Fallout 3 at E3 - Gaming Trend

[Black]

There was plenty of swearing

Not really.
Whoops, 11 page, post limit

 

[Sander]

So I'm new here, actually I've lurked quite awhile, but I've been paid handsomely by Bethesda just to let you know how great their version of Fallout 3 will be. It'll be fuckin' awesome! No motherfuckin' way are we going to fuckin' mess it up!

Seriously, I ain't affiliated.

I love Fallout 1 and 2. I've read the Fallout bible thoroughly. So far, what I'm hearing, doesn't sound too bad. It was always better, back in the day. Rarely do we look forward to the 'coming thing'.

I'm optimistic, toilet drinking be damned. I'm sorry, fucked. That's what I meant.

The problem with sequels is that every one has a different sequel already in mind. And it's even worse that the original creators are not even near this project. I'm not optimistic about that. Star Control 3 is one of my least favorite games for that very same reason. Still, there's little here that takes away from what I would expect from fallout outside of nitpicking continuity (a fanboy trait I always had a problem with), and so-called physics.

So you mean that you didn't notice the part where they completely changed the combat system and perspective?

Fallout 1 and 2 didn't follow any such "laws" and was all the better for it. The laws applied were only 1950's Cold War nuke science - when "duck and cover" meant something.

Verisimilitude still means something. In a 50s nuclear-bomb-scared environment that thought of nukes as the ultimate destructor to destroy worlds, having a small nuclear catapult is completely out of place.

Man, I can go into a new experience cynically any time I want, but I won't get the full experience if I close my mind to it.

You're point being what? That we should be positive no matter what, 'cause then we might have a better time?
Don't be ridiculous.

There was plenty of swearing and gore in the original fallout 1 and 2.

Swearing and gore were part of the games, yes (although swearing only to a very small extent). The difference between those game, and the way Bethesda is displaying their game is one of focus. Bethesda's *focus* is on gore, swearing and largely misplaced humour. They're making it out to be an essential, very big part of the game. This was never the case for Fallout.

There was even a flaw (perk?) that allowed for greater bloody messes. A body outside a vault perfectly recalls that first moment, and indicates your survival level.

A dead body outside the vault indicates a high focus on gore, what?

Finding your father? Far better and more interesting than an errand boy who's primary quest for the McGuffin inadvertantly lands him into trouble. There's more of an emotional connection there, I'd say.

The father plot limits your character heavily, forces a motivation on him (you apparently want to leave the vault to follow your father. No such thing was presumed in the first game) and it forces a main character in the game that is not you.

 

[xdarkyrex]

lol...

this entire thread is insane.

The amount of opinion bashing and assumption is crazy.

 

[Brother None]

lol...

this entire thread is insane.

The amount of opinion bashing and assumption is crazy.

Yeah, and "haha, you guys are all stupid!" posts are actually trolling. Watch it there, yeah

 

[xdarkyrex]

Sorry guy, it's just that the idea of trying to do a point by point on this entire thread, which sadly it does need, makes my head hurt.

The amount of confusion all around is just baffling.
I didn't mean to call anyone stupid or just belittle people, is was a comment on the thread overall. It made me think about that negative reputation this place sometimes gets.

But you are right, this isn't the right thread for this, and I apologize for 'trolling'.

 

[jmarquiso]

So you mean that you didn't notice the part where they completely changed the combat system and perspective?

Yeah, I noticed. And I'm sorry it's gone. Was it the only reason I played Fallout 1 and 2? No.

Verisimilitude still means something. In a 50s nuclear-bomb-scared environment that thought of nukes as the ultimate destructor to destroy worlds, having a small nuclear catapult is completely out of place.

You and I don't completely disagree here. 50s Sci-Fi energy weapons do make more sense, after all.

Keep in mind also that 50s post-apocalyptic films weren't nearly as bloody as Fallout 1 and 2.

You're point being what? That we should be positive no matter what, 'cause then we might have a better time?
Don't be ridiculous.

