Evidence that Bethesda is trying to make a Fallout game

[Lumpy]

I'm not saying that Fallout 3 will be as good as Fallout 1 and 2. Bethesda has no pure-RPG experience, so how good Fallout 3 will be from an RPG standpoint remains to be seen. It might be great, or it might suck.
But, what I'm almost sure of, is that it will not suck because of being a TES-style game in a fucked-up Fallout setting. And that, while Bethesda might not succeed in making a true Fallout game, they are at least trying to (or are trying very hard to appear so, which is very unlikely).
First, here's a interview which isn't on NMA's list, and which has some very interesting details about Fallout 3: http://www.duckandcover.cx/content.php?id=66

Are there any plans to have contact with developers who have worked on the franchise before, for consultation on the Fallout universe or any other aspect of development of Fallout 3?
Yes, that's already occurred. There's a lot of passion from everyone to see Fallout return.

How true that is, we don't know. But it's quite likely that it is, and it shows Bethesda aren't afraid to talk to the devs of Fallout 1 and 2.

What, in your mind, are some of the things that differentiate the Fallout games (ignoring FO: Tactics and FO: Brotherhood of Steel, which didn't happen) from the Elder Scrolls series of RPGs?
Outside of the obvious flavor and setting, the number one thing is stronger characters. Fallout really set the standard for me on believable people, good dialogue, and character choice and consequence. With Elder Scrolls, we do aim for something enormous, and we simply can't focus on say - 20 to 40 really deep strong characters and just do them. With Oblivion, we're doing a much better job than we've done before, but the scale of game is so different that without sacrificing some of what makes The Elder Scrolls what it is, I don't think we'd be able to have the same level of characterization in NPCs Fallout did. So with Fallout 3, that's something we want to do well, a limited number of super-deep NPCs.

To those who keep screaming about how Fallout 3 will have wiki dialogue and NPCs with 3 lines. Not that it isn't obvious that Bethesda couldn't have made each of the 1500 talking NPCs in Morrowind and Oblivion have unique, deep, branching dialogue, with choices and consequences, or that Bethesda couldn't have made 50 deep NPCs in total to distribute on a 10 square miles world. Maybe the dialogues won't be as complex or interesting as in Fallout. But they will be as long and branching as in Fallout.

What are your thoughts on the timeframe and location for the game? By the end of Fallout 2, the world had changed a lot from the way it was when first emerging from the vault at the start of Fallout 1.
Ok, I can say it takes place after Fallout 2. But it's much more in the Fallout 1 flavor. I'm not sure if that makes sense without the specifics, but Fallout 1 is more our role model than Fallout 2.

This is the most interesting thing in that interview. I wouldn't have expected Bethesda to know that Fallout 2 wasn't the best representation of a Fallout-like setting. That they do shows that they have read many of the community's opinions (and not the mainstream "I <3 Fallout 2" community), and that they care about them.

Whilst every fan tends to have a different idea of what precisely Fallout 3 should be, there are a few things that most of us are unified on. Are you aware of the strong desires for turn-based combat and the classic 3/4 top-down viewpoint? Do you think pure turn-based combat in an RPG is viable in today's market?
Yes, of course we've heard many of the old-school fans regarding the view and combat resolution. What's viable today? Certainly turn-based combat limits your audience to a small number, but I do find that audiences will come if your game is good enough and the presentation is superb. Ultimately we'll do what we think will be the most fun.

Both of which are true. There are many people who have a strong dislike for turn-based, without being able to give any reason for it. But those people are not essential in making a successful game.

Will you be using the SPECIAL system in Fallout 3?
Yes, we have rights to it and plan on using it.

Not that they would have a reason not to use it, but some people seem to think that they do.

Second, there's the E3 2006 poster: http://www.primotechnology.com/issues/001/44/fallout-3.html. It's not the ultimate proof that Fallout 3 will be a true Fallout game, but it makes it less likely that it will not. It could have been a poster showing a cool, muscular guy dual wielding a rocket launcher and a mega-laser, fighting an army of ghouls and mutants, alongside with a half-naked girl with a laser pistol. It wasn't. It ressembled a propaganda poster for the vaults. Even if it wasn't perfect, and least they tried the right thing.

 

[Sander]

How true that is, we don't know. But it's quite likely that it is, and it shows Bethesda aren't afraid to talk to the devs of Fallout 1 and 2.

Which is shown by the fact that they hired those devs.
Oh, wait, they didn't.
Gee.

