland, but we didn’t own the trademark – Electronic Arts did. And I tried to get them to let us use it, but they said, hey, you’re a competitor now. Sorry. And so, I eventually I said, let’s just do our own version of a post-apocalyptic world. Mad Max was my absolute favorite movie at the time. And I had read everything from Stephen King’s The Stand to book called Swansong, which I recommend to anyone who likes post nuclear stuff. One of my favorites. In fact, there’s a scene in Swansong that’s straight out of Wasteland.

So I had always wanted to do something in the category again. So how we started with Fallout was I did something called a vision document. The vision document was, "give me ten reasons why I’m going to want to play this game." "What are the things I’m going to do, and give me an example." So somebody might say in a vision document: “It’s going to be funny!” So I’ll say: “Give me an example of the humor." And if they can’t give an example, I know the game’s not going to be funny. So I was very heavily involved in creating this ten point vision document. So I worked with Tim and Feargus to create that, so that whether it’s mood, combat, flexibility in gameplay – I was really heavily involved in that. Basically, the way that I was involved after that was that I would come in and out of the project. So, I wasn’t literally there, saying, "I think we should have more gold here," or this hooker should say that. It was that I was trying to make sure we stayed true to what we were supposed to be creating, especially from my experience with Wasteland, there were some critical philosophical and psychological points that needed to come across and happen in Fallout. Then I became much more involved towards the back end, which was I had a game to play, so I could start giving pages and pages of comments. So that was very much my involvement with Fallout 1.

Fallout 2 I was much less involved in, to be honest. I was certainly involved in the vision document, and the team, but not nearly so much as with the first one.

Why should we? There's enough information out there and it isn't looking too good.
Hell, it's looking crappy as hell for Fallout game. For another-generic-fps-with-skills-and-inventory it may be cool but we're talking about Fallout here.

You do know that a thrid-person view will most likely be available right? It was announced as being an option for those who may not like first-person.
 
You do know that a thrid-person view will most likely be available right? It was announced as being an option for those who may not like first-person.
Morrowind and Oblivion also had tpp... Not that it was really playable but hey, it was in!
The same goes for isometric view in FO3.
It's in, it's not really playable but it's in.
 
So basically Brian Fargo was a glorified playtester for Fallout.. of course that means his public statements override Tim Cain & co's original design goals! Silly me. :roll:
 
Black said:
You do know that a thrid-person view will most likely be available right? It was announced as being an option for those who may not like first-person.
Morrowind and Oblivion also had tpp... Not that it was really playable but hey, it was in!
The same goes for isometric view in FO3.
It's in, it's not really playable but it's in.

You misunderstand, the third-person view they talked about will be completely playable, according to Bethesda. They specifically commented on the virtually unplayable nature of Oblivion's third-person view and said that wouldn't be the case in Fallout 3.


So basically Brian Fargo was a glorified playtester for Fallout.. of course that means his public statements override Tim Cain & co's original design goals! Silly me. Rolling Eyes

Wow, way to grossly understate the facts. Are you studying to be a politician?
 
G3m1n1 said:
You misunderstand, the third-person view they talked about will be completely playable, according to Bethesda. They specifically commented on the virtually unplayable nature of Oblivion's third-person view and said that wouldn't be the case in Fallout 3.

And yet they haven't shown a single instance of it in action. Not a single demonstration of how the UI handles 3rd person/iso, not a single gameplay movie in those perspective, not one shot of that perspective indoors.
All we have are promises. And Bethesda's promises are always shall we say.. grander than the final product.

Wow, way to understate the facts. Are you studying to be a politician?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Both from what Fargo said and what his role was with Fallout 1. Do you honestly think his decisions carried more weight than Tim Cain's?
 
G3m1n1 said:
You misunderstand, the third-person view they talked about will be completely playable, according to Bethesda.

Exactly :D

Now, let's go back in time (ok, let's pretend we're back in time), Morrowind is in developement, ask one of the devs if it's tpp will be playable...

Now, let's move forward in time, Oblivion is in developement, ask the same question.

Yeah, that's what I thought.
 
Vault 69er said:
G3m1n1 said:
You misunderstand, the third-person view they talked about will be completely playable, according to Bethesda. They specifically commented on the virtually unplayable nature of Oblivion's third-person view and said that wouldn't be the case in Fallout 3.

And yet they haven't shown a single instance of it in action. Not a single demonstration of how the UI handles 3rd person/iso, not a single gameplay movie in those perspective, not one shot of that perspective indoors.
All we have are promises. And Bethesda's promises are always shall we say.. grander than the final product.


Aren't everyone's promises grander than the final product? The game is more than a year out, and you want to see evidence of every single feature talked about or mentioned. That's absurd.


Exactly :D

Now, let's go back in time (ok, let's pretend we're back in time), Morrowind is in developement, ask one of the devs if it's tpp will be playable...

Now, let's move forward in time, Oblivion is in developement, ask the same question.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And? Did Bethesda ever say third-person will be playable in Morrowind or Oblivion? Can you cite these remarks? You asked the question yet failed to answer it.
 
G3m1n1 said:
Aren't everyone's promises grander than the final product? The game is more than a year out, and you want to see evidence of every single feature talked about or mentioned. That's absurd.

They spent copious amounts of time on showing their omgsowonderfullol Megaton quest and "hilarious" killer ticketbots and exploding nuclear cars but couldn't take a second to show Fallout 3's gameplay in iso even though it's supposed to be the direct successor of an isometric series?
 
Vault 69er said:
G3m1n1 said:
Aren't everyone's promises grander than the final product? The game is more than a year out, and you want to see evidence of every single feature talked about or mentioned. That's absurd.

They spent copious amounts of time on showing their omgsowonderfullol Megaton quest and "hilarious" killer ticketbots and exploding nuclear cars but couldn't take a second to show Fallout 3's gameplay in iso even though it's supposed to be the direct successor of an isometric series?

So are you assuming that this is the last we will see of Fallout 3 until it's released? Are you certain that feature or ideas will or will not change during the time until the game is released?
 
G3m1n1 said:
And? Did Bethesda ever say third-person will be playable in Morrowind or Oblivion? Can you cite these remarks? You asked the question yet failed to answer it.
No, I don't have any quotes. I think we'll have to roll with something called "common sense".
What do you think they would say about Morrowind's and Oblivion's tpp? Playable or unplayable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top