Fallout 3 at E3 - Gaming Trend
- Thread starter Tannhauser
- Start date
Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
So?xdarkyrex said:
There's no point in being absolutely positive towards everything. My knowledge about things and my real feelings about them are more important to me than an artificial positive bias.
There are positive things in life and negative.
Also, thinking that Fallout 3 will not be a real Fallout has nothing to do with pessimism or optimism. It was obvious that Fallout 3 will be Oblivion with guns since 2004, because Bethesda people said that it won't be.
So, it's a realistic vision of Fallout 3. On the other hand obsessive posting news about something that we know will be wrong from a long, long time is a bit masochistic.
So, it's so great to have another Fallout that isn't really Fallout and shouldn't be Fallout and it's so great to return to Fallout universe that isn't really Fallout universe and shouldn't be?GamingTrend said:
And EVERYONE should be happy, great.
Do you seriously think that we'll buy that nonsense?
Oh, so here's where the problem lies. Not with our expectations and our criticism, but with Fallout 3 being made for retards.GamingTrend said:
It makes me wonder if the gaming industry isn't one of the causes of the recent outbreak of ADD.
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
Oh, really? Let's read that again:
What would one understand from this other than the fact that Radiant AI has somehow something to do with dialog trees? It doesn't even clearly tell that it's affecting the dialogs NPCs have between them, if that's what it does.
Hardly the point. The Fat Man, no matter how "balanced" it is, it's still one of the most retarded features revealed so far. Just a little thinking would tell you that. You know, when you don't go "ZOMG, NUKULAR EXPLOZIONZZ!!11"
Oh, my, that again. So, you'd rather have a poor game than one with bugs? What kind of logic is that? Suddenly games with bugs are worse than poor games? And Troika was a bad company because of that, wasn't it?
Really, how old are you that you are allowed to be a journalist?
And go figure, I played all three games Troika made without any fan-made patches, and I had no problems. Surprise, surprise!
Last time I heard, Oblivion is a crap game without any mods.
Plus, since when are Bethesda's games so free of bugs? Didn't the last expansion for Oblivion had a game-stopping bug?
Very wrong. Because that was another marketing lie. They just realised their amazing AI was in fact crap so what to do? Let's tell people it's too advanced for it's own good. Try and inform yourself better about this second coming of Christ that was supposed to be this Radiant AI.
It's not just that the game doesn't seem to be particularly canon with the first two games. Fallout Tactics went down reasonably well with the community and doesn't provoke as much loathing despite being non-canon. Even FOBOS is more of a running gag.
The reason Fallout fans HATE Fallout 3 and cannot forgive Bethesda is that it is another spin-off -- but labelled as a sequel. Once a sequel to Fallout 1+2 is published under the name "Fallout 3" and implements grave changes, those changes are the new "canon" and deprecate the established one.
That means Bethesda is the first company to actually go out and KILL Fallout as we know it. FOT and FOBOS were horribly non-canon and all but close to the spirit of Fallout, but neither was a sequel. With Fallout 3 we get a spin-off (look it up in the dictionary) that is advertised as a sequel, branded as a sequel and thought of as a sequel by the gaming industry (Beth, the press, and eventual fans).
It's only natural hardcore fans are a wee bit pissed off and ready to kill over the matter.
Bethesda could go a long way simply calling it another spin-off, or at least dropping the "3" from the title. Not even Interplay dared to kill its established fanbase by making it clear that the traditional Fallout went the way of the dodo -- sequels to Fallout Tactics and FOBOS would have been labelled Fallout Tactics 2 and FOBOS 2, not Fallout 3, 4 or 5. Bethesda on the other hand goes for the killing blow -- and makes sure all the gaming media is watching as they lay out their plans and sell the murder as rebirth of a dying franchise.
Fallout fans don't want a sequel. Not now. There isn't a game developer involved they would trust to create a worthy sequel. They would hate another spin-off, but at least it wouldn't kill their hopes.
It's the infinitesimal chance of a true sequel the fans want, not a spin-off labelled as sequel to kill that ever-so-slightly chance once and for all.
