Don't Buy the Hype

[Sander]

Sure I don't want a discussion. That's why I'll admit I'm wrong on the P&P RPG base for the original, and bother to address stuff directly, rather than just shouting down "OMG OBLIVION WITH GUNS TEH SUXORS". As for wanting to prove bias, I'll own up to that. I don't like the attitude of "I;m a better fan because I want fallout 3 to be based on the original engine" or whatever. FO3 have some huge glowing mutant boots to fill, and that's the problem isn't it? If it had just been "Bethsoft make post-apocalyptic RPG set in DC", there would have been cheers. But no, it's FO3 so its got to be *just so*.

My opinion off the previews is it looks like a Fallout game in the styling

?
It does? I didn't realise that modern-styled orcs and pretty much an abandonment of most of the '50s sci-fi (which was the basis of Fallout's style) was the same as keeping the style.

, the gameplay appears to have been shifted far more into a roleplaying style than the Elder scrolls hack n' slash approach

Ehm, it does? In what, exactly? The fact that they've implemented bullet-time? Or their completely unproven statements on complexity and character interaction (remember that they made similar statements about Oblivion, which turned out to be entirely false).

, and they're using the dice-rolling mechanics for hit/crit/success on skill use but in a totally real-time game.

Ehm, yeah, they did the same thing with Morrowind and Oblivion (in differing areas, Oblivion IIRC did it just for damage and Morrowind just for hitting stuff). This doesn't make the combat any more tactical.

Therefore, it appears promising. Whether it's agood game or not is irrelevant to how much it sticks precisely to the original mechanics.

This entire thread has not about whether this would be a good or fun game, but whether it would be a good Fallout game. Since, y'know, it's a sequel to the series. If Bethesda wanted to make a post-apocalyptic game but not stick to what Fallout stands for, why buy Fallout at all?

At worst, Fallout 3 turns out to be a lemon, Bethdesa take it in in a different direction and fail. That's the risk. At best, we get a Fallout game that's an improvement on the original gameplay.

No, at best, *you* will get a game that will feature gameplay *you* will like better.
I can already say with almost absolute certainty that Fallout 3's gameplay, at least combat-wise, will not be an improvement over Fallout's combat gameplay simply because it has a completely different basis in thought - gone is any kind of tactics, replaced by a cinematic view of limbs getting blown off. Which would get quite stale after the 10th time, I'd imagine.

Previews so far seen positive across a wide range, even accounting for the usual over-active claims by devs.

This is a dumb argument if I've ever seen one. Almost every preview ever was hugely positive about Oblivion. The same goes for reviews. Except when 3 months later everyone suddenly started bashing Oblivion's retard AI, dumbassed distance scaling, ugly faces and whatever else was wrong with it.
The gaming press has turned into an industry of brothels and relying on them for any kind of decent preview is about as sensible as relying on George Bush Sr. not to raise taxes.

 

[Kissker]

Oct. 8, 2008 is when my local game stop said they will have it, I pre-ordered it as soon as they told me that, I was the first to do so. If you guys want me to scan the receipt or something I can do that. Lol. I only had 10 bucks on me, 5 bucks went to pre-order, 5 bucks for gas.


As for numerous comments, I have always called Fallout Fans "Vaultees" no real reason why except the game is an addiction for me and calling people wastelanders got lots of angry posts lol.

As for the won't know til its out - I said that because even though footage, screenshots, and all that have been willingly released, its not HERE in front of me, with ME in control - playing how I play. Until that happens I won't be able to determine if I love or loathe it. Reviews weigh very little on my choices to buy and play games, Fandom plays even less, some of the most popular games I don't have fun with, so I simply do not play.

Don't judge a book by it's cover comes to mind, even if the game was rated 10/10, "Absolute best game of all time" etc. etc. If I buy it and I don't like it... I don't like it, so I won't play it or enjoy it. I have been waiting for 3 to hit since 2 came out. Lol. I beat 2 in about 3 days my first- go around- non stop I might add. It's not that it was easy- it's that I had nothing else to do- literally. When Tactics came out I thought "YES! ANOTHER FALLOUT!" until I played it.

HOPEFULLY this will not be "another tactics" I enjoy storyline, lore, and high Science to get those lovely little storylines that have nothing to do with the main gameplay more then Hack N' Slash or Pure FPS.