When I go into a movie that I've already decided I'm going to hate, I tend to have a bad time. When I keep an open mind and try to have a good time, I can either be disappointed or pleasantly surprised. That's my point.

It's too early for me (personally) to make judgments.

Swearing and gore were part of the games, yes (although swearing only to a very small extent). The difference between those game, and the way Bethesda is displaying their game is one of focus. Bethesda's *focus* is on gore, swearing and largely misplaced humour. They're making it out to be an essential, very big part of the game. This was never the case for Fallout.

I haven't seen any evidence that their focus is on gore and swearing. Scatological humor, yes. I could go without that.

Gore, not so much. I knew people who played fallout, getting their jollies out of tearing a mutant to pieces. I'm not personally a fan of blood and guts, but it was part of the atmosphere of the originals. The same syndrome could be seen in this preview.

The swearing does seem a bit much, but not much more than say, an episode of "Deadwood". I've always seen Fallouts as Westerns in a way, and that's the sort of language that occurs on the outskirts of a frontier. The Frontier, in this case, is the surface.

A robot saying "stupid git" is more Douglas Adams than Fallout, and really, a poor interpretation of Douglas Adams, but it recalls some of the snide comments made by previous allies, like Grampy Bone.

A dead body outside the vault indicates a high focus on gore, what?

Exactly. Fallout 1, outside the vault, was a wonderful dead body. The guy who drew the shorter straw than you. That was funny, but it also raised the stakes.

The point of Vault 101 appears to be never leaving and never letting anyone or anything in. "Let us in, motherfuckers" fits in with the story they're trying to say. As a storyteller myself, I'm letting them tell their story before I make a judgment. I think it's a great way to get exposition and atmosphere across without a completely boring talking head. It's also a fun bit of art direction.

The father plot limits your character heavily, forces a motivation on him (you apparently want to leave the vault to follow your father. No such thing was presumed in the first game) and it forces a main character in the game that is not you.

Have you played "Oblivion" or "Morrowind"? There is a major plot, but you don't have to follow it. In fact, you could do the exact opposite of what's required. I used to play "Morrowind" wishing it was fallout. I would use a lot of the same tactics from that (I generally played thief characters) to avoid direct confrontations, find ways around things, generally accomplish the game with as little combat as possible.

The same, of course, is true of the Fallout games. I played Fallout the same way. Although I never liked the main plots of those games - "find the water chip" and "find the G.E.C.K." I know these aren't the real main plots, but they ARE what thrust the beginning of the story.

The inciting incident in Fallout 1 - you drew the short stick (well, second shortest). Unbeknownst to you, this is a suicide mission.
The last guy didn't make it out the front door.

The inciting incident in Fallout 2 - your Mother forces you through a temple of trials, and since you won, you're sent off on a suicide mission.

The inciting incident in Fallout 3 - Your father disappears, and you're kicked out of Vault 101 as a result. Presumably, this is a death sentence, as the big bad wastes are gonna get ya (the preview also mentioned that Vault 101 - like most vaults - had an educational propaganda machine that wasn't so positive about the surface).

In Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, as you go along your merry business, the true Major Plotline begins to reveal itself, and you have choices to actually beat it. In both stories, after you complete the first major plot, there's a plot reversal, and you have to become the hero of the Vault or the Tribe to take care of it.

Fallout 3, the inciting incident is the father. What's the main plot, and does it have much to do with Megaton and this Mr. Burke? We don't know.

I wonder if Vault 101 was an experiment in inducing paranoia.

As for humor - I'm sure we'll see more Monty Python-esque humor (as the original creators had), some approximation of 50s sci-fi humor, Simpsons references and easter eggs. The pip-boy cameo in the teaser trailer hit the nail on the head, as did the music. Making 30's and 40's irony of the "Happy Days are Here Again" mold could be the right tone of atmosphere. Though I do think the 50's tune "Mr. In-between" has a place in Fallout.