If Beth were smart, they'd go for the spin-off. It'd only require a change in the name. Call it "Fallout: Vault 101" -- you'd get enough flak for calling it "Fallout" to begin with, but even such a name would be better than calling it a sequel. It'd only take the removal of the number from the title to have the fans -- well, not on your side, but at least to have them hate you a lot LESS.
But it's too late for that now, is it? They had to wait with even the most generic details of the game until everything was ready to be shrink-wrapped and shown off to the gaming press. After months of secrecy and hype for "Fallout 3" now's not the time to make a major change like swapping some words in the title around. It'd be taken as self-criticism or admitting you were wrong -- and a publisher can't show any weakness like that, it'd prove they're only human after all.
Other labels could do it.
Blizzard shelved StarCraft Ghost upon realising how utterly incompatible it would have been with their established franchise. They killed WarCraft Adventures upon realising it wasn't the kind of game their fanbase wanted. They even completely rewrote their concepts for WarCraft 3 half-way through development. Then again, Blizzard now works on StarCraft 2, which seems to be visually identical to its predecessor, just a bit shinier and fancier, thanks to the powerful 3D engine, which they use in a subtle way rather than the blunt in-your-face approach Bethesda seems to enjoy so much.
Even EA didn't call Command & Conquer Generals a sequel and waited with labelling a game "Command & Conquer 3" until they finally made a game that took a step backwards and was about as true to the established franchise as EA has ever let one of their games come to any previously established franchise they inherited.
But Bethesda doesn't take criticism. Insight isn't a trait they are famous for. The only time they point out or at least accept shortcomings of their games is when they can use that to show or promise how much better their new game will be and how it will fix all those shortcomings at once, fix your hair loss problems and make the girls (or boys) like you more (promise!).
Bethesda doesn't want long-time relationships like established fanbases. It's a gigolo looking for intense, but short, outbursts of excitement and then leaves the newly found fanbase sitting in the puddle of its own bodily fluids while on the outlook for its next financial escapade.
The reason Fallout fans HATE Fallout 3 and cannot forgive Bethesda is that it is another spin-off -- but labelled as a sequel. Once a sequel to Fallout 1+2 is published under the name "Fallout 3" and implements grave changes, those changes are the new "canon" and deprecate the established one.
That means Bethesda is the first company to actually go out and KILL Fallout as we know it. FOT and FOBOS were horribly non-canon and all but close to the spirit of Fallout, but neither was a sequel. With Fallout 3 we get a spin-off (look it up in the dictionary) that is advertised as a sequel, branded as a sequel and thought of as a sequel by the gaming industry (Beth, the press, and eventual fans).
It's only natural hardcore fans are a wee bit pissed off and ready to kill over the matter.
Bethesda could go a long way simply calling it another spin-off, or at least dropping the "3" from the title. Not even Interplay dared to kill its established fanbase by making it clear that the traditional Fallout went the way of the dodo -- sequels to Fallout Tactics and FOBOS would have been labelled Fallout Tactics 2 and FOBOS 2, not Fallout 3, 4 or 5. Bethesda on the other hand goes for the killing blow -- and makes sure all the gaming media is watching as they lay out their plans and sell the murder as rebirth of a dying franchise.
Fallout fans don't want a sequel. Not now. There isn't a game developer involved they would trust to create a worthy sequel. They would hate another spin-off, but at least it wouldn't kill their hopes.
It's the infinitesimal chance of a true sequel the fans want, not a spin-off labelled as sequel to kill that ever-so-slightly chance once and for all.
If Beth were smart, they'd go for the spin-off. It'd only require a change in the name. Call it "Fallout: Vault 101" -- you'd get enough flak for calling it "Fallout" to begin with, but even such a name would be better than calling it a sequel. It'd only take the removal of the number from the title to have the fans -- well, not on your side, but at least to have them hate you a lot LESS.
But it's too late for that now, is it? They had to wait with even the most generic details of the game until everything was ready to be shrink-wrapped and shown off to the gaming press. After months of secrecy and hype for "Fallout 3" now's not the time to make a major change like swapping some words in the title around. It'd be taken as self-criticism or admitting you were wrong -- and a publisher can't show any weakness like that, it'd prove they're only human after all.
Other labels could do it.
