Bethesda's Fallout vs Black Isle Studio's Fallout

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Based on the 7-hour playing time, VideoGamer.com makes a comparison between the classics and Bethesda's take.<blockquote>We suspect the dialogue and tone will be the biggest bones of contention for hardcore Fallout fans. Pithy dialogue and description was a key part of the charm to the original games; there's a very distinct tone that was always going to be a big challenge for Bethesda to replicate. On a visual level, there's really no questioning the fact that the team has done an amazing job of recreating Interplay's post-nuclear-war world, but at times the dialogue is perhaps a little too theatrical for its own good. That's not to say it's badly executed - the standard of voice acting is very high, on the whole - but the actual tone of the script writing seems to vary quite a lot from area to area. An example: The ravaged settlers of Arefu seemed like a fairly miserable, desperate bunch - but on the way there we ran into a merchant named Crow, a colourful chap who seemed far too jolly for a man who risks his life by walking the wasteland for a living.

The point here is that Fallout veterans who come to this game expecting the same style of gritty patter are likely to get wound up rather quickly. For the rest of you, your reaction for the dialogue is going to be a matter of taste. To reiterate: there's no real problem with the way speech is delivered. It's more to do with the fact that what's actually being said can be a bit overly dramatic. Sometimes this approach works, at other times it's a tad hammy. If you've seen any video footage of Megaton's Mister Burke, you'll get the idea: as soon as he opens his gob, you know that he's a boo-hiss villain - and as boo-hiss villains go, he's really pretty well done. We've not heard much of Liam Neeson's contribution to the game, but we love the gravelly pomp of Malcolm McDowell's John Henry Eden - the leader of the fascistic Enclave. So far we've only heard his radio broadcasts, but we look forward to meeting him in the flesh (or pixels, whatever). </blockquote>
 
Brother None said:
That's not to say it's badly executed - the standard of voice acting is very high, on the whole.

I hope they're joking; the best voice acting I've heard in the game so far could best be described as "ok", and quite a lot of it ranges from bad to absolutely no-holds-barred full-out horrible.
 
Brother None said:
Brother None said:
That's not to say it's badly executed - the standard of voice acting is very high, on the whole.

I hope they're joking; the best voice acting I've heard in the game so far could best be described as "ok", and quite a lot of it ranges from bad to absolutely no-holds-barred full-out horrible.
Bethesda has done worse. FAR worse. Mariah from Reguard for example. Just scroll down and hear that mp3 they have. I cried when I first heard it.
 
I hope it gets better later on (the voice acting). That girl crying about you killing her father had terrible voice acting.
 
they sound like they didnt really like it... but werent allowed to say anything bad. or they are pussies that dont want to hurt beths feelings... anyway.. what a crappy read.
 
well the wasteland cant be the same thing as tamriel, beth have been working a lot in the elders scroll universe, most of the game writing its based in medieval fantasy, so the voices are happier and have a less darker fealing. looks like this as manage to leak imself inside fallout 3 now.

the wasteland its not a happy place its man made hell, theres is no reason to act like kids in a garden.
 
How I hate these sugar-coated articles, where they neither praise nor slight the games. Reading this article is like listening to a politician: he always balances on the edge, but never dares to make clear decisions or explicit statements.

When they do say something which is true it is rather banalities like "Old fans will be dissappointed, new guys will like it"

If they can't make an in-depth, objective comparison, why do they even bother ot write an article ?
 
I think Bethesda's problem is not bad voice actors but bad voiceover director(s).
 
We were expecting sub quests to be an area where Fallout 3 deviated significantly from the previous games, but so far we've been pleasantly surprised at how "Fallout-y" some of them are. For example, the Blood Lines quest sends you to the remote village of Arefu so that you can deliver a letter to the West family.
Que? What is Fallouty about Blood Lines? It deals with bloody vampires!