The working PIP-boy radio reminds me a lot of "Grand Theft Auto", and it might be. The amount of writing effort people spent on the GTA radio programs is amazing - as it captured the feel of that particular game. Licensing 40's music and having a radio station as an actual location tells me that they spent some time thinking about this. The 'news' station may be a propaganda machine, or told by some paranoid survivalists. Reminds me a bit of how the news was spread in "Jericho". The fact that one meets "Mr. Burke" at a radio station tells me that there might be a plotline with that. Yes, that whole paragraph was an assumption.

I'm skeptical, honestly. Another one of my favorite games of all time was ruined by its sequel, which largely follows the same pattern as Fallout did. Doesn't mean I'm not going to give it a chance. Wait for the reviews? Sure. I'd have to buy a whole new computer just to play this game to begin with. It's an investment.

I haven't seen much to make rash assumptions about the quality of the game. It has changed considerably, and that's cause for some alarm. Complete and utter disdain? No.

Positives: * An attempt at keeping a light flow to a rather dark world.
* Beautiful landscapes from a 1st person perspective.
* A more interesting inciting incident (to me, anyway).
* A gaming company that understands "sandbox" gameplay - one that, along with the original fallout, produced "sandbox" games before the term was coined.
* Attention to physics and particle detail.
* "Local Cult -->"
* 40's pop. I hope it's not Top 10.
* Mr. Handy.
* Radiant AI.
* Not for Fallout fans, but for a wider audience.


Negatives: * The old isometric view is out. A new 1st person 3D one is in.
* The original creators are not involved.
* Scatological humor.
* 1 Superpowerful weapon that doesn't fit with previous Fallout canon.
* May have too much focus on gore.
* Swearing too fuckin' much (I wonder if there's a settings knob for this - like there was in the previous games)
* Radiant AI.
* Not for Fallout fans, but for a wider audience.

As you can see, all of this is a matter of opinion. Mine. None of these are objectively negative or positive.

So on all of these, I'll agree to disagree.

 

[Makagulfazel]

Positives:
* Mr. Handy.
* Radiant AI.
* Not for Fallout fans, but for a wider audience.

... No. Bad. Go sit in the corner.

*Radiant AI is bad because it won't actually be radiant. And yes, I did see that they were also in the negatives (I'm saving you time, buy me stuff).

 

[jmarquiso]

*sits in corner*

Stupid gits don't get a good joke when they see it.

*pouts*

 

[Killzig]

* Not for Fallout fans, but for a wider audience.

whether or not this is a positive is definitely up for debate. Building for a wider audience means bowing to prevailing trends in game design. Real time, emphasis on combat, light dialog, abandoning a mouse only interface to accommodate the trendy new viewpoint for the multi-platform sect, shamelessly aping the design aesthetic of other successful titles (Gears) even if it sticks out like a sore thumb in the established look, etc.

but I guess that's all a matter of opinion.

 

[jmarquiso]

Yep. My point exactly.

 

[Sander]

Yeah, I noticed. And I'm sorry it's gone. Was it the only reason I played Fallout 1 and 2? No.

Ehm, yeah, so? You implied that the complaints were nothing more than nitpicking and canon-whining, which is obviously bullshit since the gameplay changed a lot.

You and I don't completely disagree here. 50s Sci-Fi energy weapons do make more sense, after all.

Keep in mind also that 50s post-apocalyptic films weren't nearly as bloody as Fallout 1 and 2.

Yeah, so? That has no effect on the setting itself.

[quote="jmarquisO']
When I go into a movie that I've already decided I'm going to hate, I tend to have a bad time. When I keep an open mind and try to have a good time, I can either be disappointed or pleasantly surprised. That's my point. [/quote]
Yes, I know that that's your point. And again, it boils down to 'Be positive, it might make it better'. Which is a ridiculous point.

I haven't seen any evidence that their focus is on gore and swearing. Scatological humor, yes. I could go without that.

And again something that doesn't fit with Fallout's setting. Fallout was much more about dark ironies than silly, pre-pubescent humour.

