Fallout 3: Are you getting it?

[Sander]

Comparing Civ and Fallout is apples and oranges, to the same degree that comparing Fallout and Diablo is.

No, it isn't. Not when it comes to the speed and type of gameplay. The fact that Civilization continues to sell well on the same formula it sold well on 15 years ago shows that isometric, turn-based games are not some dead animal.

I also got the impression that FO3 is playable from an isometric perspective

I don't know where you got that impression from, but it isn't. It has two viewpoints that you can play from: first-person, and a third-person over-the-shoulder cam. There is a possibility to zoom out, but it's impossible to play from that perspective other than walking around.

I prefer turn-based to real-time, but the VATS system lets me play it close enough to turn-based anyway(unless I've got it all wrong, which has been known to happen)

VATS is nothing like turn-based, at all. It just means you get to pause the game when you want, and then aim at body-parts.

I'm not saying we care if Bethesda make enough money, but it's daft to think that any non-fan-made game would be made unless it was economically feasible to make it.

Again: why would we care?
And yet again: where is it proven that it's not economically feasible to make these games? Nowhere. The only reason you have to believe this, is that these games haven't been made for years.

Also, a Fallout game that sells well increases the chances of us ever seeing another Fallout game.

A Fallout sequel that is not like the previous games at all only increases the chances of us seeing another game like said sequel. Something we don't care for.

And if nobody cares whether more fallout games are made, why even argue about this game instead of just replaying FO and FO2?

Yes, let's all just not want a sequel to what we consider some of the best games ever made.
What?

As to Bethesda's motivation behind doing a fallout game? Maybe they just wanted to see another Fallout game get made and nobody else was doing it.

Interplay put out the rights, reportedly there were several interested parties, so no this is bullshit.

There is an inconsistency in saying "they're just making the Fallout game to make lots of cash" and saying "They don't need to make a Fallout game, they'd sell just as much doing something else", don't you agree?

I don't remember ever saying the former.

 

[Zembar]

Well, we could, but then you'd be ignoring what the actual developers of the game have said.

Nicely written article there. I'll get back to it presently:

No, that's the 'holy grail' in roleplaying. However, what the Fallout team attempted to do wasn't to bring that experience to the PC, they attempted to bring the experience of playing a pen&paper game (a GURPS game specifically) to the PC. Remember, it started out as a GURPS game as well.

But then they left GURPS and developed SPECIAL. Like you quoted in your article: "If you want to exactly represent GURPs, D&D or most other PnP RPGs then you have to go turn based, which was the decision for Fallout when it was GURPs."
When you change the system, such assumptions change. However, even though I stand by what I said using the information I had, this comes into play:

Actually, this is not what Fallout 3 is going to let you do either. All it's going to let you do is queue aimed shots. Everything else is in real-time. So everything in combat, including moving, reloading and whatnot does not fall under paused RT.

That is certainly for shame. One wonders why they would implement a pause-queue-unpause system and not allow it to be used for everything. It certainly puts a dent in some of my reasoning and overall assessment.

Just because it's possible doesn't mean it fits the setting.

Just because it wasn't in the previous games doesn't mean it doesn't fit the setting.

Ehm, Isengard Mutants refers to the look of the Mutants, not their hostile intents.

I think that's a minor issue though, I'd personally chalk it up to a result of a better graphics capabilities.

No, the ghouls have a zap-attack. Full-stop.

I'm going to trust you on that and be a bit horrified, actually. I guess the best that can be said about that is that there hopefully will be an editor available somewhere along the line..

'Hey, there's a game out there that does what you want, why don't you stop wanting anything new and just play that game for thousands of years'

The problem is that everyone seems to hate absolutely everything new in FO3, which only gives people like me the impression of irrational hate. Whether that's the case or not, the venom really isn't helping.

 

[Zembar]

No, it isn't. Not when it comes to the speed and type of gameplay. The fact that Civilization continues to sell well on the same formula it sold well on 15 years ago shows that isometric, turn-based games are not some dead animal.

We'll just have to wait until someone has the guts to do it with an RPG again and see I guess.