What, in your mind, are some of the things that differentiate the Fallout games (ignoring FO: Tactics and FO: Brotherhood of Steel, which didn't happen) from the Elder Scrolls series of RPGs?
Outside of the obvious flavor and setting, the number one thing is stronger characters. Fallout really set the standard for me on believable people, good dialogue, and character choice and consequence. With Elder Scrolls, we do aim for something enormous, and we simply can't focus on say - 20 to 40 really deep strong characters and just do them. With Oblivion, we're doing a much better job than we've done before, but the scale of game is so different that without sacrificing some of what makes The Elder Scrolls what it is, I don't think we'd be able to have the same level of characterization in NPCs Fallout did. So with Fallout 3, that's something we want to do well, a limited number of super-deep NPCs.

To those who keep screaming about how Fallout 3 will have wiki dialogue and NPCs with 3 lines. Not that it isn't obvious that Bethesda couldn't have made each of the 1500 talking NPCs in Morrowind and Oblivion have unique, deep, branching dialogue, with choices and consequences, or that Bethesda couldn't have made 50 deep NPCs in total to distribute on a 10 square miles world. Maybe the dialogues won't be as complex or interesting as in Fallout. But they will be as long and branching as in Fallout.

...
You're actually advocating length of dialogue over actual content and good writing? What the hell?
Other than that, yes, this is one of the positive bits, off-set by many more negative bits. We'll of course have to wait for Fallout 3 itself before we can sure of anything.
Then again, this is a conversation with a Fallout fansite, and any good marketing man knows that he needs to adapt his words to his audience.
Good to see they know about the concept of choices and consequences, though.

What are your thoughts on the timeframe and location for the game? By the end of Fallout 2, the world had changed a lot from the way it was when first emerging from the vault at the start of Fallout 1.
Ok, I can say it takes place after Fallout 2. But it's much more in the Fallout 1 flavor. I'm not sure if that makes sense without the specifics, but Fallout 1 is more our role model than Fallout 2.

This is the most interesting thing in that interview. I wouldn't have expected Bethesda to know that Fallout 2 wasn't the best representation of a Fallout-like setting. That they do shows that they have read many of the community's opinions (and not the mainstream "I <3 Fallout 2" community), and that they care about them.

Again, this is positive. But again, any good marketeer nows that you need to adapt what you say to your audience. Considering that this was a year-and-a-half ago, this becomes even more likely since supposedly nothing whatsoever was known back then.

Whilst every fan tends to have a different idea of what precisely Fallout 3 should be, there are a few things that most of us are unified on. Are you aware of the strong desires for turn-based combat and the classic 3/4 top-down viewpoint? Do you think pure turn-based combat in an RPG is viable in today's market?
Yes, of course we've heard many of the old-school fans regarding the view and combat resolution. What's viable today? Certainly turn-based combat limits your audience to a small number, but I do find that audiences will come if your game is good enough and the presentation is superb. Ultimately we'll do what we think will be the most fun.

Both of which are true. There are many people who have a strong dislike for turn-based, without being able to give any reason for it. But those people are not essential in making a successful game.

Yet this is more completely useless marketing speech. It's basically what I'd say if I were in his position and no decisions were made, especially to a hardcore Fallout fansite.

Will you be using the SPECIAL system in Fallout 3?
Yes, we have rights to it and plan on using it.

Not that they would have a reason not to use it, but some people seem to think that they do.

There's no saying what they'll do to SPECIAL. Remember, Tactics used SPECIAL as well, but changed it and even tried to fit a real-time engine on it.

Second, there's the E3 2006 poster: http://www.primotechnology.com/issues/001/44/fallout-3.html. It's not the ultimate proof that Fallout 3 will be a true Fallout game, but it makes it less likely that it will not. It could have been a poster showing a cool, muscular guy dual wielding a rocket launcher and a mega-laser, fighting an army of ghouls and mutants, alongside with a half-naked girl with a laser pistol. It wasn't. It ressembled a propaganda poster for the vaults. Even if it wasn't perfect, and least they tried the right thing.

That poster was really, really meaningless. While a decent effort, you can't base anything at all from that.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Does Pete know you're auditioning for his job?

I think you're drawing too much out of that interview. It's from Feb '05 - a few months after they got the license and right in the midst of Oblivion production. The focus then and for the subsequent year was on Oblivion 100%. Fallout wasn't even on the back burner yet.

Anyway how much progress has been made since then? How many former FO devs have been contacted, what have they contributed? What decisions have been made about TB, ISO, SPECIAL? So two years later and the only evidence is a poster?

