Fallout 3 at E3 - Armchair Empire

[Mani]

With all the technology so necessary for today’s music, it’s a reminder of a time when singing actually meant something. It wasn’t processed a thousand times for perfect sound; it came out flawed but somehow with a deeper, more meaningful sound.

The irony here is simply overwhelming.

However, a brain is required to process, recognize, and most importantly, to understand it. In this case, that may be too much to ask.

Yeah, it's enough to make your head explode.

waves of Super Mutants that needed to be put down

Oh joy.

 

[Tora]

No, what I'm saying is that we shouldn't really make any conclusion on what the game will contain (story or gameplay wise) from this small demo that we as players haven't even seen for ourselves and which isn't for us. The demo that the gaming press has watched is specifically for them, tailored for them. Bethesda wanted it to contain a lot of combat and juicy gory scenes because that is something that always (if it is good) makes people go... awe wow... Bethesda managed this as we can read from the previews.
So until we have a serious information from the REAL game we should be sensible about what we conclude of how the actual game will play out.

What we can draw conclusions from are the bits of technical gameplay information that reaches us; I mean the specific fragments that we actually can analyse from.

Ah.. so a demo these days are not ACTUALLY for demo'n what the game will be like. Sorry I got confused, because I had always been under the FALSE assumption that demos are made to represent what the important features of the game are. So its not for the public and was for the press,.... for the press to pass the information along. Unless of course, games are made for the press these days, and not for the public, since the public *only* downloads games now and the press is where the market is.


Seriously, why is it that negative conclusions are always given the argument of "you don't have enough info!" and all positive conclusions are fine? Buying a game is a LUXURY, not everyone can afford to err on the positive side when making a decision whether to get a game or not. (Unless you were being paid $$$ by Bethesda of course ) Else everyone would have to buy every game ever made just in case they were wrong

 

[Black]

Some people just want to deny facts...
-Nuclear catapults
-Suck-o-tron
-Megaton quest
-toilet drinking
-super mutants everywhere
-Enclave radio station
-Int doesn't affect dialogue
-No groin/eye shors
-Few other things


So, we DO NOT KNOW if they are there for sure?
Hah!

I guess someone missed the shitload of previews.

 

[Brother None]

I was hoping the "we don't know yet" would end with the wave of previews. But apparently, it'll never end.

 

[Mutateman]

I was hoping the "we don't know yet" would end with the wave of previews. But apparently, it'll never end.

Well, I know on GameFaqs, the "we don't know yet" argument still comes out on the day a game's released, and people are actually playing the thing!

"You just haven't played it enough to know. You need to play it, complete all the side quests, get all the endings, and then you can say it sucks. You just don't know enough from one play through."

WTF!?!

 

[Blackwing]

Aside from the mini-nuke catapult, I'm not all that worried about FO3 being made by Bethesda.

As long as the feel of the game is the same I'll like it. (A game does not need groin shots to make it Fallout. PoS would have had groinshots if they hadn't chucked out aiming altogether.)


Looking at the changes from Morrowind to Oblivion, I DO believe that Bethesda can make FO3 feel more like Fallout than Morrowing and Oblivion. But the question is whether they will.

Edit:

To clarify: I think that the general 'Fallout-i-ness' of FO3 will have to come from non-combat interactions and this is where the previous Bethesda games... basically... sucked.

If Bethesda can get the NPCs and environment (computers etc..) to interact with me in a way equal to or better than the previous Fallout games then I don't give a shit whether I can't hit a super-mutant in the nuts.

 

[VDweller]

Some people just want to deny facts...
-Nuclear catapults
-Suck-o-tron
-Megaton quest
-toilet drinking
-super mutants everywhere
-Enclave radio station
-Int doesn't affect dialogue
-No groin/eye shors
-Few other things

Don't forget portable nuclear shelters.

Btw, here is an indepth Fallout preview that might give you a good idea about the game:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=153

 

[Makagulfazel]

To clarify: I think that the general 'Fallout-i-ness' of FO3 will have to come from non-combat interactions and this is where the previous Bethesda games... basically... sucked.

If Bethesda can get the NPCs and environment (computers etc..) to interact with me in a way equal to or better than the previous Fallout games then I don't give a shit whether I can't hit a super-mutant in the nuts.

Wait until some dialogue examples come out. A shit-heap of previews claiming that Fallout3's dialogue is similar(or exactly like) Oblivion's have got me more than worried. Bethesda isn't exactly known for having great writers.

Besides that, intelligence doesn't affect dialogue options. Why? Because they probably won't have many dialogue options to begin with.