I don't know where you got that impression from, but it isn't. It has two viewpoints that you can play from: first-person, and a third-person over-the-shoulder cam. There is a possibility to zoom out, but it's impossible to play from that perspective other than walking around.

Isometric is only for walking and watching the result of your VATS actions then. I'm fine with first-person for conversations, since that's how it worked with many NPCs in FO anyhow(in a way).

VATS is nothing like turn-based, at all. It just means you get to pause the game when you want, and then aim at body-parts.

Leaving this since it was discussed in my previous reply

Again: why would we care?
And yet again: where is it proven that it's not economically feasible to make these games? Nowhere. The only reason you have to believe this, is that these games haven't been made for years.
A Fallout sequel that is not like the previous games at all only increases the chances of us seeing another game like said sequel. Something we don't care for.

Unless the sequel is good. Otherwise it's a "Damned if we do, damned if we don't"-type situation.

Yes, let's all just not want a sequel to what we consider some of the best games ever made.
What?

That's not what I said though.

Interplay put out the rights, reportedly there were several interested parties, so no this is bullshit.

Anyone you think would have done a better job? Shadowrun springs to mind here as a franchise that got a far worse treatment than fallout is getting.

I don't remember ever saying the former.

Then why do you think they're making it?

 

[Sander]

Don't double post, we have an edit button for a reason.

But then they left GURPS and developed SPECIAL. Like you quoted in your article: "If you want to exactly represent GURPs, D&D or most other PnP RPGs then you have to go turn based, which was the decision for Fallout when it was GURPs."
When you change the system, such assumptions change. However, even though I stand by what I said using the information I had, this comes into play:

GURPS was changed not because they wanted to change it, but because they lost the rights. They created SPECIAL to get a system that was close to GURPS, but a little bit better-suited to the PC platform.

Just because it wasn't in the previous games doesn't mean it doesn't fit the setting.

No, but if you look at the source of the isolationist, elitist BoS it comes from the nature of a dog-eat-dog world that Fallout represented.
To have them change to an altruistic organisation doesn't gel with the setting.

I think that's a minor issue though, I'd personally chalk it up to a result of a better graphics capabilities.

?
Several comparison shots have been made across these boards. The entire build, posture and look of the mutants has changed. Instead of a '50s era bit campy monster, we have a modern-style orc.

The problem is that everyone seems to hate absolutely everything new in FO3, which only gives people like me the impression of irrational hate. Whether that's the case or not, the venom really isn't helping.

This is only so to people who glance at this community instead of reading what is being said.
People generally think it's fine that the game is 3D, for instance. The idea of walking through the beginning stages of your life is viewed positively, and our own Fallout 3 preview praised several things, most notably the look and feel of Vault 101.

Isometric is only for walking and watching the result of your VATS actions then.

Actually, no. From what we know, VATS' results will always have to be seen from a cinematic perspective. So all the 'isometric' camera seems to be good for is...walking.

Unless the sequel is good. Otherwise it's a "Damned if we do, damned if we don't"-type situation.

Well, what we care about is the Fallout brand and we want nothing more than another real Fallout game. Now, Fallout: BoS and Fallout: Tactics weren't that, but at least they weren't full sequels. But if the continuation of the series completely departs, then that is basically the end of the series unless in some distant future it's picked up by someone else and restarted.
And from almost everything we've seen so far, it isn't looking rosy.

Anyone you think would have done a better job? Shadowrun springs to mind here as a franchise that got a far worse treatment than fallout is getting.

Troika (of Arcanum, Temple of Elemental Evil and Vampire: Bloodlines) was in the running for a while. The company was run by the original creators of Fallout.

[quote='Zembar"]
Then why do you think they're making it?[/quote]
Who knows. Perhaps they like it. Perhaps they did think it was a good investment. Perhaps they wanted to do something other than TES but were too lazy to create their own world. I don't know. And frankly, I don't really care why they're making it either.