**edit**
Went on and scanned it, removed the bar code and my name/info otherwise Un-edited.
Proof! ha!

[/img]

 

[Sander]

So basically, you're going to be positive and buy it no matter what happens, ignoring any and all information released so far, simply because some company bought the name and used it?
Yeah, that looks like the sensible route.

 

[Kissker]

Not exactly, but close Sander


Basically I am going to stay positive that it will be a worthwhile game- even if it strays from storyline etc etc (I know the bit on the BOS and it kinda ticks me off, but at the same time how do we know it's not explained further into the story?)

I was a tad upset to read that the BOS was "make shift" in ranks and armor, when in previous games a suit of Power Armor failed specs when a bit of solder was on the lens... but with that little detail I also think that it could be explained within the game, that the BOS has fallen from it's original Luster from the brutal wastes. Not to mention this could just be a set of BOS members, possibly even discharged from official duty and set out to make their own system... explaining much of the salvaged broken-down look and Non-helmet wearing troops.

I think were judging a tad harsh on it, just because it's not from its "original" creators. Who says that maybe Fo3 won't be BETTER then the originals?

I've had several posts deleted and remarks made toward me saying I am noting but a stupid kid and blah blah whatever else.

Fact is, I am not. What I have posted here was from the love of the game, and sharing info such as my pre-order, although my first post of the pre-order was deleted and written off as "Lying troll" Not my fault you guys don't believe me. Hopefully the scanned receipt will help clear that up.

Honestly I am new to the forum, but not to No Mutants, and I am rather disappointed with how I have been treated, judged, and passed off without even a question of "hey.. can you prove it?" I would hope such a popular site, had an equally popular and fair forum, but this has yet to be proven to me, and will no longer be discussed on this topic. (as it is not the proper place for it.)

But yes, I do ignore most player/fan based info on the game, as well, I don't think you can honestly judge the game before you can play it, this goes for any game. That'd be like... buying it just because it was Game of the year.

 

[Sander]

I think were judging a tad harsh on it, just because it's not from its "original" creators. Who says that maybe Fo3 won't be BETTER then the originals?

Have you read anything at all on these forums? The myriad of arguments and examples where Fallout 3 strays very far from its original roots? We're not just going 'Oh noez it's not Tim Cain it must suck', we're actually judging the information that's released. Shocking, huh?

I've had several posts deleted

No, you haven't. We don't delete posts 'round here.

Honestly I am new to the forum, but not to No Mutants, and I am rather disappointed with how I have been treated, judged, and passed off without even a question of "hey.. can you prove it?" I would hope such a popular site, had an equally popular and fair forum, but this has yet to be proven to me, and will no longer be discussed on this topic. (as it is not the proper place for it.)

'Hey you all suck but let's not talk about it because this is not the place for it'.
If this is not the place for it, don't bring it up in the first place.

But yes, I do ignore most player/fan based info on the game, as well, I don't think you can honestly judge the game before you can play it, this goes for any game. That'd be like... buying it just because it was Game of the year.

As opposed to buying it because it has Fallout on it?
I'd say that buying it because it was Game of the Year would actually be more sensible because that actually says something (albeit not that much) about the quality.

 

[Kissker]

this is exactly what I am talking about here, instead of "ok man, whats up?" its a series of attack-based comments picking apart everything someone says, thats not a very "hey welcome to our forum" feeling, ya know? If i wanted to be constantly criticized I would say so.


as to my posts deletion- then where are they? They certainly are not in the search, nor the place I made them. One assumes deletion when you cannot find one's own post.


Oh and.. btw, get your quotes right. "Minigun Jim" never said any of those things :p


As for Fallouts roots, it's not that Fo3 has "strayed" hell Tactics strayed,and don't tell me it didn't. It's that no one knows the FULL story on 3 yet... not even with all the info released.

and as for most the stuff I have read about "arguments" I see the starter post as a "omg this sucks" type of post, then a long blabber about why they think it sucks, sometimes providing links to proof to state their points- however- from there on it doesn't really get Intelligent argument, just one semi-troll post after another until A- it loses interest or B- its locked.

Funnily enough I had to make my second post about pre-order fit those lines- where it was a "stupid" comment- put in the wrong place at that- and then people commented on it-however it was locked within the day it was created.