Gore, not so much. I knew people who played fallout, getting their jollies out of tearing a mutant to pieces. I'm not personally a fan of blood and guts, but it was part of the atmosphere of the originals. The same syndrome could be seen in this preview.

No, the syndrome seen in the previews is that gore is the focus of the games. The whole 'yeah, we blow up people in slow motion and we have this eyeball rolling over there, isn't it awesome??' deal.

Exactly. Fallout 1, outside the vault, was a wonderful dead body. The guy who drew the shorter straw than you. That was funny, but it also raised the stakes.

Please go look up the meaning of *gore* again. Gore is not the same as dead people.

The point of Vault 101 appears to be never leaving and never letting anyone or anything in. "Let us in, motherfuckers" fits in with the story they're trying to say.

"Let us in motherfuckers" is absolutely ridiculous for a ton of reasons. WHo's going to make a fucking picketing sign when the bombs are going to drop, especially one that insults the people who would probably be your only possibility for survival?
It doesn't fit with anything seen in Fallout.

Have you played "Oblivion" or "Morrowind"? There is a major plot, but you don't have to follow it. In fact, you could do the exact opposite of what's required. I used to play "Morrowind" wishing it was fallout. I would use a lot of the same tactics from that (I generally played thief characters) to avoid direct confrontations, find ways around things, generally accomplish the game with as little combat as possible.

Thank you for ignoring what I actually said. I did not say that they forced you to go along with the plot. I said that they forced a motivation on you (again, you *want* to leave the vault because *that's exactly what you're forced to do*), that the father is a main character (which he is, as has been confirmed multiple times by Bethesda) and that it limits your character (which it does, since you're forced to play a 19-year-old who apparently cares for his father).

The inciting incident in Fallout 3 - Your father disappears, and you're kicked out of Vault 101 as a result.

Wrong. You *leave* the vault voluntarily.
What kind of retarded leader who tries to keep everyone *inside* the vault is going to kick someone out?

As for humor - I'm sure we'll see more Monty Python-esque humor (as the original creators had), some approximation of 50s sci-fi humor, Simpsons references and easter eggs.

Did you even play the first game? Only the second game featured 'monty python-esque' humour, and that is widely considered to be out of place and furthermore *not made by the original creators*.

I haven't seen much to make rash assumptions about the quality of the game. It has changed considerably, and that's cause for some alarm. Complete and utter disdain? No.

I've seen enough for that, as have many other people. The fact that you nitpick the positives from the previews doesn't make you any more right.

As you can see, all of this is a matter of opinion. Mine. None of these are objectively negative or positive.

So on all of these, I'll agree to disagree.

Ah, right, I forgot, design doesn't matter, it's all opinions anyway.

 

[jmarquiso]

[quote="jmarquisO']
When I go into a movie that I've already decided I'm going to hate, I tend to have a bad time. When I keep an open mind and try to have a good time, I can either be disappointed or pleasantly surprised. That's my point.

Yes, I know that that's your point. And again, it boils down to 'Be positive, it might make it better'. Which is a ridiculous point. [/quote]

Actually what I said was keep an open mind. That doesn't mean immediate endorsement, and allows for disappointment.

I haven't seen any evidence that their focus is on gore and swearing. Scatological humor, yes. I could go without that.

And again something that doesn't fit with Fallout's setting. Fallout was much more about dark ironies than silly, pre-pubescent humour.

Again we don't disagree. I hope that this can be made up for.

Gore, not so much. I knew people who played fallout, getting their jollies out of tearing a mutant to pieces. I'm not personally a fan of blood and guts, but it was part of the atmosphere of the originals. The same syndrome could be seen in this preview.

No, the syndrome seen in the previews is that gore is the focus of the games. The whole 'yeah, we blow up people in slow motion and we have this eyeball rolling over there, isn't it awesome??' deal.