 

[Ravager69]

Zembar, as for the lack of info...don't you think it's a bit unfair from BS to:

a) not provide enough information on the game, so the client can't fairly judge if the game is good enough for his money?

b) not release a demo to the publicity, but only to a couple of selected game journalist that are sure to praise the game no matter if it's good or not?


BS goes too far from Fallout 3 in both gameplay and setting, violates the lore AND completly ignores the 10 years old fanbase, that has been waiting for a sequel for a *long* time. Bethesda needed an idea for a game, since they can't think of any good on their own, so they bought a long-dead franchise, adjusted it to their needs (i.e. milking as much cash as possible) and yet still claim to stay true to the originals. NOT-FAIR. I was happy when I heard about BS obtaining the rights to Fallout, but that was before Oblivion and before signing up here, so don't tell me that people only hate this game for God-knows how ridiculous reasons.

 

[Zembar]

Don't double post, we have an edit button for a reason.

I assure you I didn't double post on purpose, I was simply replying to your post while you were replying to mine etc, there were basically two discussions going. We seem to be synced now however.

GURPS was changed not because they wanted to change it, but because they lost the rights. They created SPECIAL to get a system that was close to GURPS, but a little bit better-suited to the PC platform.

That I got, but the quote implies that turn based was selected to fit GURPS, but another system might have made real-time or RT/pause more fitting.

No, but if you look at the source of the isolationist, elitist BoS it comes from the nature of a dog-eat-dog world that Fallout represented.
To have them change to an altruistic organisation doesn't gel with the setting

It does if they isolated themselves from the mutants, ghouls, raiders etc, that alreadi in FO2 had started to be replaced with more organized settlements (NCR etc), making it simply harder to be isolated. It would then serve them better to *appear* altruistic. I'm waiting to play the game until I decide whether they've really gone soft or are just playing the propaganda game to further their agenda.

Several comparison shots have been made across these boards. The entire build, posture and look of the mutants has changed. Instead of a '50s era bit campy monster, we have a modern-style orc.

I didn't think super mutants were that campy though. Maybe I missed something there, mostly I saw them as monstrous humans, which they are, after all.

This is only so to people who glance at this community instead of reading what is being said.
People generally think it's fine that the game is 3D, for instance. The idea of walking through the beginning stages of your life is viewed positively, and our own Fallout 3 preview praised several things, most notably the look and feel of Vault 101.

I did enjoy the preview, to be sure. I think the editorial tone of NMA is generally very good, and that I haven't objected to. The comments and forums however are another matter. The character creation sequence is something I'm very much looking forward to seeing.

And even though I registered on the forums today, I've been reading here for some time now.

Actually, no. From what we know, VATS' results will always have to be seen from a cinematic perspective. So all the 'isometric' camera seems to be good for is...walking.

If one can't even use skills and such from that perspective, I'm left confused why they even put it in. Otherwise, walking around describes a lot of what I used to do in FO1/2.

Well, what we care about is the Fallout brand and we want nothing more than another real Fallout game. Now, Fallout: BoS and Fallout: Tactics weren't that, but at least they weren't full sequels. But if the continuation of the series completely departs, then that is basically the end of the series unless in some distant future it's picked up by someone else and restarted.
And from almost everything we've seen so far, it isn't looking rosy.

I liked Fallout: Tactics actually(*dodges bullets*), but I don't see it as a real fallout game. For me a real fallout game would be one that captures the feeling and atmosphere of the world, and allows me to go about things more or less however I want it. Let's hope they at least manage that.
Is the naming that important though? Would it really make a big difference if it was called Fallout: Tales of the East Coast instead?

Troika (of Arcanum, Temple of Elemental Evil and Vampire: Bloodlines) was in the running for a while. The company was run by the original creators of Fallout.

I'm familiar with Troika, yes. I'll admit they'd probably have done a better job(probably=with 99% certainty). They always do seem to mess up something in every game they make though, more in the way of being cursed than anything else though.

EDIT: Inserting answer to ravager's post:

Zembar, as for the lack of info...don't you think it's a bit unfair from BS to:

a) not provide enough information on the game, so the client can't fairly judge if the game is good enough for his money?

b) not release a demo to the publicity, but only to a couple of selected game journalist that are sure to praise the game no matter if it's good or not?