I was called a troll- for apparently "lying" about pre ordering the game and such... seems closed minded.

and yes, in a way I am buying Fo3 because it is indeed the next fallout, and it has won game of the year. I could care less who created it, because its name has been sold- therefor the "old way' is gone, its up to Beth now to decide what they think will work, they aren't targeting only Vaultees*
(*Vaultee- a player who played Fallout and enjoyed it, starting in a vault qualifies you as a Vaultee, in Fallout 1 you started in a vault.)

They were aiming for a game that many people would try, like, play etc. to sell more copies, a simple line was said that they made the game so you didn't even have to know the others existed and still get along fine in the game, and enjoy it.

Smart move in reality, if you only targeted those who played Fallout1/2 thats a pretty small target for sales. Most teenagers don't even know what Fallout is, even less know what Wasteland is.

As for the new aspects, they have been well thought out to keep it in the SPECIAL system, if your FPS mode, your Guns skill STILL effects your shots, no matter how "good" you are at FPS games. It also includes a section saying simply that The more familiar you are with a particular weapon, the better you will use it. I don't know the extreme to-the-last-point details on this,but it sounds to me like, even if you have "guns" set at 300%, and you find a new pistol you've NEVER seen before- that pistol will not fire as accurately/well then if you had your gun you've had with you since Day 1. Makes perfectly logical sense to me. After all, it would fit in well with Fallout 2 and the Alien Pistol.

Furthermore- most of the "arguments" i have seen are here aren't really arguments as just "man don't buy this, it's not gonna be great, your not going to like it"


Bleh I am done typing, I am going back to beta-play.

 

[Sander]

this is exactly what I am talking about here, instead of "ok man, whats up?" its a series of attack-based comments picking apart everything someone says, thats not a very "hey welcome to our forum" feeling, ya know? If i wanted to be constantly criticized I would say so.

Excuse, Mr Sensitive, but when you spout off on a forum in a thread with a rather length OP which, I might add, you didn't even read and then continue to rehash long since debunked 'arguments' you tend to be criticised for it. If you don't like criticism, then don't post on the intarwebs.

You would've gotten a much warmer welcome if you'd done us the courtesy of attempting to familiarise yourself with, well, anything that's been written around here.

as to my posts deletion- then where are they? They certainly are not in the search, nor the place I made them. One assumes deletion when you cannot find one's own post.

You must not be using the search function while logged in. Here's a hint: there's this Vats subforum.

As for Fallouts roots, it's not that Fo3 has "strayed" hell Tactics strayed,and don't tell me it didn't. It's that no one knows the FULL story on 3 yet... not even with all the info released.

And another example of your failure to do even the most basic form of research.
Tactics is widely seen as straying very far from the original games. Your implication that we would scold you for seeing that is ridiculous at best.

And stop with the 'we don't know anything yet' bullshit. Yes we do. We know it doesn't feature any kind of tactical combat, hence we know it doesn't feature the P&P spirit, the very *core* of Fallout.

and as for most the stuff I have read about "arguments" I see the starter post as a "omg this sucks" type of post, then a long blabber about why they think it sucks, sometimes providing links to proof to state their points- however- from there on it doesn't really get Intelligent argument, just one semi-troll post after another until A- it loses interest or B- its locked.

So let me get this straight, you see the arguments, you see the statements, you even see the proof, yet you ignore all this because...well, why exactly?

Funnily enough I had to make my second post about pre-order fit those lines- where it was a "stupid" comment- put in the wrong place at that- and then people commented on it-however it was locked within the day it was created.

I was called a troll- for apparently "lying" about pre ordering the game and such... seems closed minded.

Reading comprehension, dear Kissker.
You were not called a troll for lying about pre-ordering the game, you were called a troll for failing to read anything in this thread pertaining to the statements you were about to make.

By the way, that post was vatted because it was completely useless, and in the wrong forum, not to mention it read like a gaming magazine advertisement.

 

[Minigun Jim]

Abandonment of 50s sci-fi?
Go have a look at the concept art and screenies. That says 50s sci fi to me. Heck, it got linked of www.boingboing.net (not a gaming blog at all) as a great example of retro-futuristic 50s styling.