Yeah, I was qualifying myself, I admit. I don't personally like the gore in Fallout 1 and 2. It wasn't a reason for me playing it. Many people I know did play it with that reason in mind. Bethesda built upon that mentality and showed it off at a demo of gamer press people who eat gore up for breakfast.

Exactly. Fallout 1, outside the vault, was a wonderful dead body. The guy who drew the shorter straw than you. That was funny, but it also raised the stakes.

Please go look up the meaning of *gore* again. Gore is not the same as dead people.

Look up the original message. Your response to mine was qualifying the dead body with gore.

The point of Vault 101 appears to be never leaving and never letting anyone or anything in. "Let us in, motherfuckers" fits in with the story they're trying to say.

"Let us in motherfuckers" is absolutely ridiculous for a ton of reasons. WHo's going to make a fucking picketing sign when the bombs are going to drop, especially one that insults the people who would probably be your only possibility for survival?
It doesn't fit with anything seen in Fallout.

Other survivors. The one's not being let in in the "no one out, no one in" vault. Please read the rest before responding to a few sentences.

Thank you for ignoring what I actually said. I did not say that they forced you to go along with the plot. I said that they forced a motivation on you (again, you *want* to leave the vault because *that's exactly what you're forced to do*), that the father is a main character (which he is, as has been confirmed multiple times by Bethesda) and that it limits your character (which it does, since you're forced to play a 19-year-old who apparently cares for his father).

Thank you for ignoring what I actually said - that it's a motivation, but not the only one. I didn't want to get the water chip either. I don't like the age restriction, either. In re-reading the preview, I admit I was wrong, but I would also say that you're not reading it right either. The main character leaves to avoid prosecution - likely it involves sneaking around to find the key outside.

The inciting incident in Fallout 3 - Your father disappears, and you're kicked out of Vault 101 as a result.

Wrong. You *leave* the vault voluntarily.
What kind of retarded leader who tries to keep everyone *inside* the vault is going to kick someone out?

As above.

As for humor - I'm sure we'll see more Monty Python-esque humor (as the original creators had), some approximation of 50s sci-fi humor, Simpsons references and easter eggs.

Did you even play the first game? Only the second game featured 'monty python-esque' humour, and that is widely considered to be out of place and furthermore *not made by the original creators*.

Yes, I did play the original game. I admit I was wrong with the parenthetical. I was mainly referring to past references made by Bethesda in their games - of the two that I actually played - writ quickly - I meant to make a statement about the humor I expect from this game. Apologies.

The worst Fallout joke had to be out of Tactics - "Reaverdance".

As you can see, all of this is a matter of opinion. Mine. None of these are objectively negative or positive.

So on all of these, I'll agree to disagree.

Ah, right, I forgot, design doesn't matter, it's all opinions anyway.

Actually not my complete point. To me, Design doesn't matter as much as story. I don't know if a good story or a good time is to be had yet. I haven't seen enough, unlike a lot of people here, apparently.

Design, in case you didn't read my post, is one of the points of contention I have with the thing.

Further, I hold hope that the sequel isn't absolutely ruined.

As for the rest, I'm not taking any sort of angry tone. I'm Zen. Ohmmmm and all that shit.

You are understandably angry, and for that, I'm truly sorry. Negativity is still a bias.

 

[Sander]

Other survivors. The one's not being let in in the "no one out, no one in" vault. Please read the rest before responding to a few sentences.

That isn't what they're implying really, and it's a far-fetched explanation.

Thank you for ignoring what I actually said - that it's a motivation, but not the only one. I didn't want to get the water chip either.

And again, you're ignoring my point. You were not leaving the vault voluntarily in Fallout 1, you are leaving it voluntarily in Fallout 3. Hence you are forcibly given a motivation.

I don't like the age restriction, either. In re-reading the preview, I admit I was wrong, but I would also say that you're not reading it right either. The main character leaves to avoid prosecution - likely it involves sneaking around to find the key outside.

He leaves voluntarily. That's all there is to it. There is no indication whatsoever that he leaves because he's in danger, anywhere. There isn't just one preview, there are tons of them. None of them mention you are forced out, all of them say you leave to find out what happened to your father.