Since that interview we've seen the regard and respect they have for the integrity of their own IP. I'm not sure why we should just accept Todd's lip service from a year and a half ago like it means anything. I'd like to see a more current, 3rd party interview, or some evidence more than a poster.

edit:damn I'm a slow poster, repeated everything Sander said.

 

[Lumpy]

How true that is, we don't know. But it's quite likely that it is, and it shows Bethesda aren't afraid to talk to the devs of Fallout 1 and 2.

Which is shown by the fact that they hired those devs.
Oh, wait, they didn't.
Gee.

Then, perhaps they lied, or perhaps they had their reasons not to hire them.

What, in your mind, are some of the things that differentiate the Fallout games (ignoring FO: Tactics and FO: Brotherhood of Steel, which didn't happen) from the Elder Scrolls series of RPGs?
Outside of the obvious flavor and setting, the number one thing is stronger characters. Fallout really set the standard for me on believable people, good dialogue, and character choice and consequence. With Elder Scrolls, we do aim for something enormous, and we simply can't focus on say - 20 to 40 really deep strong characters and just do them. With Oblivion, we're doing a much better job than we've done before, but the scale of game is so different that without sacrificing some of what makes The Elder Scrolls what it is, I don't think we'd be able to have the same level of characterization in NPCs Fallout did. So with Fallout 3, that's something we want to do well, a limited number of super-deep NPCs.

To those who keep screaming about how Fallout 3 will have wiki dialogue and NPCs with 3 lines. Not that it isn't obvious that Bethesda couldn't have made each of the 1500 talking NPCs in Morrowind and Oblivion have unique, deep, branching dialogue, with choices and consequences, or that Bethesda couldn't have made 50 deep NPCs in total to distribute on a 10 square miles world. Maybe the dialogues won't be as complex or interesting as in Fallout. But they will be as long and branching as in Fallout.

...
You're actually advocating length of dialogue over actual content and good writing? What the hell?
Other than that, yes, this is one of the positive bits, off-set by many more negative bits. We'll of course have to wait for Fallout 3 itself before we can sure of anything.
Then again, this is a conversation with a Fallout fansite, and any good marketing man knows that he needs to adapt his words to his audience.
Good to see they know about the concept of choices and consequences, though.

No, I mean it will try to be similar to Fallout's, even though it might not have the same quality. And it shows that they are planning to make few, but complex NPCs, and they would have no reason not to.

What are your thoughts on the timeframe and location for the game? By the end of Fallout 2, the world had changed a lot from the way it was when first emerging from the vault at the start of Fallout 1.
Ok, I can say it takes place after Fallout 2. But it's much more in the Fallout 1 flavor. I'm not sure if that makes sense without the specifics, but Fallout 1 is more our role model than Fallout 2.

This is the most interesting thing in that interview. I wouldn't have expected Bethesda to know that Fallout 2 wasn't the best representation of a Fallout-like setting. That they do shows that they have read many of the community's opinions (and not the mainstream "I <3 Fallout 2" community), and that they care about them.

Again, this is positive. But again, any good marketeer nows that you need to adapt what you say to your audience. Considering that this was a year-and-a-half ago, this becomes even more likely since supposedly nothing whatsoever was known back then.

What's important is that they are aware of the fact that Fallout 1 was better than 2. Thus, they have no reason not to make it more like Fallout 1. And since they have Fallout 2 as an example of how not to screw up the setting, they are more likely not to screw up the same way. On the other hand, there are many other ways.

Whilst every fan tends to have a different idea of what precisely Fallout 3 should be, there are a few things that most of us are unified on. Are you aware of the strong desires for turn-based combat and the classic 3/4 top-down viewpoint? Do you think pure turn-based combat in an RPG is viable in today's market?
Yes, of course we've heard many of the old-school fans regarding the view and combat resolution. What's viable today? Certainly turn-based combat limits your audience to a small number, but I do find that audiences will come if your game is good enough and the presentation is superb. Ultimately we'll do what we think will be the most fun.

Both of which are true. There are many people who have a strong dislike for turn-based, without being able to give any reason for it. But those people are not essential in making a successful game.

Yet this is more completely useless marketing speech. It's basically what I'd say if I were in his position and no decisions were made, especially to a hardcore Fallout fansite.

It shows they are considering both possibilities. If they had already decided on first person, they would have no reason to try not to annoy the fanbase now, since they would eventually annoy it anyway by announcing it.

