Fallout 3 at E3 - Gamehelper

[Jiggly McNerdington]

Oh, and do us all a favour and use the quote tags as they were intended, Jiggly. I'll edit this last post of yours for you, but from there on out, any mis-formated posts will be vatted as unreadable. phpBB's format is easy enough to work with, it's hardly any effort on your part.

Your last post is in the Vats because of this, Jiggly. I repeat: using quote tags isn't difficult, please do so, because your posts are unreadable when you don't. I'm not going through the effort of fixing your posts again.

That said: to understand the local POV better, consider the following: a good game is not the same thing as a good Fallout. You're constantly intermingling the two.

I was typing that before your other post showed up, so I didn't see what you said before I posted it.

And the thing is, to me, Fallout 3 being a good game COULD BE a good Fallout. Again, it mostly rests on things that we don't know from some 10ish screenshots and a teaser, but depending on how the dialogue is, how the humor ends up, how the story is and so on, it could be an excellent Fallout game to me. Like I've driven into the ground in the other post Fallout to me isn't hinged entirely on the perspective and combat.

 

[Black]

The teaser and few screenshots isn't all the info we have- all these prewievs? NMA's FO3 FAQ wasn't built on 2 minute teaser and few screenshots.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

Same issue as above. I could enjoy a Fallout FPSRPG if it's done well, but I guess you can't.

How should I say it... Because fpsrpg Fallout wouldn't be Fallout at all!

As in, that's the reason you leave the vault? That's the reason they've said so far, but maybe there are others and they haven't mentioned them yet. Again, not a game ruining issue for me.

That and some Vault-gang, thugs who are after you because the Overseer think you helped your dad escape...
Game ruining? Not really. Role-playing ruining? Yes.

To the first chunk, again, same issue as before.

Second chunk, if there's a gang of thugs after you because the overseer's out to get you, that makes sense for leaving the vault. Even if you say "No, I hate my dad, I'd never help him escape!" they're looking for a scapegoat and you're it. That makes sense to me.

It wouldn't be the same, but it would be the same setting.

Then it shouldn't have "3" in it's title. If only setting is the same (and they're changing quite a lot) then it's a spin-off, not sequel.

That actually wouldn't bother me at all. I could go with that. "Fallout: Vault 101" has a nice ring to it.

 

[Black]

Second chunk, if there's a gang of thugs after you because the overseer's out to get you, that makes sense for leaving the vault. Even if you say "No, I hate my dad, I'd never help him escape!" they're looking for a scapegoat and you're it. That makes sense to me.

The part that makes no sense to me is how the hell would there be a gang in a Vault? Did Overseer just give access to armory to all people, even dangerous? And what else do they have? Nuclear motorcycles?

That actually wouldn't bother me at all. I could go with that. "Fallout: Vault 101" has a nice ring to it.

Fair enough, though I think "The Elder Scrolls 4.5: Fallout" would be better.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Or "Bethesda's PostApoc: Not Fallout" sounds even better.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

If you want a clearer reason...we're not talking about a setting here. Fallout wasn't designed as a setting, it was designed as an emulation of GURPS (later SPECIAL) on the PC, with a setting wrapped around it. The mantra "only the setting matters" isn't actually valid except for things that are designed purely as settings. For instance, would a D&D game set inside the D&D universe but without any D&D rules by a D&D game? Not really.

This whole setting = franchise thing is so last century.

That makes no sense at all. A game about time travelling dinosaurs on the Discworld infested by goblins and zombies created by vampires from beyond the moon would be more Fallout friendly than Fallout 3, simply because there are GURPS books for all of it, and if the game was iso and turn based and used GURPS/SPECIAL it's closer to Fallout? The setting is what I enjoy most about the Fallout games. The meta humor, the violence, the whole 50's sci-fi post apocalyptic setting with vaults and mutants and FEV and everything is the main thing that makes me enjoy the Fallouts. SPECIAL worked very well and made a cool setting more enjoyable, but I just don't see how you can completely write off a game simply because it plays differently.

Hell, for a recent example, look at Warcraft 3. Though I liked the story less than Warcraft 2, the genre was the same, RTS. They change the gameplay significantly by adding more micro-heavy units and leveling heroes and creeping and yadda yadda yadda. The gameplay is undoubtably vastly different from Warcraft 2, while it is still fairly obviously a Warcraft game. Yes, it's not as dramatic as going from RPG FPSRPG, but jarring changes in gameplay don't change the setting. I would say that's a fact, though I guess I'm the only one who thinks it.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

Second chunk, if there's a gang of thugs after you because the overseer's out to get you, that makes sense for leaving the vault. Even if you say "No, I hate my dad, I'd never help him escape!" they're looking for a scapegoat and you're it. That makes sense to me.