Blizzard shelved StarCraft Ghost upon realising how utterly incompatible it would have been with their established franchise. They killed WarCraft Adventures upon realising it wasn't the kind of game their fanbase wanted. They even completely rewrote their concepts for WarCraft 3 half-way through development. Then again, Blizzard now works on StarCraft 2, which seems to be visually identical to its predecessor, just a bit shinier and fancier, thanks to the powerful 3D engine, which they use in a subtle way rather than the blunt in-your-face approach Bethesda seems to enjoy so much.
Even EA didn't call Command & Conquer Generals a sequel and waited with labelling a game "Command & Conquer 3" until they finally made a game that took a step backwards and was about as true to the established franchise as EA has ever let one of their games come to any previously established franchise they inherited.
But Bethesda doesn't take criticism. Insight isn't a trait they are famous for. The only time they point out or at least accept shortcomings of their games is when they can use that to show or promise how much better their new game will be and how it will fix all those shortcomings at once, fix your hair loss problems and make the girls (or boys) like you more (promise!).
Bethesda doesn't want long-time relationships like established fanbases. It's a gigolo looking for intense, but short, outbursts of excitement and then leaves the newly found fanbase sitting in the puddle of its own bodily fluids while on the outlook for its next financial escapade.
One serious question Mr-Burke, how many is Beth paying you for trying to convince us?
I mean your article is full of 'I believe what Todd told me', while you admit that Beth told 'lies' about parts of Oblivion. So do you seriously want us to believe what Todd is saying or should we believe your judgement?
Even the funnier is that your telling 'aww come one, we can't really judge after 50 minutes of demo play-time' - So what? Why are you judging what you saw?
But okay, i will just take some time to comment what you told us, but forgive me, i'm a bit to lazzy to use qoutes over and over
About the 'you should be happy to get at least some new game after years'-"argument'"
Another point, did you ever went to an Star Wars convention claiming that all people who are upset with Ep 1 - 3, should 'shut up' because they got some sequel ? Or went to the UFO fans and told them they should be quit saying "We want some game that's more like UFO 1 and 2, and not such a shit as we are getting now!"? Or did you even critizise the 'gaming god' Sid Meier for making true sequels instead of turning everything in First-Person, real-time?
You're trying such a thing here. Fans want be happy with some cheap or bad new thing but with smart improvments of old concepts.
About the 'boss'-music - part:
So you recognized a change in music with this 'boss enemy', when you're recognizing such things, it seems as if it's done bad. I mean as far as i get it, todays musical background is getting subtle. You hear a change in music, but it's not a thing that catchs your attention. Because the maker of movies still want that your attention is on what happens in the movie....
And this is also how it should be done in games like fallout. I mean where is the music coming from? - Your Pip-Boy ???
Sure in games like Jets'N'Guns some cool background music is cool, but i think the designer of this games didn't claim do want that the player feels as if he was there, but Beth says things around this line...
About the RTS getting critique because they are in ISO and there's nothing new in years:
So your saying that THQ's (Relics) ISO-RTS gets more and more negative critique because they are just as all other RTS before? - LOL! Nothing more about that.
About more details in FPS then in ISO, and the compare between F1 (1996) and F3 (~2008)
A 6pixel chair from 1996 might be today as detailed as a fucking whole Oblivion Character face... Wich it hink were claimed to be great
I mean you're the gaming journalists you know such things like some and scaleable 3D-models and so on? Where things wich are farer away from the view-point get less and less detailedd? So a player could also zoom more in and might even get a more detailed chair Beth is now doing... Sure not a playable camera-angle. But you also have to show me how you will aim with a FPS gun from an iso-perspective. Wich seems to be a new lie Beth is telling us ('You will be able to pan the camera in the old style ISO-perspective and play from that angle' as some magazines wrote).
About the M16 and making one good weapon out of two damaged ones:
The M16 got interchangeable parts? So what? When i give you 2 M16 with distorted barrels, you can mage me one with a none distorted barrel? - Yeah in RPG terms that might be okay, but still that's not very realistic...
About the balance of the fatman and demos:
About the Fatman, you thing it's cool if they make a completly stupid demo, just to show you how great the game will become? Because needing more then 1 shoot from it, seems pretty stupid.
Also you just think it will be some '100hrs. questing' for it like thing. You got no proof, so until you get one we might as well thing of it like an thing lying around ever 10 hrs. gameplay, what's still a lot i think).