Will you be using the SPECIAL system in Fallout 3?
Yes, we have rights to it and plan on using it.

Not that they would have a reason not to use it, but some people seem to think that they do.

There's no saying what they'll do to SPECIAL. Remember, Tactics used SPECIAL as well, but changed it and even tried to fit a real-time engine on it.

Didn't all games change SPECIAL, more or less?

Second, there's the E3 2006 poster: http://www.primotechnology.com/issues/001/44/fallout-3.html. It's not the ultimate proof that Fallout 3 will be a true Fallout game, but it makes it less likely that it will not. It could have been a poster showing a cool, muscular guy dual wielding a rocket launcher and a mega-laser, fighting an army of ghouls and mutants, alongside with a half-naked girl with a laser pistol. It wasn't. It ressembled a propaganda poster for the vaults. Even if it wasn't perfect, and least they tried the right thing.

That poster was really, really meaningless. While a decent effort, you can't base anything at all from that.

What's important is that it wasn't this: http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0001RBG46.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
If it was going to be a mutant fighting action RPG, it would probably have been like that.

Does Pete know you're auditioning for his job?

Trust me, it's gonna be cool.

 

[Silencer]

Are there any plans to have contact with developers who have worked on the franchise before, for consultation on the Fallout universe or any other aspect of development of Fallout 3?
Yes, that's already occurred. There's a lot of passion from everyone to see Fallout return.

quotehetheshakespeare wordswordswords

 

[Sander]

What's important is that they are aware of the fact that Fallout 1 was better than 2. Thus, they have no reason not to make it more like Fallout 1. And since they have Fallout 2 as an example of how not to screw up the setting, they are more likely not to screw up the same way. On the other hand, there are many other ways.

No, they are aware that most hardcore fans *consider* Fallout 2 to be inferior to Fallout. This in no way means they'll actually go that way. Although I'm sure that constant 4th wall jokes and lame referenes won't be their cup of tea, judging by Oblivion.

It shows they are considering both possibilities. If they had already decided on first person, they would have no reason to try not to annoy the fanbase now, since they would eventually annoy it anyway by announcing it.

Hello? This was a year and a half ago. Nothing was, supposedly, then decided. Nothing.

Didn't all games change SPECIAL, more or less?

No. Fallout 2 changed two traits and added/amended some perks for game-balancing purpose. Tactics neutered it and clumsily tried to add a real-time engine to it, which didn't work at all.

What's important is that it wasn't this: http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0001RBG46.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
If it was going to be a mutant fighting action RPG, it would probably have been like that.

What? No, that's bullshit. Hell, one great reason to choose that poster would be that it's completely neutral, which is probably why they chose it in the first place since they seem to be so reluctant on giving out any information at all.

 

[Brother None]

How true that is, we don't know. But it's quite likely that it is, and it shows Bethesda aren't afraid to talk to the devs of Fallout 1 and 2.

We have good contact with a lot of Fallout devs and pretty much ALL of the key developers. No word of BethSoft contacting any former Fallout dev has ever reached us. They never invited devs to come work for them, in fact, they've refused said devs.

So bullshit.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I'd call that a big nail in the coffin, but only if FO didn't already have to be exhumed for that to happen.

 

[DirtDigger2000]

Hmm..lets look at their recent record and pronouncements on what people want and don't want in a game:

People don't want a game that is too hard..but they don't want one that is too easy.Answer:Universal item and level scaling to keep the porridge just right throughout.

Geez i like this game but i keep getting killed at early levels and that sucks balls:Well dear friend let us introduce a concept that is fail proof.A game should be a cakewalk if you are at low levels and the difficulty of enemies should not increase until you are ready to meet them.

There are too many choices in developing my character:Not to worry we understand that you like things simple.There is no way you should be forced to develope a unique character.All skills should be simplified enough that you get the maximum benefit,and experience,from the game in one playthrough..as a matter of fact we will make sure that you must develope all of your skills(the half dozen there are),even the ones that don't fit your player character,before leveling up.Every game you play should be the same generic experience as the one you played before.

I don't know which weapon to use for the character i created:Not to worry..a player shouldn't be forced to chose any one weapon type.With our easy system all weapons are of three types(except for thrown weapons..thats just a useless no one uses them)Blades,blunt,,ranged.

Looking at the above can i still use axes?:My dear player of course you can.We don't want to force you into picking anything so they are classified under blunt weapons(on a personal note i still almost have an aneurism over this..(if anyone plays DBA a simplified way of portraying them would be as blades).