Bethesda's past hasn't shown that they keep to their word, either. All these hype words they're throwing everywhere, I wouldn't believe any of them until you see the game in action.

Edit: Haha, what a great compilation of quotes. FPS is right.

 

[Starwars]

Don't forget portable nuclear shelters.

Btw, here is an indepth Fallout preview that might give you a good idea about the game:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=153

Aw man, haha... Even though some of those quotes are out of context, it's pretty fuckin' depressing to read. Oh well.

Some people have guessed that Fallout 3 would be Oblivion with guns, and that is not the case. While it does use the Oblivion engine, never once did I see anything resembling Bruma or the Imperial City.

This quote is especially hilarious.

 

[whirlingdervish]

this one was dead on:

Actually it's interesting for me - it harkens back for me to some of the most enjoyable first-person games I've ever played, the Terminator games Bethesda made. Fallout 3 is Bethesda's triumphant return to gunplay games, after swords and sorcery for so long. For me it's about bringing back THAT legacy.

-Emil Pagliarulo, Eurogamer


he's pretty much saying:

"Fuck the Fallout Legacy that holds this franchise together, I just wanted to make an FPS Terminator game with the oblivion engine and heavily alter somebody else's artistic vision."

 

[VDweller]

That's exactly what he said:

"Emil: It's like, you also can't proceed feeling like you owe the fans of Fallout anything, you can't feel bad that you're not making a turn-based isometric game."

You've heard the man. He doesn't owe you shit. Go home now.

 

[whirlingdervish]

unfortunately for that assumption:

without fans like us purchasing Fallout and Fallout 2, the bastard stepchild of a game that he's making wouldn't even have name recognition for bethesda to use to overcome the major limitations of having crappy content and immature developers.

He does owe us, he's just too much of a stupid jackass to realize it, and act on it.

 

[fedaykin]

As long as the feel of the game is the same I'll like it. (A game does not need groin shots to make it Fallout.

You are right, groin shots are just a small part of Fallout. I myself think they're a bit trivial. If you pay attention though, you'll notice it's far from being the only part Beth is changing.

The feel is not enough. And what is that "feel of Fallout" anyway? Some abstract term applied when we don't know what we mean exactly? I think not. I think it's not just the post-apocalyptic theme of Fallout, it's the whole game, in it's entirety. Gameplay + audiovisuals = feel. Thus, if you make bad changes to the gameplay and/or audiovisuals, you get a worse feel. Thus, if you want to improve the game, improve the constituent parts of its feel instead of watering them down.

 

[Black]

Don't forget portable nuclear shelters.

And corpse eating, Vault gang, 'daddy cool', you can't piss him off etc.
These things are pretty much confirmed and somehow people still manage to say things like "you don't know yet"- one question comes to my mind.
What the hell?

That link is precious, I thought gaming press is shit now but it seems they are inteligent enough to call FO3 by it's name- first person shooter. ;d

Wait until some dialogue examples come out.

"Nice hat" which pisses the sheriff of Megaton off.
Mr. Handy calling you "stupid git" or something like that.
Low int doesn't affect dialogue.

But, what I'm saying, silly me. We don't know anything yet. It's not like there was shitload of previews.

"Emil: It's like, you also can't proceed feeling like you owe the fans of Fallout anything, you can't feel bad that you're not making a turn-based isometric game."

You've heard the man. He doesn't owe you shit. Go home now.

I bet he feels the same for TES fans.

 

[Blackwing]

Yeah, taking that into account, maybe Bethesda should also have bought the rights to Interplay's old forums and read the PoS discussions.
(I've sort of changed my viewpoint after reading some of the reviews)

The general message to Bethesda should probably be:

Ah,you're trying to sell me a post-nuclear FPS with dialogue options limited to 'yes I'll do the quest', 'No I won't do the quest' and 'Tell me something random'. A game where you fight mutants and other survivors of the disaster and where the limited choices you make have a limited impact on the environment?

That's sounds great, but I bought it already a few years back.

...

What do you mean 'No, we don't mean S.T.A.L.K.E.R.?'.

 

[Kyuu]

The feel is not enough. And what is that "feel of Fallout" anyway? Some abstract term applied when we don't know what we mean exactly? I think not. I think it's not just the post-apocalyptic theme of Fallout, it's the whole game, in it's entirety. Gameplay + audiovisuals = feel. Thus, if you make bad changes to the gameplay and/or audiovisuals, you get a worse feel. Thus, if you want to improve the game, improve the constituent parts of its feel instead of watering them down.

