360 Gamer Hands-On Preview

[mulaalia]

Considering Bethesdas previous titles, story is going to be generic and bland, so my question is: what is the strongest part of Fallout 3?I'll tell you, marketing, manipulation and a new improved PR manger that makes sense







[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XREnvJRkif0&feature=related[/youtube]





take care.....

 

[Brother None]

My only beef is for those that expect a nonlinear game to look and play JUST as smooth in every element as an intensely dedicated game like Killzone 2 will be, and in the same span of time.

If you can't implement a lot of elements well, implement less elements.

A big game that sucks at everything it does (Oblivion) is by definition worse than either big games that do succeed (any GTA) or more focused, linear titles.

If Bethesda can't handle the size of the title, they should make it smaller. Quality should never suffer for quantity.

 

[Outbreak]

@Brother None: Right. That's the key term though, 'well', not 'perfectly'. That was my only point there. I don't like the expectations being TOO high, but certainly not pathetic. There should just be some room for error. Just like Fallout 3's combat looking like Far Cry 2 or even Killzone 1 is good to very good, while looking like Halo 1 or Oblivion is bad. Movement/animation similar to Oblivion in F3 is already an example of a bad move/failure. It was the first thing I noticed in videos.

Anyway, I had a big discussion about a similar issue with GTA IV failing in some fairly big departments, (such as a consistent lack of enterable buildings/interactive world) and my suggestion there was the same as yours...stop focusing so much on size and focus more on quality, because at the moment, it sometimes appears as if developers are saying, "look what I can do! I can make it THIIIIISSSSS big!"

Bethesda may truly fail in many departments, but like my expectations of the next GTA, I won't completely shun them unless another Fallout comes out and they haven't learned anything. They did go from wizards and warriors to post-apocalyptic gunmen. I can't help but be somewhat forgiving. Just like Rockstar went from the old console systems to the new. Still, there are some things I am completely unforgiving of. especially in IV. (pure moments of laziness)

 

[TheGM]

@Brother None: Right. That's the key term though, 'well', not 'perfectly'. That was my only point there. I don't like the expectations being TOO high, but certainly not pathetic. There should just be some room for error. Just like Fallout 3's combat looking like Far Cry 2 or even Killzone 1 is good to very good, while looking like Halo 1 or Oblivion is bad. Movement/animation similar to Oblivion in F3 is already an example of a bad move/failure. It was the first thing I noticed in videos.

Anyway, I had a big discussion about a similar issue with GTA IV failing in some fairly big departments, (such as a consistent lack of enterable buildings/interactive world) and my suggestion there was the same as yours...stop focusing so much on size and focus more on quality, because at the moment, it sometimes appears as if developers are saying, "look what I can do! I can make it THIIIIISSSSS big!"

Bethesda may truly fail in many departments, but like my expectations of the next GTA, I won't completely shun them unless another Fallout comes out and they haven't learned anything. They did go from wizards and warriors to post-apocalyptic gunmen. I can't help but be somewhat forgiving. Just like Rockstar went from the old console systems to the new. Still, there are some things I am completely unforgiving of. especially in IV. (pure moments of laziness)

*Gets phone call every five minutes about going to shoot pool*

Yeah when you do allot of things at once, rarely come out all being great. Good, Passible. never great.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Considering Bethesdas previous titles, story is going to be generic and bland, so my question is: what is the strongest part of Fallout 3?I'll tell you, marketing, manipulation and a new improved PR manger that makes sense




take care.....

Damn Bethesda's new PR manager really makes sense to me. He made some really good points about the direction they are taking the franchise. I think I might actually get FO3 now.

I hope Bethesda hires george w. bush after his epic presidency comes to an end as well. Either at a PR position or maybe even take over for little toddy.

 

[Outbreak]

@TheGM: (nods) But I have a lot of faith in the next few years of nonlinear gaming, and am pretty passionate about games even as straightforward as GTA. I think we're on the verge of something awesome. Hopefully they WILL truly be great soon. Oh, hang on...I'm getting a call from Roman...