Cool!One thing that bothers me is that i don't understand directions and i don't like reading things..i mean thats too tough:Its simple,you will never have to think for yourself.Our journal entries will tell you exactly where to go and what to do..if that is too much then don't worry because we will pinpoint the exact spot you need to be.

Wow it sounds like you guys have thought of everything that I as a gamer may need,You guys ROXXERS!on't give us too much credit.Though while we understand that you are too lazy,and or stupid,to play through a game that requires a modicum of choice or thought you still must pick up a controller and press start to enjoy the full experience we have envisionaged.We are too short staffed at the moment to have personnel come to each and every home that has our game and play through it for them.

That sucks and you guys suck! If i had wanted a game where i even had to put the least amount of thought or effort into i would have bought the latest one from Rockstar:While we are sorry that you have to put the minimum amount of effort,and or thought into our game,we hope to rectify this deficency in our future titles.Our next big release will be made for you,the casual gamer,and require no more thought or effort on your part than buying the game.We promise you the most useless and shallow experience ever.

 

[Kahgan]

 

[SuAside]

Wow it sounds like you guys have thought of everything that I as a gamer may need,You guys ROXXERS!on't give us too much credit.Though while we understand that you are too lazy,and or stupid,to play through a game that requires a modicum of choice or thought you still must pick up a controller and press start to enjoy the full experience we have envisionaged.We are too short staffed at the moment to have personnel come to each and every home that has our game and play through it for them.

Let's welcome The Empty Scrolls 5: The Movie instead.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

There was this interview with Pete Hines before Oblivion was released.

For instance, we don't let AI characters steal items from you - it sounds like something that would be cool and fun, having to lock your house and stuff, but the problem is that when you come back to your house and there are items missing, it doesn't feel like somebody's stolen them, more like the game's broken.

Now with that attitude to design and marketing how can anyone believe they are capable of making a Fallout game. Either they believe that players are too stupid to work out they've been burgled so that they'd rather cut the feature than think of ways of making it not seem like the game is broken. Or they were just to caught up in the shiny to think of a few visual or verbal clues to give the player?

 

[Brother None]

Looking at the above can i still use axes?:My dear player of course you can.We don't want to force you into picking anything so they are classified under blunt weapons(on a personal note i still almost have an aneurism over this..(if anyone plays DBA a simplified way of portraying them would be as blades).

I fail to see why. If you're going to classify HtH into "blunt" and "bladed" then the use of an axe would resemble the use of a "blunt" weapon (base: club) more than that of a "bladed" weapon (base: sword). So in its own way, it makes sense.

 

[Lumpy]

Looking at the above can i still use axes?:My dear player of course you can.We don't want to force you into picking anything so they are classified under blunt weapons(on a personal note i still almost have an aneurism over this..(if anyone plays DBA a simplified way of portraying them would be as blades).

I fail to see why. If you're going to classify HtH into "blunt" and "bladed" then the use of an axe would resemble the use of a "blunt" weapon (base: club) more than that of a "bladed" weapon (base: sword). So in its own way, it makes sense.

That's what they were thinking, most likely. Naming it Blunt instead of something like Hafted was idiotic, though.

There was this interview with Pete Hines before Oblivion was released.

For instance, we don't let AI characters steal items from you - it sounds like something that would be cool and fun, having to lock your house and stuff, but the problem is that when you come back to your house and there are items missing, it doesn't feel like somebody's stolen them, more like the game's broken.

Now with that attitude to design and marketing how can anyone believe they are capable of making a Fallout game. Either they believe that players are too stupid to work out they've been burgled so that they'd rather cut the feature than think of ways of making it not seem like the game is broken. Or they were just to caught up in the shiny to think of a few visual or verbal clues to give the player?

The problem was that the player wouldn't have been able to get back his things. A scripted robbery might have worked. An unscripted one, on the other hand, would probably have not.
Not that NPCs can lockpick a door or break into houses anyway, so that was all bullshit.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

The problem was that the player wouldn't have been able to get back his things. A scripted robbery might have worked. An unscripted one, on the other hand, would probably have not.

Baloney! Does it take much to make stolen goods turn up at fence for resale? Or at least just quest items? FO2 managed it with the kids in the den, have developers really devolved so much in relation to graphics evolving?

 

[Roshambo]

The problem was that the player wouldn't have been able to get back his things. A scripted robbery might have worked. An unscripted one, on the other hand, would probably have not.