Quite right. And also, from what I've seen, even the audio/visual aspect of FO3 is definitely not remaining true to the originals. A Mr. Handy robot that busts crappy wise-cracks behind your back? Not at all Fallout-y. Super mutants that, asides from having no business being on the East Coast, look nothing like they're supposed to? Focus on action (VATS, from what I've seen and heard, just does not cut it whatsoever) instead of, well, anything that actually made Fallout Fallout? Elementary school humor? "Violence is f___ing funny!"? How does any of this capture the "feel" of Fallout?

20 or so licensed songs from the 40's and 50's (when never did you hear that music in a Fallout in-game), Ron Perlman, an intro-movie that is vaguely reminiscent of the originals', and the Fallout name slapped on the box doesn't cut it, in my opinion.

 

[Blackwing]

Thing is, the things I'm hearing from some people now are completely opposite to those of the clamour around PoS.

Having Ron Perlman (for FO3) say "War. War never changes." is an improvement compared to PoS, because PoS not having Perlman was something many people complained about.

Likewise I doubt FO3 will have any members of the 1st Bikini Whore Infantry Division present in the game, except if it's a humorous reference to how bad PoS was.

Likewise, FO3 will likely have Nuka-Cola and other such little icons of the Fallout feel.

Actually I do have a PCgameplay (dutch edition magazine) where Todd Howard goes on record saying that talking or 'skilling' your way through a quest is still a viable option. Let's hope that's true.

Any way I'm ambigious now. Barring a PoS style fan-communcation faux-pas on Bethesda's part. I'll probably play FO3 (whether I'll buy it is another matter altogether) and base my judgement on that.

So far the use of the SPECIAL system and the fact that they seem more concerned with keeping it in line with original Fallouts than the PoS team ever was.

I'm not going to put my head in the sand and pretend that anyone could make a Fallout that's exactly like the original Fallouts and make it work.

All I want is for FO3 to remind me of Fallout in a good way. If FO3 makes me go "That's always what I thought a 3D encounter with a Deathclaw would be like." rather than "Holy shit, I'm Level 15, have 18 STR, 18 Agility and 18 Perception 150% in Heavy Weapons, a Power Armour and a Plasma Rifle and that Deathclaw still ripped me to shreds, because I don't play Unreal Tournament 5 hours a day, this never would have happened if FO3 had Fallout's combat system." then I'll be ok with the Combat aspect of the game.

My main concern for FO3 is the non-combat part of the game, since I always prefered the diplomatic approach in Fallout and it worked well. That's where I REALLY want FO3 to be almost exactly like Fallout.

Lastly when it comes to visual style: So long as they keep the basic look the same (that is: gritty, 50's sci-fi style, with Vaults looking like Vaults and cities looking enough like they did in Fallout), I don't mind if Supermutants in DC are not carbon copies of Supermutants on the West Coast. Graphics techniques have advance a lot since the original Fallouts. I'd rather they make FO3 look ENOUGH like Fallout and add their own touch than that they make it look EXACTLY like Fallout and then find themselves unable to add anything that wasn't in the originals, because they can't get it to be what they want and still look enough like the original.

FO3 is on an entirely different coast from FO and FO2 so slight discrepencies in looks can be... overlooked.

 

[Per]

Likewise, FO3 will likely have Nuka-Cola and other such little icons of the Fallout feel.

Yeah, we've seen it. It was the wrong colour.

 

[Sorrow]

Likewise I doubt FO3 will have any members of the 1st Bikini Whore Infantry Division present in the game, except if it's a humorous reference to how bad PoS was.

Because Fallout is no longer about porn. Now Fallout is about fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.

Likewise, FO3 will likely have Nuka-Cola and other such little icons of the Fallout feel.

They even couldn't get the Nuka-Cola looks right. They made it into a normal Coca-Cola instead of a genuine blue Nuka-Cola.

Seriously, why is it that negative conclusions are always given the argument of "you don't have enough info!" and all positive conclusions are fine? Buying a game is a LUXURY, not everyone can afford to err on the positive side when making a decision whether to get a game or not. (Unless you were being paid $$$ by Bethesda of course ) Else everyone would have to buy every game ever made just in case they were wrong

That's a good fucking point. That's funny that despite that games are expensive luxury goods, some people think that "giving a chance" to games or even buying games and then finishing it for developers is something that a decent person should do.

 

[Joe Kremlin]

Actually I do have a PCgameplay (dutch edition magazine) where Todd Howard goes on record saying that talking or 'skilling' your way through a quest is still a viable option. Let's hope that's true.

How am I supposed to talk my way out of "waves" of Super Mutants attacking me?