Maybe you should go and tell car-companys that they don't have to put their best cars on display, but they could also put the shitty ones on display.
Or maybe you want to go to Microsoft/some other, who just presented multi-point-touch pads, that they shouldn't have to show something that's somehow fine tuned, because the consumers would have to buy it (speaking of overseeing flawes).
So yes, i'm also criticizing the makers of Jagged Alliance 3 for presenting no fine-tuned graphics...
Sorry, a demo for the press might at least have some balance behind it, especially such 'This must be the uber weapon' things, or at least they should have mentioned it, don't you think so?
But hey, the demos seemed to be more focused on shiny effects - so why shouldn't i think that the end game won't be more focused around shiny graphics then around gameplay (balance) and so on? - A negative point for me...
About the type of Dialogues and the mass of Dialogues:
So how many dialogues did you actually see? Your colleague estimated, out of the thin air, that he actually only saw around 0.0001% (or something like that) of the actual dialogues, when we were critical about that.
So got any proof of how good or how many dialogue we really get?
I mean you're claiming there will be quite many and good ones, as you might have claimed before Oblivion.
How about writing around the lines: "Todd told us, that there will be plenty dialoges and quite a lot options. And at least in the demo it seemed as if they are doing that well" (or something in better english, so sorry, english isn't my first language ).
But no, again no signs of being 'sceptical' at all.
And therefore a lot people here think of you game-journalists as sheeps following happy to the slaughterhouse or corrupt people who getting covered in money, if they keep telling us how well all will be...
About the speech in Fallout 3:
So they should use fuck and so on, because we are using such words today, under much less pressure?
So maybe the people of LotR should also have sweared all the time, because we doing this? Or Cpt.Future or the Transformers, or......
No, Sci-Fi as Fantasy as a lot of writting, don't have to keep to the real word in the speech. Simply because 2270 is a way after our time, as their 21century seems to have been quite different then other seems to be.
About todays Publisher and gamecompanys keeping to the things they are making:
Sure, but to become truly recognized and often getting the biggest part of the cake (sold units/money) you have to stray away from what is done at the moment.
Look at Hellgate London, it will surely be very sucessful, and why? Because it strays away from Diablo, Loki and how they are called but keep to some basics.
What do you think about the (i think) succesful Overlord? - Know any game that's on the market that's very similar?
They only can get succesful when doing something other then what it's on the market.
I could go on and on, even if i ould mention some games, that don't stray that far away (WoW), you see, you can be highly succesful while straying away. Even when i have to admit, that people here at NMA won't necessarily like the direction, in wich the makers are staying away..
Also i don't know if it reached you (i think it has) ever saw how the niche-market point'n'click adventures now get enough new games, wich is financial attractive for the producers and publishers, just because they know, that they can't plan with millions of budget?
Maybe in some time this will be the same for other 'niche-markets'...
About you getting in the gaming journalism, because the journalism before sucked:
Erm so why do a lot of us here get the feeling that the journalism around 1996 (or even earlier) was a lot better then what is done today?
And why are you doing nearly the same as you said the old journalists did? Completly printing what the companys told them? I mean go and please read half of the articles about F3.
'The great Todd told us and so do we believe' - That's how it sounds!
So i hope i didn't get to sarcastic or cynic or whatever, but you're coming with arguments, that lacking some points.
Actually all a lot of us are asking for from you and your colleagues is being a bit more sceptical and try to write up some more neutral and objective articles. Wich also may contain less faults, and maybe more of the differences between F1/2 and F3...
I mean your article is full of 'I believe what Todd told me', while you admit that Beth told 'lies' about parts of Oblivion. So do you seriously want us to believe what Todd is saying or should we believe your judgement?
Even the funnier is that your telling 'aww come one, we can't really judge after 50 minutes of demo play-time' - So what? Why are you judging what you saw?
But okay, i will just take some time to comment what you told us, but forgive me, i'm a bit to lazzy to use qoutes over and over
About the 'you should be happy to get at least some new game after years'-"argument'"
Another point, did you ever went to an Star Wars convention claiming that all people who are upset with Ep 1 - 3, should 'shut up' because they got some sequel ? Or went to the UFO fans and told them they should be quit saying "We want some game that's more like UFO 1 and 2, and not such a shit as we are getting now!"? Or did you even critizise the 'gaming god' Sid Meier for making true sequels instead of turning everything in First-Person, real-time?