 

[Gentlemen]

A big game that sucks at everything it does (Oblivion) is by definition worse than either big games that do succeed (any GTA) or more focused, linear titles.

Now you are never going to get a cigarette from me. I enjoyed Oblivion. Please stop flaming. You can say you didn't like it, but don't senselessly bash it.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Now you are never going to get a cigarette from me. I enjoyed Oblivion. Please stop flaming. You can say you didn't like it, but don't senselessly bash it.

He's not senselessly bashing it. He is not saying that you can't enjoy the game. Oblivion was indeed a jack of all trades and master of none. You can choose to believe that truth or not. Just as you can choose to enjoy the game or not.

 

[MrSambuka]

A big game that sucks at everything it does (Oblivion) is by definition worse than either big games that do succeed (any GTA) or more focused, linear titles.

Now you are never going to get a cigarette from me. I enjoyed Oblivion. Please stop flaming. You can say you didn't like it, but don't senselessly bash it.

Senseless? He stated why it sucked, that's not senseless.

 

[Gentlemen]

Now you are never going to get a cigarette from me. I enjoyed Oblivion. Please stop flaming. You can say you didn't like it, but don't senselessly bash it.

Senseless? He stated why it sucked, that's not senseless.

It didn't suck IMHO. I just have a problem with people telling me something I like sucks.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Now you are never going to get a cigarette from me. I enjoyed Oblivion. Please stop flaming. You can say you didn't like it, but don't senselessly bash it.

Senseless? He stated why it sucked, that's not senseless.

It didn't suck IMHO. I just have a problem with people telling me something I like sucks.

Can you not handle liking something that sucks? I like a lot of things that suck. I like some movies that are god awful (generally because of how they're bad), I like plenty of music with that have stupid lyrics, I like some videogames that suck, I like some card & board games that suck, ect.

Break down Oblivion and show that it doesn't suck. What does it excell at? Does it excell at more things than it fails?

 

[Gentlemen]

Well, that would near impossible to do. Everyone has different opinions. Some people like a linear JRPG. Others a game that is as PnP as possible. And others like wandering a huge world, doing a lot of quests. I like doing the last 2, but others might only enjoy JRPGs. Some even dislike all of them.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Well, that would near impossible to do. Everyone has different opinions. Some people like a linear JRPG. Others a game that is as PnP as possible. And others like wandering a huge world, doing a lot of quests. I like doing the last 2, but others might only enjoy JRPGs. Some even dislike all of them.

We aren't talking like or dislike here, we're talking execution. For example the level scaling in Oblivion objectively sucks, it's based on the character's level which is determined by whichever skills the player decides to tag which do not have to be combat related which means that level scaling is in no way connected to the combat abilities of a character.

 

[Noneoftheabove]

Nothing kills Oblivion more than being unable to truly interact with any of the characters. The world comes to a completely lifeless grinding halt when you take quests or interact with them.

Fallout 3 has dialogue trees. Why haven't we seen more coverage of this in detail with all the previews?

 

[Brother None]

There should just be some room for error.

There usually is. Like: Fallout 1's combat isn't perfect, but it's acceptable. The stealth gameplay really isn't very good, but I don't think that bugs anyone.

But Bethesda manages to fail at these things in a very spectacular manner, whether it is ruining combat through level scaling or making dialogue drab and repetitive through keywords, repeated phrases shared by NPCs and that stupid dialogue wheel.

 

[Outbreak]

Yes... I am just hoping that Beth understands how to evolve from Oblivion (albeit slowly) and that even if Fallout 3 isn't the golden child, another incarnation might be. They just have to care to do so. As long as they are paying attention, this should be a very good learning experience for them as controversial as this game is.

 

[ookami]

I'm getting a vision of the future Bethesda...
FO 3 is released. "Well, it's pretty much the same mistakes as last time as well as some new mistakes, but maybe they'll learn something and do better next time."

TES V is released. "Well, it's pretty much the same mistakes as last time and the time before as well as some new mistakes, but maybe they'll learn something and do better next time."

