Bethesda on the Escapist - The Right Direction

[Brother None]

Actually, during his "I'm a Fallout fan for the same reasons YOU guys are!! LOL SO KEWL" stint, he was keeping it behind closed doors. He had to, since putting it out in the open that we was utterly depriving FO:BoS of the humor, style, and setting of Fallout would have contradicted the whole song and dance ruitine.

Even so, it was never presented as anything more than an action shooter for the consoles, BGA with Guns. The fact that the game was completely ignoring any and all mechanics and gameplay elements of Fallout made people a bit more wary about the way it would treat the setting.

So far, if you want to go all "history should teach us", this situation is closer to Tactics than to Fallout: BoS. Which way it develops, I don't know.

 

[Morbus]

So far, if you want to go all "history should teach us", this situation is closer to Tactics than to Fallout: BoS. Which way it develops, I don't know.

Not that it matters, really, but I have to agree with that. I wasn't here by that time, but from what I can see now, Bethesda may be just as inclined to doing a decent game as Micro Forté's guys were. Even then, even if the game Bethesda will do is, indeed, a decent game (just as decent as FOT is, because, IMO, FOT is a decent game), and this, of course, considering Bethesda wants in fact to create a decent game, it doesn't mean that "decent game" will stay true to Fallout spirit, just like what happened with FOT.

 

[RPG of the year!!]

Even so, it was never presented as anything more than an action shooter for the consoles, BGA with Guns. The fact that the game was completely ignoring any and all mechanics and gameplay elements of Fallout made people a bit more wary about the way it would treat the setting.

Hmm.

Fallout 3 was announced to be multi-platform. It's now being covered by an Xbox360 magazine. Take into account Bethesda's game-crippling consolization of Oblivion and Star Trek: Legacy. Factor in the infoleaks from VDweller and Roshambo.

Taken all together, doesn't that already let us know that regardless of how Pete N' The Gang attempt to present it to us, FO3 is an action shooter for consoles?

Wouldn't an official anouncement of "Yes, it's Oblivion With Guns" be, logically speaking, redundant at this point?

At least Fallout Tactics was aimed firmly(and exclusively) at PC gamers. FO3 is being aimed at Xbox first, and at the PC as an afterthought.

 

[taxacaria]

Fallout 3 was announced to be multi-platform. It's now being covered by an Xbox360 magazine. Take into account Bethesda's game-crippling consolization of Oblivion and Star Trek: Legacy. Factor in the infoleaks from VDweller and Roshambo.

Taken all together, doesn't that already let us know that regardless of how Pete N' The Gang attempt to present it to us, FO3 is an action shooter for consoles?

...and you failed to add the half blacklisted NMA.

I fear you're right. But I'm not sure - still hoping for the best.
Kharn is waiting for an official statement or another proof for this suspicion. As far as I know Beth's PR policy, they will give us such infos as late as possible - guess why.

 

[RayTracer]

Well, I wouldn't draw such radical conclusions from this statement. I mean : It's not like it would mean F3 is gonna be great, but it's also not the kind of statement meaning bullshit, it's just a good sign giving a little bit of hope, and as such it should also be treated.
Scepticism isn't wrong, but if you just label him as false-faced opportunist, (or bootlicker, call it whatever you want) we could also spare us the whole article written here on NMA, cause there is a difference between strong critcism and just ignorance.

The only conclusion I would draw from this is, that somebody out there in Bethesda heard our voices so we are not being COMPLETELY ignored, but that's it, every other fact and speculation stays as before. So keep on pedaling them.

 

[TheWesDude]

when i first heard that FO3 was going to be made, i started planning out my vacation to take a week off and making sure i was going to be able to do it.

after oblivious was released, i stopped those plans. i dont even plan on buying it.

 

[zioburosky13]

when i first heard that FO3 was going to be made, i started planning out my vacation to take a week off and making sure i was going to be able to do it.

after oblivious was released, i stopped those plans. i dont even plan on buying it.

Eh.....y the POS chick in the last page?

 

[xu]

"Like I was talking about before, with sequels, you have to define the experience the first one had and stay true to it,"

I seriously doubt that they can implement such an experience and furthermore i am sure they won't stay "true" to the franchise.

*Looking towards STG and Elderscrolls*

 

[Jabbapop]

<blockquote>I think good humor for Fallout is dry, almost satirical. Like getting your leg blown off, blood starts spraying all over the place and you get the little [PIPBoy] interface image giving you the thumbs up - I find that funny. Horrible situations juxtaposed against cartoon mascots. But that's just me.
</blockquote>

And there's this head see, and it's got no body, and it's in hell! Isn't that hilarious! lolol

 

[Dagon]

Anyone noticed how many informations connected to F3 were released this month, after about a two years of comlete silence?