It's not being released until end of november or so, it's not very common for that much information to be released this early

BS goes too far from Fallout 3 in both gameplay and setting, violates the lore AND completly ignores the 10 years old fanbase, that has been waiting for a sequel for a *long* time. Bethesda needed an idea for a game, since they can't think of any good on their own, so they bought a long-dead franchise, adjusted it to their needs (i.e. milking as much cash as possible) and yet still claim to stay true to the originals. NOT-FAIR. I was happy when I heard about BS obtaining the rights to Fallout, but that was before Oblivion and before signing up here, so don't tell me that people only hate this game for God-knows how ridiculous reasons.

You said it yourself in the first quote; there isn't enough information. The gameplay is obviously changed, but the setting might be intact.

I don't think BS have a lack of imagination, I'd say any milking going on in the development of Fallout 3 is of the oblivion game engine, not the Fallout name.[/quote]

 

[Sander]

That I got, but the quote implies that turn based was selected to fit GURPS, but another system might have made real-time or RT/pause more fitting.

Uhm, GURPS *is* turn-based.

It does if they isolated themselves from the mutants, ghouls, raiders etc, that alreadi in FO2 had started to be replaced with more organized settlements (NCR etc), making it simply harder to be isolated. It would then serve them better to *appear* altruistic. I'm waiting to play the game until I decide whether they've really gone soft or are just playing the propaganda game to further their agenda.

So you're assuming that they're acting even though everything points to the opposite?
Well, okay, you can feel free to hope, I suppose.

I liked Fallout: Tactics actually(*dodges bullets*), but I don't see it as a real fallout game. For me a real fallout game would be one that captures the feeling and atmosphere of the world, and allows me to go about things more or less however I want it. Let's hope they at least manage that.
Is the naming that important though? Would it really make a big difference if it was called Fallout: Tales of the East Coast instead?

Yes, it would. Because a spin-off doesn't mean that the series itself changes.

It's exactly why most people don't really object to Fallout: Tactics, or why Warcraft afficionados didn't complain about World of Warcraft. Suppose that World of Warcraft had been Warcraft 4 - this means that the series has changed, instead of a new game being created in the same setting.

 

[Zembar]

Uhm, GURPS *is* turn-based.

Yes, I think you missed my point.
GURPS is turn-based, hence they went with that. Since it is no longer GURPS, perhaps turn-based isn't the best option for the system they're now representing.

So you're assuming that they're acting even though everything points to the opposite?
Well, okay, you can feel free to hope, I suppose.

I explicitly said I *wasn't* assuming, in fact. Let's reverse it: You can feel free to assume the worst, I suppose

Yes, it would. Because a spin-off doesn't mean that the series itself changes.

It's exactly why most people don't really object to Fallout: Tactics, or why Warcraft afficionados didn't complain about World of Warcraft. Suppose that World of Warcraft had been Warcraft 4 - this means that the series has changed, instead of a new game being created in the same setting.

If it can be changed, it can also be changed back. Who knows what the future holds?

(Yes, I can be unbearably optimistic at times)

 

[Sander]

Yes, I think you missed my point.
GURPS is turn-based, hence they went with that. Since it is no longer GURPS, perhaps turn-based isn't the best option for the system they're now representing.

What, SPECIAL? SPECIAL was created as a turn-based system.
And even though they lost the GURPS license, they still wanted to emulate the GURPS experience as closely as possible.

I explicitly said I *wasn't* assuming, in fact. Let's reverse it: You can feel free to assume the worst, I suppose

No, actually, I'm just going by what they've said. Which is that the BoS is now a goody two-shoes organisation.

If it can be changed, it can also be changed back. Who knows what the future holds?

(Yes, I can be unbearably optimistic at times)

For now, the future holds Bethesda having the license.

 

[Plissken]

I'm getting it. After seeing gameplay previews, even though it's not the Fallout I know, it seems like it will be a decent post-apocalyptic game.