The part that makes no sense to me is how the hell would there be a gang in a Vault? Did Overseer just give access to armory to all people, even dangerous? And what else do they have? Nuclear motorcycles?

A gang of even 3-5 people who want to kick the crap out of you/kill you because the overseer suspects you helped your dad escape, but doesn't have enough proof to officially execute you and thus uses underhanded methods to get the job done without upsetting the other vault dwellers makes sense to me. And they don't need access to the armory, even unarmed people could beat you up/kill you especially if you're unarmed in the vault yourself.

Also, you mentioned a gang and I went with it, but have they mentioned that?

That actually wouldn't bother me at all. I could go with that. "Fallout: Vault 101" has a nice ring to it.

Fair enough, though I think "The Elder Scrolls 4.5: Fallout" would be better.

That's the sort of thing that makes me surly, you see.

 

[trustno1]

The setting is what I enjoy most about the Fallout games.

Cool. You're entitled to your opinion.
But why can't you acknowledge the fact that others enjoyed the gameplay, that there aren't exactly tons of games providing this type of gameplay (thank god for indies) therefore stripping the series of this feature is a big deal for them?

 

[BloodNinja]

WOW, thanks for making me feel welcome! lol
I mean seriously, I didn't knock any of your views I was just expressing my own. Then you call me down, tell me I'm not a "real" fan of the series because I don't share your views and you try to discredit my opinion and say it doesn't make any sense.
You know, I didn't go about explaining each aspect individually because I assumed you all had the intelligence to know what I meant instead of purposely disregarding my view and attacking me. I loved the FO games, I found them to be engrossing and I think that having the new game FP will bring more to that. I think the feel of the game remains intact from what I've read. And as far as the gore goes, anyone remember bloody mess? hmmmmmm Now I can go on to rag on all of you with my extensive knowledge of the "AMAZING FALLOUT UNIVERSE" and how your opinions don't match my opinions, but really I'm not that emotionally unbalanced. Go play a fps, gtfo troll. Like what the hell is that about? I was really hoping to join these forums to talk about FO3 and share my opinions with others like myself, but I think I'll just carry on playing the previews games until the new one comes out and I can kick it with some AZOME NUKLEAR EXPLOSHINS ROLFCOPTERZORS.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

The setting is what I enjoy most about the Fallout games.

Cool. You're entitled to your opinion.
But why can't you acknowledge the fact that others enjoyed the gameplay, that there aren't exactly tons of games providing this type of gameplay (thank god for indies) therefore stripping the series of this feature is a big deal for them?

I could sort of understand it if they didn't like the new style of gameplay, but when they (Well, he) mention enjoying Deus Ex, I don't see why they couldn't enjoy it in a different way.

Like I ranted in here elsewhere, since Black Isle died and Bethesda bought Fallout, it's not like Bethesda's actively stopping a SPECIAL Fallout iso turn based RPG. I could understand it being a big deal then. But since the choices are/were basically no Fallout or Fallout FPSRPG, I would think they'd be at least interested in the FPSRPG since it's a setting they already enjoy.

I'm gonna scuttle off now though, been typing here for way too long and wasting my weekend.

 

[decline]

ok..another long long time lurker crawling out of the woodwork...
first got hooked on the these with wasteland..in fact i put off buy fallout 1 cause it wasn't a top down iconish view with text combat like wasteland had...but anyway...after playing oblivion (which has a fair number of flaws in it) i started thinking, ok this could work maybe...the long distance traveling outside and stuff...going off the roads it felt it a bit isolated and seemed it could translate into a wasteland environment. so i was willing to surrender isometric to the oh so popular first person view....
but now i'm feeling really worried...its not that l went around in fallout shooting children in the groin or that i wanted to...but rather that i could.
i think, in my opinion, this is where they are loosing that feeling of fallout....it was in what you could do to me.
i also have this terrible feeling...and please someone correct me if i'm wrong...but its looking like humans good, mutants bad, or mostly fighting mutants and thats it...there are already plenty of fps out there with people versus mutants or aliens or whatever you want to dress them as hoping to sneak more violence in past the ratings board.
what i would like to see would be:
1. the original hit locations
2. children and make them killable and i'll have fries with that thanks
3. not so much focus on guns (its a wasteland, i always felt ammo should be scarce and having a gun a big deal)
4. any item usable as a weapon (when i first armed the room key as a weapon in wasteland i laughed myself silly)
5. every character killable (i quite playing oblivion for a while when i first cut down someone and they got back up wtf! talk about kicked out of immersion)
6. cut the nuke-a-pult (its silly and the game with the most bad a$$ guns doesn't make it the best game ever)
7. toilet water? (nice try but come on...i'll accept water heals you, its about as realistic as a first aid kit or symbol instantly making you better, but...um...brown toilet water...how about cans of dinky di dog food instead)
---i'm still out on this v.a.t.s. thing..but my gut says just pick real time or turn based don't try to use both (i'm down for turn based but i did get sick of holstering my weapon after each shot)

theres more but its late and this post feels long...hello to everyone by the way. have loved this site and i thank you all for it.