Isn't Fallout 3 going to be announced soon?

 

[xu]

Isn't Fallout 3 going to be announced soon?

Kharn said march somewhere, if im not mistaken. But is that a fact or fiction, im not sure.

 

[Falzzi]

Kind of an extreme conclusion..He just said that he likes the humour in fallout, and I thinks thats all positive. Or dont you? Hopefully they get the feeling right, because personally I'm ready to forgive all combat system flaws and shitty gameplay for a great story and a great post-apocalyptic world.

So let me get this straight, you'd accept a game with shitty gameplay? Doesn't that defeat the object of a game? A game is meant to be fun to play, if you simply want a good story go watch a movie or read a book. While story and atmosphere can be very important things to a game if the gameplay is unbearable forget about it.

I guess shitty and unbearable are different things, right?
And yes gameplay IS important but I'm not really an optimist when it comes to bethesda making f3. But if they should get something right, its the story and the atmosphere.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Not really, 90% of Oblivions story and atmosphere was utter dreck.

 

[Falzzi]

No, no and no. You got me all wrong. I said that if theres something that they SHOULD focus on, its on the things I said. And yes, 90% of oblivions story was utter dreck, thats true. As I said, Im not too optimistic right now. But if I was to choose one thing that I want to see in the game, its a great story and an great atmosphere.

Right now I'm just not able to imagine any way that a cRPG like fallout could be done right (in my oppinion atleast) on the engine they are using.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

If I had to settle for them making only a half-decent game then, then I'd much prefer that half to be the story and setting. If they make a game that is canon but mediocre then they've at least preserved the Fallout universe. A game that is technically good but deviates from setting and the depth of storytelling would simply open the gates to more sequels that are more and more dilute and corrupted with respect to the integrity of the Fallout universe.

If the story and setting are maintained, then at least there is something - the potential - for somebody to go back and make it good.

In that respect, I'd rather they make Oblivion with Guns with a good Fallout story, sensibility, and sense of place (although I'm not sure how they would achieve that, or if anybody could), than a mediocre turn-based isometric game with a generic post-apocalyptic setting and story, and poor role-playing. (But, if it is just Oblivion with Guns I'd rather they didn't make it at all.)

 

[Falzzi]

If I had to settle for them making only a half-decent game then, then I'd much prefer that half to be the story and setting. If they make a game that is canon but mediocre then they've at least preserved the Fallout universe. A game that is technically good but deviates from setting and the depth of storytelling would simply open the gates to more sequels that are more and more dilute and corrupted with respect to the integrity of the Fallout universe.

If the story and setting are maintained, then at least there is something - the potential - for somebody to go back and make it good.

In that respect, I'd rather they make Oblivion with Guns with a good Fallout story, sensibility, and sense of place (although I'm not sure how they would achieve that, or if anybody could), than a mediocre turn-based isometric game with a generic post-apocalyptic setting and story, and poor role-playing. (But, if it is just Oblivion with Guns I'd rather they didn't make it at all.)

Exactly what I was trying to say, you just said it better

 

[Brother None]

If I had to settle for them making only a half-decent game then, then I'd much prefer that half to be the story and setting. If they make a game that is canon but mediocre then they've at least preserved the Fallout universe.

Personally I agree, but remember that there are many people who enjoyed Fallout because of its unique and excellent take on cRPG mechanics and execution.

 

[Per]

But if they should get something right, its the story and the atmosphere.

When you say "story", you mean "setting", right? (And if not, would you please describe the story of Fallout to me?)

Story, game-play, graphics, whatever, it's all part of Art isn't it, so why the fuck can't a game be genial because of its story, even while having a crappy game-play and graphics huh?

Because a set story runs counter to the type of role-playing experience that is inherent to Fallout's design. It is deliberately created not to provide the player with a story; you are given the freedom to create your own story every time you play. "A big dumb strong ox and a pretty little lady would not have the same overall experience."

 

[Falzzi]

But if they should get something right, its the story and the atmosphere.

When you say "story", you mean "setting", right? (And if not, would you please describe the story of Fallout to me?)

Sorry for the incorrect term, I ment setting.

 

[Morbus]

Because a set story runs counter to the type of role-playing experience that is inherent to Fallout's design. It is deliberately created not to provide the player with a story; you are given the freedom to create your own story every time you play. "A big dumb strong ox and a pretty little lady would not have the same overall experience."

Ofcourse, when it comes to a Fallout games, all points have to be perfect (story - or setting, if you like -, gameplay, graphics - Fallout graphics are preety good IMHO, a lot of detail - and all the stuff) I was talking about general games, with no franchise behind them or any sort of background like that. Fallout's not Fallout if it's not a RPG, of course.