Oh, and I want the lunchbox.

 

[daemonofdecay]

I liked Fallout: Tactics actually(*dodges bullets*), but I don't see it as a real fallout game. For me a real fallout game would be one that captures the feeling and atmosphere of the world, and allows me to go about things more or less however I want it. Let's hope they at least manage that.

I gotta agree with you Zembar. Fallout was about the ability to help immerse yourself in the experience by making choices shaped by the 'atmosphere' of Fallout more than being just a turn-based RPG.

Would I have prefered a Fallout 3 that was an isometric turn-based game? Of course!

But I know it's not gonna happen. Old school gamers who grew up on pen and paper RPGs are a dying breed, and while I would like to think our kids (and thier kids and so on) could appreciate Fallout for what it was (is), I don't see how isometric, turn-based RPGs are going to make any sort of come-back beyond a few indie attempts.

BS goes too far from Fallout 3 in both gameplay and setting, violates the lore AND completly ignores the 10 years old fanbase, that has been waiting for a sequel for a *long* time.

Here is where I would agree with those who, imho, are a little overly critical about the game (although they both have reason to be upset and are no different from any other loyal fanbase when a treasured name gets handled by others; just look at Trekkies when they made a whole news series).

I actually applauded the move to first person, because it gives me (the player) more options in how to play the game the way I want. But I have been consistently disapointed with how some of the lore of Fallout has been disregarded, and that is where I think the game may get somethings wrong.

I don't mind a few changes (I'm not going to throw a fit because the Vertibird doesn't look exactly the sameas in FO2) but how the BoS has changed is one of those things that I need to see for myself in game before I judge, but I definetly fear it may be a radical departure.

Bethesda needed an idea for a game, since they can't think of any good on their own, so they bought a long-dead franchise, adjusted it to their needs (i.e. milking as much cash as possible) and yet still claim to stay true to the originals. NOT-FAIR.

I thinks its not just a profit motive (although that had to be a, if not the, major part of it), but I bet that the guys who are working on it do appreciate Fallout. But the also are trying to put their own touch on the game, for better or for worse (more likely the latter).

You said it yourself in the first quote; there isn't enough information. The gameplay is obviously changed, but the setting might be intact.

Somethings have been changed, ret-conned, rewritten, or simply ignored. Some of it major, some of it minor. The BoS's new attitude on life is just one of the many things.

So while I am a little wary about them changing such important aspects of FO lore, I'm also willing to give them the benefit of the doubt untill I play it because previews/reviews don't give the full picture. It might not be as bad as I fear, or it could be worse.

And lets face it, at heart we are all just very protective of the original Fallout games. They were excellent, two of the greatest games of all time, and any changes to that world is not going to be widely accepted by a devoted community.

So I definetly am looking forwards to FO3, but I am even more looking forwards to the mods to follow. If Oblivion was any indication, the game should have a very large moding community soon after the game launches that will be able to tweak it to its hearts desire. And thats why I say screw the consoles, the only way to play Fallout is on the PC!

I mean, sure they might have made they game where you can't kill children. But that should be fixed in just a few days at the most, so it doesn't bother me terribly. But those things mods cant fix are what scare me.

EDIT: And before I forget: I think we all know that Isometric games are not dead, but too many people seem to think they are. Its too sad, but oh well.

 

[Per]

Fallout was about the ability to help immerse yourself in the experience by making choices shaped by the 'atmosphere' of Fallout more than being just a turn-based RPG.

No matter how often this gets said, it still makes little more sense than "Quake was about the ability to help immerse yourself in the experience by making choices shaped by the 'atmosphere' of Quake more than being just a real-time FPS." Games are first and foremost about gameplay. Any amount of reasonable arguments why Bethesda had to go the way they did don't change what "Fallout was about".

 

[daemonofdecay]

No matter how often this gets said, it still makes little more sense than "Quake was about the ability to help immerse yourself in the experience by making choices shaped by the 'atmosphere' of Quake more than being just a real-time FPS." Games are first and foremost about gameplay. Any amount of reasonable arguments why Bethesda had to go the way they did don't change what "Fallout was about".

