Emil Pagiarulo: Fallout 3 can not be finished without combat

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Responding to the Play Magazine's statement that the developers "are considering making the player able to complete the game without killing anyone, using only dialogues, sneaking and hacking" [quoting Ausir's translation], Emil Pagiarulo quickly explains: "no".<blockquote>I've found that, occasionally with European non-English mags, some stuff gets lost in translation. I think this is one of those cases.

We've been pretty upfront before about the fact that we haven't designed the game so you could complete it without killing anyone. You can play MUCH of Fallout 3 without killing people, and there are options to talk your way through just about every situation in the game. But it's a crazy, violent world out there, and you're going to have to defend yourself at times.

Just wanted to clear that up.</blockquote>The amount of inaccuracies in the recent coverage keep stacking up. Keep that in mind when reading.

Link: Emil Pagiarulo post on BGSF.

Thanks UncannyGarlic.
 
Not really that surprising, is it now? From the numbers of screenshots with combat and dialogue released we can pretty much guess if the game is going to be action or dialogue oriented.
 
That's not really true. Though Bethesda has had enough hints that people would like to see more RPG and less shootery screenshots. No response so far.

But hell, they're pre-selected PR representations, not really screens. They say more about Bethesda's PR and target audience than they might about the game.

Though indeed, this is no surprise.
 
pndragon26 said:
"Emil Pagiarulo: Fallout 3 can not be finished without combat"... you know, he is out of shape and obese... maybe if he gets into some combat he will lose and the game will not be finished...
Click to expand...

boy that's kinda uncalled for.

and a game that you could finish would be a neat option, but realistically i'd say it'd make it pretty damn boring.
 
I'm not really surprised but I don't care much about that since I was originally expecting Oblivion-like monologs and no interactivity with NPCs whatsoever. I still have to see the game in action though...
 
*sigh*

Strike number six million against Bethsoft's Fallout. Just another reason why the $50 that may have gone from me to their game is going to be buried deep, deep in my pocket.

Not even for morbid curiosity would I buy this game....and every tidbit's making it worse.

(Cue Bethsoft fanboys/media whores ranting about "rabid fanbase, etc.")
 
No worries....a charismatically inclined person can get 3 or 4 companions to help him....oh wait. Only one companion you say?

Never mind then.

I've always thought a Fallout game, without a central "bad guy" would be the best way to go in these respects. For example, say you're doing the whole NCR vs. Brotherhood thing....you don't make either one the bad guy. The player's choices determine what side he's on.

If the player is combat inclined, he gets involved in the actual war to raise his status. If he's charismatic, he uses politics to climb to the top, and win the war for whatever side.

That type of thing. "Mutants are roaming the wasteland...go kill them" isn't exactly open for a whole lot. Especially if the muties are all dumb. But if you had a war between the muties and BOS, that was more "grey" let's say....and allowed you to join up with the mutants, and do it that way. Major combat could be easily avoided.
 
Keep in mind he might have a more normal view of what avoiding combat is. Going through FO1 without fighting can involve some out and out running DURING combat to hit a zone marker and get away (Plus sneaking and dialog of course). He might not consider running away an option, thus he says you'll be in combat occasionally.

Not that I particularly mind having combat as "Play Fallout without fighting!" is more of a "Played the game over and over and now I'm just masturbating" kind of thing. Low INT dialog is similar, though a bit more likely for someone to choose for their first or second play through.
 
I was more interested in whether it's possible to finish teh game without 'personally putting an end to the life of an NPC'.
 
I'm not very bothered by this. It seems unlikely anyone could survive in such place without killing anything or anyone. Besides, finishing either Fallout 1 and 2 without killing at least one creature is hard at least (or boring, more appropriatly), but still, such option is a nice touch and wouldn't hurt.
 
Jiggly McNerdington said:
Keep in mind he might have a more normal view of what avoiding combat is. Going through FO1 without fighting can involve some out and out running DURING combat to hit a zone marker and get away (Plus sneaking and dialog of course). He might not consider running away an option, thus he says you'll be in combat occasionally.
.
Click to expand...

Right, but while in FO1/2 you could run to the exit grid and escape the combat zone, in FO3 it will be one huge area. Which could mean that while you're running away from one opponent you can stumble upon a different one. Plus, now knowing the feral ghouls are blazing fast, I don't think that you'll even be able to outrun them.
 
Or he simply means that you may have to kill something to move further in the game.
Nobody said that killing the behemoth was optional.
 
ToastMan said:
Jiggly McNerdington said:
Keep in mind he might have a more normal view of what avoiding combat is. Going through FO1 without fighting can involve some out and out running DURING combat to hit a zone marker and get away (Plus sneaking and dialog of course). He might not consider running away an option, thus he says you'll be in combat occasionally.
.
Click to expand...

Right, but while in FO1/2 you could run to the exit grid and escape the combat zone, in FO3 it will be one huge area. Which could mean that while you're running away from one opponent you can stumble upon a different one. Plus, now knowing the feral ghouls are blazing fast, I don't think that you'll even be able to outrun them.
Click to expand...

Aye, then it'll lead to Oblivion's pastime of luring whatever creature may be chasing you to the nearest wandering guard.
 
Well, I ain't very surprised, although I do like being able to talk the way out of every single encounter, using combat as a last-ditch effort when all else fails, but if it's pre-scripted that way... Well it just goes to show the depth that Bethsoft is taking the title, and unfortunately it's dressed up like an Olympic swimming pool but in reality it's just a wading pool...
 
I can't think of very many games that can be finished without having to engage in combat at least one time.

Even FO 1 and 2 were heavy on the combat (which is fine).

This, IMHO, is not even really news worthy.
 
Aye, honestly, could you really even finish FO without combat? Random encounters made that tough, not to mention the opening area of each game.
 
In most F1 playthroughs I run right through the caves. I've never tried a full diplomatic playthrough, but I think it's definitely doable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top