BULLSHIT. All it takes is competence in scripting, which Bethesda DOES NOT HAVE. From combat AI to...well, everything about the Retarded AI.

A "tracking" check that could have been performed by simply combining Sneak and Security together (really, if someone runs through with that much swag, they're going to leave an impression with both those watching and the surroundings, so there adds some speech checks), giving a bit more for rogue-types and Cheesecraft...I mean, Speechcraft folks to do, bonus for Khajiit for tracking by scent and night vision (extra flavor opportunity here). The event of stealing from your house leads to either one of two easy quest outcomes.

1. The thief goes directly to their hidehout, where you can find most of your stuff stashed EXCEPT for a really good item that he went to go immediately hock. Once you get to that den where it was hocked, you can either buy it or have to steal it from its new owner, a variety of people who just wanted to buy something cheap "from pawn", the den's legitimate face after they blank the items. It is up to you whether to murder him, knock him into submission and either take your belongings and/or his belongings as well. Since you're attacking them, they can legitimately call the guards, who them should question you what you're doing there, and if you can prove that he stole your belongings and if you have good Cheesecraft, you can collect your stuff and go on your way. If not, he will require a fine or whatever for disturbing the peace and not reporting the crime/summoning the guards yourself. It will be either an item he sees in the stash of your stuff, or an amount of money (choice).

2. The incompetent thief. This nimrod walks directly from your house and to the den, where all of the other thieves watch on with amusement, as he hocks a good item (for a very reduced price, as he's an idiot), and goes off to his house. The other thieves, when you show up, don't bother to hide their to mocking laugh about which must be worse, the amateur theif or the security of the house he just broke into. Since they already had the best laugh they have had in days, they tell you where his house is and say that you can either have the chump change they paid for your item, or return/reimburse them for their money and they'll give you your item back. Depending on your reputation with someone, once you get back, the price might have changed dramatically.

3. A more competent thief scenario involving hiding spots obscured that containing loot, as the more competent thieves (which you would naturally attract once you became more wealthy) make several stashes and might even use another city as a hock point.

There, I have just done better design work in perhaps a tenth of the time they took to design an excuse as to why they can't be bothered to really design their own IP.

Also, Lumpy, Pete is never on the same page as the developers. I've already established this.

Also, he believes you can play Oblivious as a JOAT character. Yay for dev_mode.

 

[DirtDigger2000]

Looking at the above can i still use axes?:My dear player of course you can.We don't want to force you into picking anything so they are classified under blunt weapons(on a personal note i still almost have an aneurism over this..(if anyone plays DBA a simplified way of portraying them would be as blades).

I fail to see why. If you're going to classify HtH into "blunt" and "bladed" then the use of an axe would resemble the use of a "blunt" weapon (base: club) more than that of a "bladed" weapon (base: sword). So in its own way, it makes sense.

Well i was thinking more of the type of damage they cause.Better to have kept them as their own class rather then forcing them into one.I guess though that would have defeated the purpose of allowing players to use all the toys in the game without having to train about half a dozen different weapon skiills from the previous one.

In a game like Fallout it makes sense to have all hand to hand weapons classified under the generic term melee weapons since there are such a wide range of weapons and combat styles in the game.In a game where the main style of fighting is going to be melee though it doesn't as there is as much difference in wielding a mace and an axe as there is in using a dagger and a claymore.

I would hope that they don't follow the same philosophy in creating Fallout 3 as there would be only two combat skills Things that go bang and Things that don't.Skills like thrown weapons would be completely thrown out because,come on now,nobody ever uses thrown weapons and implemeting them would distract from important elements..like having pretty trees and rocks,customizable faces,or making sure that every NPC,no matter how unimportant,has spoken dialogue.

I guess i'm being a bit harsh on them since we don't know what they are going to do.The philosophy with their last game seemed to be that people want simple games that do not require too much effort on the part of the player,and where the player can do everything and experience all it has to offer in one playthrough.

 

[Serifan]

in FO2 I loved how the children could steal stuff from you, I just thought to myself so that what all the other people must of felt like when I stole from them.

1X Dynamite $30

Child theif getting blown the fuck up.

Priceless

 

[DirtDigger2000]

"But it ain't all programming and sales charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of game making is? Well I suppose you do, since you already know what I'm about to say"...

"Love. You can know all the PR in the 'Verse, but make a game that you don't love,it'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps a game from sucking when it oughta fall down, tells ya it's hurtin' 'fore its released. Makes it work.