Like I said, I'm not going for the hype from either camp here. Marketing depts and hardcore fans are the two worst sources for unbiased opinion on games. Hardcore fans are picky and want incremental improvements to the last game, and gaming mags want copy to fill pages. Screenies and videos are more reliable. Sure, they'll tune up the graphics for it, but ignore that at look at the general design.

Obviously Bethedesa were never going to make an isometric game. What they're good at (or if you think they suck, substitute "experienced with" or "constantly grinding out" ) are real-time, first-person RPGs.

If they stuck to a direct scaling up of every graphic in Fallout 1 or 2 they'd have no room to let the designers do things their way. The closer they'd try to get it right, the more the little things would stand out. So, they move the game out of California, set it 30 years after FO2 and give themselves more space to design.

This approach has actually been known to work. "Aliens" was a great action movie made as a sequel to a horror film. Blizzard managed to create an insanely popular MMO out of the world from an RTS. I'd say what would make it a Fallout game is getting the roleplaying, depth, and the world right, not the P&P style gameplay.

I'll respect that you liked the way Fallout did the play style, but that's not the be-all and end-all. Tactics had turn-based but Tactics just felt like a squad RTS from anywhere.

Frankly this boils down to:
Some fans of the original think that FO3 looks interesting and could live up to expectations while being a real-time game with a different artistic style in the same general setting.

Others reckon Bethedesa should have finished up Van Buren or otherwise pretty much done the same thing, and that anything else won't measure up to the original "p&p on a PC" idea.

However, your main arguments seem to be "No isometric gameplay", and "Bethedesa keep simplifing the games too much" That has me down as "be wary", but not "kill on sight". It's a sign they COULD balls it up, bt not that they WILL. I'll realise that you want something very true to the original Fallout, but I don't feel that needs to translate to "nobody could ever like fallout and this game"

I finished the OP with the feeling that this wasn't based on FO3 at all but a dislike of all Bethdesa stuff since Daggerfall. Think of what Oblivion could have been with denser gameplay, more options.

There's the potential for FO3 to be a good job. Whether they botch it or not remains to be seen IMO. You get the option to destoy a town to access another area, so they've got the idea of lasting serious consequences down at least in part. It's the interactions between quests, actions etc that makes Fallout such a good roleplaying game, and that can't be judged until someone's played it through a bit.

Oh, and Sander, can you correct your quotes please? You've quoted Kissker's posts with my name .

 

[Ausir]

If they stuck to a direct scaling up of every graphic in Fallout 1 or 2 they'd have no room to let the designers do things their way. The closer they'd try to get it right, the more the little things would stand out. So, they move the game out of California, set it 30 years after FO2 and give themselves more space to design.

And then drag the Brotherhood of Steel, the super mutants and the Enclave from California to DC instead of letting their designers do things their way.

I'll respect that you liked the way Fallout did the play style, but that's not the be-all and end-all. Tactics had turn-based but Tactics just felt like a squad RTS from anywhere.

Tactics had both TB and RT and was balanced for the latter.

 

[Sander]

Abandonment of 50s sci-fi?
Go have a look at the concept art and screenies. That says 50s sci fi to me. Heck, it got linked of www.boingboing.net (not a gaming blog at all) as a great example of retro-futuristic 50s styling.

Heh.
You may want to go ahead and watch a bunch of the screenshots and concept art again.
Robots have changed from clean, sleek '50s visions of the future, to much more modern, scrappy stylings more reminiscent of the Matrix.
Super Mutants have changed from oversized, radiated monsters to, well, modern-style Orcs. Not '50s at all.
Most buildings completely lack the art deco and googie architecture that was key to Fallout - again, bye bye '50s.
Although the Vault does look good.

Like I said, I'm not going for the hype from either camp here. Marketing depts and hardcore fans are the two worst sources for unbiased opinion on games. Hardcore fans are picky and want incremental improvements to the last game, and gaming mags want copy to fill pages. Screenies and videos are more reliable. Sure, they'll tune up the graphics for it, but ignore that at look at the general design.

Obviously Bethedesa were never going to make an isometric game. What they're good at (or if you think they suck, substitute "experienced with" or "constantly grinding out" ) are real-time, first-person RPGs.