You're trying such a thing here. Fans want be happy with some cheap or bad new thing but with smart improvments of old concepts.
About the 'boss'-music - part:
So you recognized a change in music with this 'boss enemy', when you're recognizing such things, it seems as if it's done bad. I mean as far as i get it, todays musical background is getting subtle. You hear a change in music, but it's not a thing that catchs your attention. Because the maker of movies still want that your attention is on what happens in the movie....
And this is also how it should be done in games like fallout. I mean where is the music coming from? - Your Pip-Boy ???
Sure in games like Jets'N'Guns some cool background music is cool, but i think the designer of this games didn't claim do want that the player feels as if he was there, but Beth says things around this line...
About the RTS getting critique because they are in ISO and there's nothing new in years:
So your saying that THQ's (Relics) ISO-RTS gets more and more negative critique because they are just as all other RTS before? - LOL! Nothing more about that.
About more details in FPS then in ISO, and the compare between F1 (1996) and F3 (~2008)
A 6pixel chair from 1996 might be today as detailed as a fucking whole Oblivion Character face... Wich it hink were claimed to be great
I mean you're the gaming journalists you know such things like some and scaleable 3D-models and so on? Where things wich are farer away from the view-point get less and less detailedd? So a player could also zoom more in and might even get a more detailed chair Beth is now doing... Sure not a playable camera-angle. But you also have to show me how you will aim with a FPS gun from an iso-perspective. Wich seems to be a new lie Beth is telling us ('You will be able to pan the camera in the old style ISO-perspective and play from that angle' as some magazines wrote).
About the M16 and making one good weapon out of two damaged ones:
The M16 got interchangeable parts? So what? When i give you 2 M16 with distorted barrels, you can mage me one with a none distorted barrel? - Yeah in RPG terms that might be okay, but still that's not very realistic...
About the balance of the fatman and demos:
About the Fatman, you thing it's cool if they make a completly stupid demo, just to show you how great the game will become? Because needing more then 1 shoot from it, seems pretty stupid.
Also you just think it will be some '100hrs. questing' for it like thing. You got no proof, so until you get one we might as well thing of it like an thing lying around ever 10 hrs. gameplay, what's still a lot i think).
Maybe you should go and tell car-companys that they don't have to put their best cars on display, but they could also put the shitty ones on display.
Or maybe you want to go to Microsoft/some other, who just presented multi-point-touch pads, that they shouldn't have to show something that's somehow fine tuned, because the consumers would have to buy it (speaking of overseeing flawes).
So yes, i'm also criticizing the makers of Jagged Alliance 3 for presenting no fine-tuned graphics...
Sorry, a demo for the press might at least have some balance behind it, especially such 'This must be the uber weapon' things, or at least they should have mentioned it, don't you think so?
But hey, the demos seemed to be more focused on shiny effects - so why shouldn't i think that the end game won't be more focused around shiny graphics then around gameplay (balance) and so on? - A negative point for me...
About the type of Dialogues and the mass of Dialogues:
So how many dialogues did you actually see? Your colleague estimated, out of the thin air, that he actually only saw around 0.0001% (or something like that) of the actual dialogues, when we were critical about that.
So got any proof of how good or how many dialogue we really get?
I mean you're claiming there will be quite many and good ones, as you might have claimed before Oblivion.
How about writing around the lines: "Todd told us, that there will be plenty dialoges and quite a lot options. And at least in the demo it seemed as if they are doing that well" (or something in better english, so sorry, english isn't my first language
).But no, again no signs of being 'sceptical' at all.
And therefore a lot people here think of you game-journalists as sheeps following happy to the slaughterhouse or corrupt people who getting covered in money, if they keep telling us how well all will be...
About the speech in Fallout 3:
So they should use fuck and so on, because we are using such words today, under much less pressure?
So maybe the people of LotR should also have sweared all the time, because we doing this? Or Cpt.Future or the Transformers, or......