FO 4 is released. "Well, it's pretty much the same mistakes as last time and the time before and the time before that as well as some new mistakes, but maybe they'll learn something and do better next time."

TES VI is released. "Well, it's pretty much the same mistakes as last time and the time before that and the time before that as well as some new mistakes, but maybe they'll learn something and do better next time."

Bethesda gets ahold of another franchise with a pre-existing fanbase and proceeds to alienate the fans and release a spin-off which they'll call a sequel even though it looks more like a TES mod.

etc etc, so forth and so on. Oh, the future is so bright.

 

[TheGM]

etc etc, so forth and so on. Oh, the future is so bright.

That you gotta wear shades.

or in a case of uber depression.

Beer goggles.

 

[Anarchosyn]

We aren't talking like or dislike here, we're talking execution. For example the level scaling in Oblivion objectively sucks, it's based on the character's level which is determined by whichever skills the player decides to tag which do not have to be combat related which means that level scaling is in no way connected to the combat abilities of a character.

This brings up a pet fear that I have. Bethesda makes fun games, but really crap RPGs (especially when it comes to range of play style). Oblivions LARGEST failing was that you *had to* have combat skills to progress the game, in spite of all their posturing about flexibility in approach. Don't believe me? Well, try playing Kvatch with a retarded invalid or pacifist coward (my first play through I tried this, role playing a young female dark elf who emphasized speech skills, charm and thief skills over magic or combat). I was *murdered* over and over and over again. That portion of the game forces you to kill in order to progress.. I was pissed.

Oh, but back to my fear - I hope Bethesda doesn't put this taint on Fallout. *That* was one of the major selling points of the game for me, the developers (Black Isles and Interplay, but more Tim Cain's crew) encouraged unusual game play approaches. Bethesda.. well.. Todd Howard seems to dim to realize other play styles might exist.

With that said, I will buy FO3.. I just wish Troika was around and making it (or Obsidian).

eDit: Oh, regarding the discussion towards the top of the thread, Fallout wasn't a FPS so I really couldn't give two fucks whether or not FO3 plays well as one. Fallout, to me, was about non-linearity - range in character development - world reactivity (i.e. reacting to different stats and abilities uniquely) - non-combat play options - a living world and some seriously sick humor. The combat in fallout has always kind of sucked, though I must admit it was pretty fun (though sometimes tedious) for the era. If fallout had the Baldur's Gate styled turn based option (i.e. limited realtime) it would have been perfect, but getting stuck fighting scorpions or wolves with high powered characters got old fast via turn based. Perhaps Bethesda has implemented just this.

 

[TheGM]

We aren't talking like or dislike here, we're talking execution. For example the level scaling in Oblivion objectively sucks, it's based on the character's level which is determined by whichever skills the player decides to tag which do not have to be combat related which means that level scaling is in no way connected to the combat abilities of a character.

This brings up a pet fear that I have. Bethesda makes fun games, but really crap RPGs (especially when it comes to range of play style). Oblivions LARGEST failing was that you *had to* have combat skills to progress the game, in spite of all their posturing about flexibility in approach. Don't believe me? Well, try playing Kvatch with a retarded invalid or pacifist coward (my first play through I tried this, role playing a young female dark elf who emphasized speech skills, charm and thief skills over magic or combat). I was *murdered* over and over and over again. That portion of the game forces you to kill in order to progress.. I was pissed.

Oh, but back to my fear - I hope Bethesda doesn't put this taint on Fallout. *That* was one of the major selling points of the game for me, the developers (Black Isles and Interplay, but more Tim Cain's crew) encouraged unusual game play approaches. Bethesda.. well.. Todd Howard seems to dim to realize other play styles might exist.

With that said, I will buy FO3.. I just wish Troika was around and making it (or Obsidian).

My drunken Pirate wizard guy didn't make it very far before I had to resort to beating things over the head with something.

Neither did my Ranger, Theif, or Assassin.

all ended up being a Kh-nig-uht.