If they stuck to a direct scaling up of every graphic in Fallout 1 or 2 they'd have no room to let the designers do things their way. The closer they'd try to get it right, the more the little things would stand out. So, they move the game out of California, set it 30 years after FO2 and give themselves more space to design.

This approach has actually been known to work. "Aliens" was a great action movie made as a sequel to a horror film. Blizzard managed to create an insanely popular MMO out of the world from an RTS. I'd say what would make it a Fallout game is getting the roleplaying, depth, and the world right, not the P&P style gameplay.

And you'd be wrong.
By changing the gameplay, you're changing the way the game works. You're not actually creating a sequel in a series, you're creating a spin-off. See Tactics, no one is calling that a full-fledged Fallout RPG.

World of Warcraft, which you cite, is not in any way a sequel to Warcraft 3, it's a spin-off. Which does make a huge difference. If it had been an actual sequel to Warcraft 3, it would essentially have changed the series from an RTS series to an MMO series, which is somewhat ridiculous.

Moreover, you're ignoring that P&P gameplay is the very reason Fallout started, and the basis of most of its design decisions. If you fail to adhere to its very *core* design, why use the franchise at all?

I'll respect that you liked the way Fallout did the play style, but that's not the be-all and end-all. Tactics had turn-based but Tactics just felt like a squad RTS from anywhere.

This is not about 'like' or 'dislike', it's about adhering to Fallout's core design.

Also, this bit about Tactics is silly. I never claimed that turn-based combat was *all* you'd need to have a Fallout game.

Frankly this boils down to:
Some fans of the original think that FO3 looks interesting and could live up to expectations while being a real-time game with a different artistic style in the same general setting.

Others reckon Bethedesa should have finished up Van Buren or otherwise pretty much done the same thing, and that anything else won't measure up to the original "p&p on a PC" idea.

However, your main arguments seem to be "No isometric gameplay", and "Bethedesa keep simplifing the games too much"

Ehm, well, no. The main argument is that Bethesda is changing Fallout from a P&P style RPG to more of an Oblivion-style action-game. They're changing everything that Fallout stood for.

That has me down as "be wary", but not "kill on sight". It's a sign they COULD balls it up, bt not that they WILL. I'll realise that you want something very true to the original Fallout, but I don't feel that needs to translate to "nobody could ever like fallout and this game"

We don't claim that, ever, anywhere. It's not about like. Maybe I'll find the game very enjoyable, but I won't find it any good as a Fallout game.

I finished the OP with the feeling that this wasn't based on FO3 at all but a dislike of all Bethdesa stuff since Daggerfall. Think of what Oblivion could have been with denser gameplay, more options.

Well, ehm, I don't know what to say, but most people around here didn't actually care about Bethesda at all before they bought the Fallout license.
Although OP might have.

There's the potential for FO3 to be a good job. Whether they botch it or not remains to be seen IMO. You get the option to destoy a town to access another area, so they've got the idea of lasting serious consequences down at least in part. It's the interactions between quests, actions etc that makes Fallout such a good roleplaying game, and that can't be judged until someone's played it through a bit.

The idea of getting to destroy an entire town within the first three hours of gameplay that influences basically all of the rest game in a very linear way seems pretty silly and very overdone, though.

 

[Ausir]

Heh.
You may want to go ahead and watch a bunch of the screenshots and concept art again.
Robots have changed from clean, sleek '50s visions of the future, to much more modern, scrappy stylings more reminiscent of the Matrix.

Well, Mr. Handy, while changed a bit, still looks 50s-like, the sputnik eyebot is cool and from what BN and SuaSide said the Protectron is good too. The robobrain is not that bad either. The only ones that don't fit the setting are the two (Chinese?) humanoid bots.

 

[Ah-Teen]

Heh.
You may want to go ahead and watch a bunch of the screenshots and concept art again.
Robots have changed from clean, sleek '50s visions of the future, to much more modern, scrappy stylings more reminiscent of the Matrix.

Well, Mr. Handy, while changed a bit, still looks 50s-like, the sputnik eyebot is cool and from what BN and SuaSide said the Protectron is good too. The robobrain is not that bad either. The only ones that don't fit the setting are the two (Chinese?) humanoid bots.

RobotConceptArt

The humanoid robots are fine. The one on the lower right less so but the one on the left is perfect.