[spoiler:30ad08e86d]
Now if you want to, you can go in guns blazing - but if you're smart then you'll resolve the situation through diplomatic means: persuade the son to go home, then negotiate a deal between the vamps and the villagers - with the former defending the latter in exchange for donated plasma.
Didn't know this but this is pretty ridiculous. How the hell and why the hell do they seperate out the blood plasma? It would be one thing to give them blood from their slaughtered animals but plasma?[/spoiler:30ad08e86d]

On the other hand, there's at least one location that features "feral" ghouls - which are essentially fast zombies in everything but name. The game explains these as being "ghouls that have gone mad", but it still seems a little bit odd - they're simply too bestial, too far removed from the civilised chaps that will happily share a cup of tea with you; they feel like a separate species.
Glad to see it pointed out again but it's far worse than the Ghouls simply going mad, the Ghouls have had their brains melted by radiation and that is what makes them feral. Of course that is probably the stupidest explanation possible because the Ghouls are completely functional other than being killing machines and there aren't any non-feral melted brained Ghouls (one would think that there would be more vegetables or retards than killer zombies).

They like the look of both Ghouls and Super Mutants (fair enough) and think that they are both in keeping with past games (plain wrong).

On a visual level, there's really no questioning the fact that the team has done an amazing job of recreating Interplay's post-nuclear-war world
...
you'll find that Bethesda has done an admirable job of capturing the atmosphere of the wasteland you trawled through in the late 1990s.
I disagree with both. I think it's fair to say that they did a pretty good job creating a post-apocalyptic setting but it certainly isn't the same as Fallout, though there are a few similarities.

Brother None said:
Brother None said:
That's not to say it's badly executed - the standard of voice acting is very high, on the whole.

I hope they're joking; the best voice acting I've heard in the game so far could best be described as "ok", and quite a lot of it ranges from bad to absolutely no-holds-barred full-out horrible.
I haven't watched outside of the vault besides the demos but I'd say that the voice acting is mediocre.

All in all, it was an alright article and a decent read.
 
The voice acting seems to me better done than in most games (coughwarhammercough). If I closed my eyes, I'd be impressed.

However, the matching of the voices to the character models is off. And the stiff animation state changes only amplify that effect.

By the looks of the Father, he should've sounded like Jack Bristow from Alias, not like Liam Neeson. Every time he spoke I mentally superimposed upon him a taller, lankier man, looking sharp and focused, with lines running through his face.
 
Ausir said:
STOP STALKING ME

shihonage said:
By the looks of the Father, he should've sounded like Jack Bristow from Alias, not like Liam Neeson. Every time he spoke I mentally superimposed upon him a taller, lankier man, looking sharp and focused, with lines running through his face.

James doesn't have "looks", his face is adapted to the PC's.
 
Ausir said:
I don't have much of a problem with the Feral Ghouls. All previous Fallouts had their share of those. Fallout 1 had "mindless ghouls", Fallout 2 had "ghoul crazies" and Van Buren had "endless walkers". See:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Feral_Ghoul
I don't have a problem with Feral Ghouls, I have a problem with their explanation for them which goes in the face of canon. Hell, they could even use the radiation melted brains explanation if they said that ghouls who were transformed quickly by higher doses of radiation became feral while the ghouls created more slowly didn't. Hell, they could just have a colony of flesh eating Ghouls.
 
Brother None said:
James doesn't have "looks", his face is adapted to the PC's.

That does it, then. I'm always going to make my character look as close to Liam Neeson as humanly possible.
 
They have a wonderful way of dancing around any meaningful statements, or otherwise generalizing 'Fallout 1 and 2 had side-quests where you made choices...so does 3'.

When the quality of the quests themselves, from the dialogue to the setup to the consequences of each choice...is totally different from the previous games.
 
It's less of a comparison, and more of a "This is how BI did Fallout, and this is what Beth is doing."

I was hoping that he'd actually compare and contrast the games.
 
Back
Top