No, Sci-Fi as Fantasy as a lot of writting, don't have to keep to the real word in the speech. Simply because 2270 is a way after our time, as their 21century seems to have been quite different then other seems to be.
About todays Publisher and gamecompanys keeping to the things they are making:
Sure, but to become truly recognized and often getting the biggest part of the cake (sold units/money) you have to stray away from what is done at the moment.
Look at Hellgate London, it will surely be very sucessful, and why? Because it strays away from Diablo, Loki and how they are called but keep to some basics.
What do you think about the (i think) succesful Overlord? - Know any game that's on the market that's very similar?
They only can get succesful when doing something other then what it's on the market.
I could go on and on, even if i ould mention some games, that don't stray that far away (WoW), you see, you can be highly succesful while straying away. Even when i have to admit, that people here at NMA won't necessarily like the direction, in wich the makers are staying away..
Also i don't know if it reached you (i think it has) ever saw how the niche-market point'n'click adventures now get enough new games, wich is financial attractive for the producers and publishers, just because they know, that they can't plan with millions of budget?
Maybe in some time this will be the same for other 'niche-markets'...
About you getting in the gaming journalism, because the journalism before sucked:
Erm so why do a lot of us here get the feeling that the journalism around 1996 (or even earlier) was a lot better then what is done today?
And why are you doing nearly the same as you said the old journalists did? Completly printing what the companys told them? I mean go and please read half of the articles about F3.
'The great Todd told us and so do we believe' - That's how it sounds!
So i hope i didn't get to sarcastic or cynic or whatever, but you're coming with arguments, that lacking some points.
Actually all a lot of us are asking for from you and your colleagues is being a bit more sceptical and try to write up some more neutral and objective articles. Wich also may contain less faults, and maybe more of the differences between F1/2 and F3...
What a great preview
It's one of the best, of not THE best preview, I've seen yet. It is professionally written, detailing everything he saw in the demo. Nice job
As for your comments on the Fatman and the Behemoth, please try to remember that this demo probably was built especially for E3. This means that Bethsoft of course was (and is) interested in showing all the features of the game, including how the Fatman works, the VATS system, and how the mini nuclear launcher (the fatman) works when taking down enemies, including the Behemoth.
I think some of you seem to have forgotten that even in the original Fallouts, there were (mini) bosses for you to fight, before you fought the final boss.
I have more to say, but this seems to be enough for now
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
But that doesn't matter, does it? Now people must see how good Bethesda is at fixing their mistakes. Doesn't matter if Fallout 3 has nothing to do with Fallout 1 & 2.
Also, Mr. Journalist, shouldn't you be a bit more impartial or some shit like that people like to believe about journalists?
You don't sound very impartial when you come here and defend Bethesda with everything you can (ie. mostly baseless assumptions).
Just re-read what you wrote Mr.Burke and i have to say, that's really one of the best Articles. So sorry, it becomes somewhat hard to keep track of the articles and who wrote what up, especially after i read how you defended Beth's decisions against our maybe pessimistic analysis
GamingTrend said:Look at our society now. We haven't been nuked into a horrible existence and yet our language is FAR worse than we hear in Fallout 3. You live a hard life of worrying about giant ants / radscorps / mutants / radiation / etc and see how cynical and rude you become. We don't know how long we've been in the vault, but I suspect we are a long way from 1950.
Nuclear fire raining down tends to change things a bit.
You may be right --- and then again, no, I don't thin you are. And here's why: Last night I watched the movie Pleasantville. It is set in the 1950's, and while it is a sort ironic and sarcastic comment, imo, in how live was like in the 1950's, it is exactly the same world as the Fallout's retro-fure setting would be like - just spun forward to say 2050 or 2177. And no one in Pleasantville would use the word 'motherfuckers' - absolutely no one. And yes, I agree that a nuclear war changes things a bit, but you (and Bethsoift etc). got to remember that the Fallout universe is the *leave it to beaver' and the 'pleasantville' univserse combined and spun 150-200 years into the future. It is, as such, a universe, that has been standing still, in its development since the 1950's --- and no one, in this 1950's, universe would say 'motherfuckers'. [Of course, people in the real 1950's said the MF word, but the ideology of the 1950's was that it was only evil and bad men and scruffy criminal gangs that used this word --- nice, clean cut young people did not! ].