I'd say the concept art is fantastic. But degrades as it moves to 3d. I just have a hard time picturing some of that stuff in Bethesda's work. Not saying they couldn't or won't, but that I can't imaging walking through the wasteland and running into that thing on the left. Which would be totally awesome...

 

[Ausir]

For me, the humanoid one looks too steampunkish. But the sputnik bot is perfect.

 

[Brother None]

For me, the humanoid one looks too steampunkish. But the sputnik bot is perfect.

The sputnik bot is fine.

Mr Handy and Brainbot are passable, but definitely not good. What's the point of making them look less sleek and world-of-the-future-ish?

The humanoid robots are a disaster area.

And yes, the robots I saw in the game look a lot better. Mr Handy just ok-ish, but the Protectron was awesome.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Well seeing as you couldn't take a picture, could you describe it?

 

[Ausir]

The Protectron looks more or less like Robby the Robot.

 

[Brother None]

The Protectron looks more or less like Robby the Robot.

Almost identical to Robby the Robot, except the dome isn't glass but steel. Moves and talks the same way, too.

 

[TheUnwashed]

Well I've read a chunck of Bradylama's post DONT BUY THE HYPE.
Im a frequent poster and reader on Beth's f3 forum, browsing for hope and clues weither f3 will be alright. But not to much of that. Still its quite entertaining.
You know the Chinese overthrown the Mongolian rule by use of messages inside cookies (hence fortune cookies, as far as the legend tells us)? uhm?
uhm, well... I dont know what I'm saying, forget what I said.
...But I wondered recently, isnt my prescence on Beth forums a supportive gesture? I mean, they dont release much meaningfull to comfort worried fans, but meanwhile Im engaging myself to them forums, making them lively and attractive.
Its so clear their hyping -that is superficialy acknowledge its all about fallout, waving about with flags and familiarities, but never giving any real prove of that.

Still I wonder, puzzeld, why? Why did they buy the rights to Fallout 3, 4 and 5. It makes no sense to me. Didnt they have a big enough name from themselves? It could have worked for them, The elsewhere scruffs, with guns.

 

[grapedog]

I cut my teeth with Bethesda on Arena, which I know most people cannot claim. Morrowind was the outlier for the series, as Oblivion is much closer to Daggerfall and Arena than Morrowind ever could be. Morrowind was a fun game...but when I have to search for Golden Saints and the like, just to find even a very basic challenge to my character...thats boredom for me. I don't get kicks out of beating up level 2 creatures when I'm level 20...to each his own I guess.

I agree, Oblivion wasn't perfect by a long shot. I was really disappointed in that they cut out so much from the game to make it console friendly. Ultimately though(being a PC gamer), I turned Oblivion into the game I wanted with mods. I'll be buying Fallout 3 with the hopes that the community out there will offer me the options to fix what I find wrong with it...or like Oblivion, I'll learn to fix it myself. I have a hard time bitching too much at a company that put so much work into making the game easily mod-able, for both their own and our benefit.

Should we, or I, have to pay for a game and then turn it into the game we all really want? Maybe not, but how are you going to make a game that appeals to everyones exact tastes. I've talked with so many people that enjoyed Oblivion, especially after modding it...and no one ever had it modded the same.

Bethesda is a company just like any other, and they are all out to make money. As long as the game, like Oblivion, is so-so, and I can mod it into what I want...I will be fine with it. I'd rather have the game out there to work with and turn it into what I want than not have anything at all. I love Fallout and Fallout 2 as I loved Arena and Daggerfall...enough that I will continue to give these games a chance.

They will have to put out a game that has no redeming qualities and then make sure it's locked up tight with no mod-ability to really lose me as a customer. I'm pretty forgiving as I've seen the PC gaming market for certain genre's decline steadily over the past many many years. I hate games developed for both consoles and PC's...blech...

 

[dacheetah]

COMMUNITY FRAGMENTATION IMMINENT. I'm not sure the evidence is conclusive, but I'm seeing in the FO3 universe large pandering to the Duck and Cover crowd, namely through in game radio references and character dialogue. I do not, however, see any signs at the statesmen hotel or at the BoS outpost that say No Mutants Allowed, or anything near that. It could just be random chance, but I still figure I should point this out to the OP, who was concerned about the possibility of community blacklisting by bethesda.