I can see your point. I mean, if Blizzard were to make a first-person Diablo 3, it would be a huge-shift in terms of how the game would feel for the user.

But in my opinion, the shift from isometric isn't a game-breaker for me. There are other issues I am concerned with, and games like Deus Ex was a wonderful game that was both RPG and FPS that leave me hoping that Fallout 3 wont leave a bad taste in my mouth after playing.

 

[Sander]

But in my opinion, the shift from isometric isn't a game-breaker for me. There are other issues I am concerned with, and games like Deus Ex was a wonderful game that was both RPG and FPS that leave me hoping that Fallout 3 wont leave a bad taste in my mouth after playing.

Well, erm, sure Deus Ex was a good game. But so was FIFA '98. That doesn't really have any bearing on Fallout, since they're completely different games.

 

[velvatier]

i will definitely not be purchasing fallout three, nor will i be purchasing any other bethesda products unless they seriously revamp their view towards and treatment of the gaming community.

 

[TheMaskedMan]

Ever since i read that Newb thread Im not sure if i want it now......

 

[General Felipe]

Man... i'll gonna need another computer !

Hahahahaha...

Someone here knows the requiriments?

 

[Vrede]

Man... i'll gonna need another computer !

Hahahahaha...

Someone here knows the requiriments?

Oblivions (aka Shitlivion) requirements should be pretty similar, just google and add a little bit maybe?

i will definitely not be purchasing fallout three, nor will i be purchasing any other bethesda products unless they seriously revamp their view towards and treatment of the gaming community.

AMEN TO THAT!!!

 

[pevvy]

I will definitely buy FO3!

I have played the first Fallouts through a couple of times and consider myself a fan, of mostly perhaps the post-apocalyptic setting, but also of course of the role-playing elements.

I have also played Morrowind and Oblivion through a couple of times and consider myself a fan of them as well.

I've been half-astonished, half-amused reading about the gripes people have expressed in various places about Fallout 3. It would seem that among the Fallout fans there are some incredibly stubborn people who would not accept change.

I do not mind one bit that the old and limiting isometric system has been completely abandoned. Quite the contrary, the first-person full-3D modern implementation gives the setting so much more details and nuances, and immersion above all! Immersion is important for an RPG, and looking at a tiny puppet from far above really distances the player from the environment. It was a good step after Pen&Paper, text-only or 2D RPGs but we have now so much better technology at our hands to portray the worlds to role-play in!

Being turn-based was also a logical continuation from PnP to computers, but ultimately is just a tool to portray the role-play skill systems in place of the player's real-life boring skills Therefore I just applaud the VATS innovation, it seems to be a nice tool that is not so much immersion-braking as a fully turn-based system is. Another tool in this regard, not often recognized as such, is simply a good balance of the player character's real-time vulnerability (or invulnerability) and ability to affect the environment (whether combat, hacking, lock-picking or other skills); and those of course based on the underlying skill system that FO3 also uses. I mean, it is already role-playing when the player character can excell (or suck ) in many of those real-time tasks completely differently than the player itself might in similar real-life scenarios, heh.

And about the Fallout lore, it sure seems like most of it is preserved in FO3. So what if there are some changes to appearances or manners of some factions, it has been many decades since the events of FO2, it is inevitable that changes would have occurred in such a small but widely spread population rising from the ashes!

Finally I would like to say to all of you griping sour-pussies out there: It is always sooo easy to just look over the shoulders of others at what they are doing (Bethesda in this case, if left unclear) and launch big words in a know-it-all tone. Instead of those four-letter deliveries, why don't you start your own game company and make whatever kind of Fallout sequel you want Oh, that's right, you do not have the rights to the Fallout franchise.

I wellcome the breath of fresh (albeit radiated) air that Bethesda has managed to give to the Fallout setting. I am confident that FO3 will be a wonderful RPG experience, and if it should have any weaknesses, such is life; game developers are, after all, just humans like us, the game players!

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

I will... game players!

Todd, for the last time, you're not fooling anyone.