VDweller said:
I don't believe anything I read on the internet, or any place else for that matter. But I do believe in proof. And I think we have a very good proof in one of the the posts in the Oblivion General Forums over at the BGSF boards. One dedicated poster made a thread about 'Radiant AI - nothing was dumbed down.' where he explained that nothing really was dumbed down. And he backed up his claim saying that he followed a hunter around or a week in the game. (gametime, not real time). And he saw what the Radiant AI could do. [This was about a year ago, so the topic may have been deleted - for now]. Several people have also reported that they have had a visit by an NPC who they have witnessed walking bakc to the city from which they came, Anvil e.g.
I think it was also well known that the developers did give some interviews, or explained to the community, why the Radiant was 'dumbed down' the way it was - in Oblivion.
As for Fallout 3's Radiant AI, I'm content. I'm content, since we get dialogue trees, not one liners. I'm content, since what our character might say (sometimes) dependent on our speech skills, and our charisma. I'm content, since there (sometimes) seems to be an option to lie, press characters for more money etc. - if have the skills for it. (a 29% chance to succeed e.g. ).
I'm still cautiously optimistic about Fallout 3, after reading the Gaming Trend's previews I'm a bit more cautiosly optimistic.
This doesn't change the fact that I don't think certain things shouldn't be in the game, such as the motherfuckers sign, the Fatman.,the mini nuclear launcher, and the constant swearing.
[I've explained why in another post]. As for the Enclave, the supermutants and the brotherhood of steel, the game better have a very good explanation for their presence on the East Coast.
Hello Aries369,
I am afraid that the reason other than that they are 'classic Fallout' (and because Bethesda probably has no ideas for factions of its own) that they will appear in Fallout 3.
And the fact that all three are significantly weakened will most likely be ignored.
aries369 said:
I am afraid that the reason other than that they are 'classic Fallout' (and because Bethesda probably has no ideas for factions of its own) that they will appear in Fallout 3.
And the fact that all three are significantly weakened will most likely be ignored.
Vault 69er
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
GamingTrend said:
I'm sick of ignoramuses like you bashing Troika for their bugs.
Yes their games had bugs. They were also bullied by publishers and had to rush their games out most of the time.
Bethesda has vastly more resources than Troika had.. and guess what? THEIR GAMES HAVE BUGS. Daggerfall is infamous for it's bugs. Morrowind is one of the most unstable games I have ever played and Oblivion? Crash-on-save bugs, blue screens of death, "radiant AI" malfunctions, quest bugs, and the totally 100% game-breaking Shivering Isles item bug!
I can play through Bloodlines and Arcanum with only official patches and have a stable experience. Without fan patches and external programs, Morrowind and Oblivion literally crash every 5 minutes.
Every game has bugs. And Troika did more than most to fix them. Their heads released the final patch for Bloodlines after they had been laid off. The fact that they're gone is just a sad indication of the game industry.
2006 is new.xdarkyrex said:
This made me laugh and laugh and laugh.
While I hate the idea of the enclave being in FO3 on the East Coast let's try to come up with an explanation for this.
The locals don't know what we know about The Enclave by way of FO2. Maybe the Eastern Enclave took a different approach? Some residual US gov't agency trying to help things on the surface or some such bullshit. Might actually be kind of funny that they'd be running a friendly radio station using their own name. Take the sting out of it.
Briosa, what are the unwritten rules for old neighbour-site admins? 
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Per said:Briosa, what are the unwritten rules for old neighbour-site admins?
Send five nukes in their direction
5? That's it? I eat nukes for breakfast with a steaming pot of radioactive sludge to chase em down with.
My plan of action for Fallout 3 is going to be to maintain mid to low levels of radiation for as long as possible to see if it has any discernible effect on my character. I'm hoping to role play as The Toxic Avenger. I hope BethSoft is more accommodating this time around.
My plan of action for Fallout 3 is going to be to maintain mid to low levels of radiation for as long as possible to see if it has any discernible effect on my character. I'm hoping to role play as The Toxic Avenger. I hope BethSoft is more accommodating this time around.
Joe Kremlin
First time out of the vault
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised"xdarkyrex said:
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Killzig said:
I'll be Srg. Kabukiman NYPD