 

[GamingTrend]

Sorry for the delay - I've not forgotten ya.

This may seem a bit nit-picking, but I was wondering what your opinion of the blatant disregard for the laws of physics is Mr Burke?

I've noticed an awful lot of previews where the writer wet himself at the thought of miniature "nuclear" explosions (meaning the mushroom clouds that are caused by sufficiently large explosions/heat and not automatically by nuclear explosions) everywhere, but I don't recall you mentioning much about them in your preview.

Nope. Not much to mention. They looked neat and showed off the great particle system pretty nicely, but I don't feel like they should be fawned over. If pretty made a game great, we'd have all liked The Bouncer.

So what's your opinion on this? Is it acceptable to do something like this if it looks "cool"? Or does it really not matter and I'm being far too fussy and nerdy ? Or do you agree that they should put much more thought into such things, as these explosions are neither realistic or "Fallouty"?

I give a little latitude on these things as long as they are well explained. If they just show up without an explanation then I might have some questions. I pose a counter question - did we ever see an energy cell that powered the car in F2 explode? What would that look like? Would it look like what was described as a mini-nuke? Hmmmm

 

[GamingTrend]

Thats true, i don't remember the Starcraft Alpha, maybe i should go and search some screens of it again.

http://sclegacy.com/features/evolution.php

You'll never look at the final product the same again.

Yes, i think we are agreeing here.
And because some journalists (not you) wrote how great and so on the dialogues will get, i'm sceptical about the articles and 'conclusions' (opinions) of what we get frome some articles.

Exactly why I decided to start GT. I'd rather have honesty than media spin. If you can get your hands on the 'one-sheet' for a game (the item that usually ships with it that describes all the features in the title) and then compare it to the review you see in a magazine you'd be disgusted.

Sure, but don't you think putting some more time into a article may improve it? You're article is more or less good, from my feelings. So don't take this now as an big critique. I just say sometimes it might be worth the time (See how the reactions toward other articles were).

I was happy with how it turned out. I could have put more time into it to try to wring out more minute details but I don't know that it would have added much.

Okay, i'm very sorry about throwing you in the same bucket with them, especially in my first post.

Thanks. That just happens to be my hotbutton. I don't like being 'one of them'.

See RadiantAI - for Oblivion again

If I ever hear about another mudcrab it'll be too soon. I want it to improve, but I'll be waiting with the rest of you guys to see if it does.

1. Would you say, that NMA is a bit like surfing, at first you will be overrun by the waves, but after a while you learn how to surf on the waves?

- I've done this same thing at several other forums. Sometimes I get warm welcomes, but a few I've been banned at the door simply for showing up. (like it is some advertising bid or somesuch) I try to take it all in stride.

2. What do you personally think about the PipBoy3000?
We just saw some pic of it, and i think it can't capture how i might really look.

That is pretty much it. It looks like a crummy green monochrome monitor. I think it captures the crappy Vaul-Tec and modern tech combo pretty nicely.

3. Did you discuss with other journalists about the Fallout 3 Demo? If you get into some discussion:
Did you get into some discussion about Fallout1/2?
Did you get the feeling that the other journalists were big Fallout 1/2 fans? - A lot of journalists claimed that in the last weeks and some of them seemed to became fans just after they saw the demo. (No need to answer the second part, as it might not to cool about being critical about colleagues).

I talked to a lot of developers and press about F3. They all seemed pretty impressed with what was built thus far but were also adopting a 'wait and see' attitude. Wasteland defined this genre, Fallout locked in the formula. This is a pretty wide departure, and fans of the aformentioned games are well aware of that. I didn't see anyone 'rabidly excited' about the game, most were in 'wait and see' mode.