 

[Black]

I could sort of understand it if they didn't like the new style of gameplay, but when they (Well, he) mention enjoying Deus Ex, I don't see why they couldn't enjoy it in a different way.

God dammit, what's so hard in understanding that players want to play various types of games?

 

[trustno1]

I could sort of understand it if they didn't like the new style of gameplay, but when they (Well, he) mention enjoying Deus Ex, I don't see why they couldn't enjoy it in a different way.

Still not getting it - it's not that the game will suck, be completely unplayable or what-a-not. It's about variety - the type of gameplay presented by previous Fallouts was pretty unique. If a series characteristic for that style is being turned into something different, it's like a kick to the groin to an already knocked-out contestant.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Its really weird, I was just going through some of the descriptions of Van Buren, the would have been Fallout 3, and the thing I notice the most is all the things you can do other than blowing up things and killing mutants and critters.
You can rebuild towns, you can establish trade between various settlements, you can improve things.

Yet when we look at Bethesda's Fallout 3, the highlights seem to be in what kind of ways you can kill people and blow towns and people.
There is no talk at all what you can do outside killing people and blowing up things, yes how you can use two broken guns to make a working one.

Van Buren might not have been developed by the original Fallout gurus but it still looks damn fine on paper after all these years.

If I do ever manage to get the necessary money, I will hire as much people who worked on it, and get them to finish it just for me.

 

[Dengar]

While I hope against all hope that Fallout 3 can actually deliver, its the overwhelming weight of the evidence that crushes the faithful like a ton of bricks. Fallout 1 and 2 were finely crafted, intelligent products of people who knew that it takes patience to craft something wonderful.

What we are seeing is Todd Howard, a man with a dubious track record of insipid game design, single out "elements" of the Fallout series that he claims are his inspiration, but were always just window dressing. It feels like Michael Bay announced he is directing Godfather 4 and its going to be a faithful sequel, what with the ultra-violence and a fat Italian man who likes cats. Immature morons would say "Throw in some Linkin Park and we're set" but those of us who appreciate a genuine, if flawed, classic die just a little bit more inside.

Oh, and oh yeah, long time lurker, first time poster.

 

[Sorrow]

They weren't forced to buy the license, but they wanted to because there were probably some people at Bethesda who wanted to faithfully make a new one. However, creative control is always in various hands. When working in a team with profit greedy CEO's watching over you, an individual cannot demand that Fallout be whatever he wants it to be.

I think that it has more to do with Bethesda folks really being so in love with themselves that they think they are making a real Fallout 3. Simply, they belong to a certain group of people who liked the Fallout setting, but not the Fallout gameplay.
Simply, judging from what they say, none of the Bethesda devs are near the level of people like Tim Cain and Leonard Boyarsky.

 

[ivpiter]

Fallout 3 on Play Feed

Just saw a new impression up and this caught my eye:

-Right now, one of the most foul-mouthed games I can remember in a while. Think of a swear word even you wouldn’t use. It’s probably in there.

-Excellent choice in music. Not your average soundtrack, as it features depression- and WWII-era hits. Sounds dorky, but totally works within the game’s aesthetic.

-Four good words: Personal Atomic Grenade Catapult. Oh yeah.

-Four bad words: Drinking from dirty toilets.

Seems they are REALLY pushing the explitives for flavor/humor .. I can see Todd playing now going... F--, we need more F----'ing F---'s in this F---ing game, where's my God Damn F---'ing Nuke-a-pult motherf----er.

ref link: http://games.gearlive.com/playfeed/article/q107-e3-2007-preview-fallout-3-details-and-impressions/

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

The more we see about it the more it feels like "Fallout for Dummies, an introduction to Fallout for those who do not have much time."

 

[Joe Kremlin]

Wow, some negative feedback in a review. Good find.

“Oblivion: The Geiger Scrolls”


Also, when they say 20 quest thread lines, I'm assuming that there will be plenty of side quests outside of that? (didn't play Oblivion)

 

[Mick1965]

BloodNinja's post is a good example of how to act (and that's a strike for calling him a troll, Mick1965). Jiggly is halfway there, since he's half-concerned with talking to us, half-concerned with telling us what to do, so that's a strike, again.

So I've got 2 strikes? What does that mean? Are you saying that people posting uninformed opinions saying "you guys are all wrong, FO3 is going to be great!" should be ignored?

Mick