4. Did you think, there was some major trend on the E3?
How was this years atmosphere?

I've said that this was the best / worst E3 ever. I got some of the best coverage I've ever gotten in a pretty stress-free environment. It was fantastic on that side. On the other hand, riding the damned shuttle bus back and forth and all over Hell's half acre was just nuts. I could have made more meetings if I didn't have to factor in 'travel time'.

5. As mentioned here earlier, what do you think about Beth not being to fond to being in contact with NMA?

Not with a 10 foot pole.

6. What was the trigger for you coming here? Any special reason? I mean it's somewhat brave to come here

You linked to us and had questions. Reason enough for me. I don't know why other journalists don't do this...

And again thanks for another Q&A and discussion round to you

No problem.

 

[GamingTrend]

Thanks for talking with us and writing one of the best previews. It makes some things look less bad (such as a more accurate transcription of the mediocre, teenage intro text), but raises new problems.

Oh, had somebody else tried to quote it too?

Could you see the markers on the quest compass move, maybe pointing to the bomb when it had to be armed, or to the Galaxy News building?

The quest markers did move, but I didn't see if one in particular pointed to the bomb. Sorry.

Was the non-radio music merely orchestral, more ambient, or only present sometimes? Was it again "epic" or similar to Fallout: Tactics (I think the composer is Inon Zur)?

It was only present sometimes. It was certainly more ambient, but it picked up during combat. As long as they let me turn it down in the options, I'm a happy camper. (Music is always defaulted to 11 while voice is at a 5 it seems)

 

[GamingTrend]

"Let us in motherfuckers" is absolutely ridiculous for a ton of reasons. WHo's going to make a fucking picketing sign when the bombs are going to drop, especially one that insults the people who would probably be your only possibility for survival?
It doesn't fit with anything seen in Fallout.

I bet you'd pound on the door where they have food and shelter if you survived though...

Wrong. You *leave* the vault voluntarily.
What kind of retarded leader who tries to keep everyone *inside* the vault is going to kick someone out?

I said in my preview that the Overseer thinks you are 'in on it' so you bail rather than face his wrath.

 

[Brother None]

I talked to a lot of developers and press about F3. They all seemed pretty impressed with what was built thus far but were also adopting a 'wait and see' attitude. Wasteland defined this genre, Fallout locked in the formula. This is a pretty wide departure, and fans of the aformentioned games are well aware of that. I didn't see anyone 'rabidly excited' about the game, most were in 'wait and see' mode.

I dunno, when Voodoo Extreme says "It's too early to give Fallout 3 the official Voodoo Extreme seal of approval, but don't be shocked if the game ends up being the best of the series." Am I really supposed to read "wait and see" or "THIS COULD BE THE BEST OF THE SERIES YEAH!!"

I know it's all preview-speek, which is its own little lingo, but even someone like me, who should have enough experience at that to get the truth out of the preview-speek, is getting a little confused. When PCZone headlines "Bethesda seems to have nailed Fallout 3." I can concentrate and stare at "seems" until my eyes bleed, but that doesn't change that most readers read it as "they nailed Fallout 3!"

Also, to lengthen your 10-foot pole, I just realised that out of all the companies we were keeping an eye on for picking up Fallout 3, Bethesda is by far the worst in fan interaction. By far.

 

[GamingTrend]

Other quotes

*Shrug* Their opinion. (throws a little mud in the water)

Also, to lengthen your 10-foot pole, I just realised that out of all the companies we were keeping an eye on for picking up Fallout 3, Bethesda is by far the worst in fan interaction. By far.

Heh, dealing with Nintendo's PR Drones is far worse.

 

[Bad_Karma]

Thanks for the Link; hmm okay, the alpha looked pretty off, but the early beta looked okay.
And somehow i'm thinking of this as an early 'Beta' version
But yes, now i understand somewhat more what you mean .

Sounds as if the E3 is still a somewhat to edged blade *G*

Okay just another not so serious question:
Do you think Beth would call a bomb squad if they get some parcel post with a line like 'With friendly Greeting from NMA - Hope we can get over all our problems' ?

*just forgot the more serious ones, he thought of the last days*