Fallout 3 coverage from here and there

[Brother None]

Casting about for bits from all (read: two) corners of the world. First, InsideGamer - who you might remember from their anti-Fallout 3 tangent a year ago - has been converted and now absolutely loves the game (thanks Dutch Ghost). Their conclusion:<blockquote>Fallout might well be the new Oblivion, both in quality as in sales numbers. It is a game with a fantastic setting, it has a good amount of freedom, fascinating tasks and an expansive combat system. So I am a bit surprised that this game is lagging behind other big games of this year in terms of wishlist. Be quick to fix that, because if we're ever going to use that wishlist to give away games or goodies to real fans, you'll want to be there.</blockquote>I guess the last bit is a promo for their wishlist system, but regardless they like Fallout 3. Liking Fallout 3 less, word from Duck and Cover is that gaming blog s0rethumbs dot com (never heard of 'em before, but important not to confuse them with the (excellent) webcomic Sore Thumbs) is not happy, as permitted by their short editorial entitled "How Bethesda Butchered Fallout 3".<blockquote>I'm sure it'll still be an amazing game, I won't argue a good game, but the game is truly not part of the Fallout series but the mutated love-child of Oblivion's gameplay and Fallout's storyline. So who can complain about such an awesome combination? No one...unless it teases us with the title “Fallout 3.”

Carrying the title “Fallout 3” makes it an offensive grotesque of the original series. The choice of changing the game to a jumbled up FP/TP-RPG/Shooter without changing the name was a marketing move with no concern for the originality of the series. When Interplay was forced to sell the game because of Black Isle's bankruptcy , Bethesda bought the chance to capitalize on the name with no regards for the actual game.

Foremost is the issue of Bethesda's choice to remove of the isometric view which is pivotal to the originality of the narrative and gameplay. The isometric narrative has the player guiding the PC through the uncharted wastelands. This allowed the player to take a more objective view which was the root its dark comedic undertones (so prevelent they're probably overtones). Bethesda's decision to toss aside the isometric view reduced the title to an almost unrecognizable shred of its former self, sharing more in common with BioShock and Half-Life. Bethesda also said they were going to take out the self-referential jokes to make the world seem more “real.” Here's a tip – we know its not real. I didn't expect them to do as good of a job with the jokes anyhow, but don't justify altering key parts of the game for misguided reasons.

In a weak attempt to connect the game to the series Bethesda kept features like the PIPboy, reoccurring NPCs and the SPECIAL stat-system , but it doesn't make the world right again. They're just remnants of the former games, mere foot notes referencing to the creativity of Black Isle's Fallout series. Does every RPG have to sellout to some hybrid form including FPS? </blockquote>Link: Fallout 3 Impressie on InsideGamer.
Link: How Bethesda Butchered Fallout 3 on s0rethumbs dot com.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Man some of the responses to that s0rethumbs article are the usually Bethesda fanboy drivel.

"Games have to evolve", "FP is more immersive " etc.

It is the usually talk about how we live all in the past and how the original games were ten years old.
Don't any of them have an original response that wasn't handed to them by Bethesda?

 

[MrBumble]

Finally someone who understands ! Probably a cool/great game but only INSPIRED by Fallout.

 

[Eyenixon]

Man some of the responses to that s0rethumbs article are the usually Bethesda fanboy drivel.

"Games have to evolve", "FP is more immersive " etc.

It is the usually talk about how we live all in the past and how the original games were ten years old.
Don't any of them have an original response that wasn't handed to them by Bethesda?

Call me "stuck in the past" but my last $100 spent on gaming were all Spiderworks Software games.

I've put more hours into the Geneforge and Avernum series combined than I ever did into any other RPG.
Really, there's no arguing that great games do not need to evolve, Fallout sure as hell didn't, add some fancier graphics, new features, and it wouldn't have been the biggest step in the series, but it probably would've been far more expansive than Fallout 3 in my opinion.

 

[Forhekset]

The most retarded argument ever is the "games have to evolve" line. Really? Do they? How about not trying to fix what isn't broken? You don't see Blizzard making drastic changes to the Starcraft or Diablo series, do you? The GTA series hasn't had a significant change since 2001, and even then the camera angle was the only real "evolution". The core gameplay has remained the same.

Still, we can't expect Bethesda to make a Fallout game like the games of old. I knew when FO3 was first announced it was going to have Bethesda's fingerprints all over it, for better or worse (worse, in this case). And why not? They were surely going to put their personal stamp on it, which means a lot of stuff from that overrated turd Oblivion was going to carry over. It's good for people who think Oblivion is the greatest RPG ever created. Bad for the rest of us.

MrBumble, I've been saying for a while now that FO3 will probably be an enjoyable game, but it won't feel like a true Fallout game to most folks around these parts. I'm sure I won't despise the game like I despised Oblivion. Well, pretty sure, anyway.

 

[ZiggyMeister]

In the middle of all the hype and all the ass kissing reviews we are fed on a regular basis, from time to time, it's good to have a piece of reality like this s0rethumbs article...

 

[Crowfoot]

With regard to the viewpoint, it's nice to see someone else raising the issue that the near-isometric was integral to the gameplay and overrall style and tone of the game, rather than claiming it was just a choice made based on technology restrictions or whatever.

 

[Wooz]

Bah.

The author pays too much attention to the isometric view, not mentioning F3's most important blunders.

 

[Tyshalle]

IMO, the Fallout franchise hasn't been used as an RPG in ten years, and pretty much every franchise that's ever been brought back after that much time has been either the same thing rehashed again with no real reason to make the product except to milk the cash cow, or it's a much more glittery product that seems to forget about some of the fundamentals of the original property in favor of things that will make it more accessible to a wider audience.

Point being, if you think that Fallout 3 will be a good game, but you're all up in arms because of its title, then you need to get a life and find a better argument and get over it, because, unfortunate as it may be, this really is the way of pop culture, and sitting around on the internet bitching about it is just a profound waste of time. If you're really intent on changing things, there may not be easier ways, but there are certainly better ways of going about it than complaining around here; especially when this site has pretty much been labeled by most of the wider web as a very vocal and childish minority.

Now mind you, this argument is really just focused on the people who think that Fallout 3 would be a fine game if it were just named something else: You people need to move on. But if your argument goes deeper, and you just don't think it'll be a good game, regardless of its title, then continue on.

 

[Brother None]

Point being, if you think that Fallout 3 will be a good game, but you're all up in arms because of its title, then you need to get a life and find a better argument and get over it, because, unfortunate as it may be, this really is the way of pop culture, and sitting around on the internet bitching about it is just a profound waste of time.

Apropos, I know one thing which is even more useless than sitting around on the internet bitching about something.

Can you guess what it is?

It is sitting around the internet bitching about people bitching about something.

Which, by the way...

If you're really intent on changing things, there may not be easier ways, but there are certainly better ways of going about it than complaining around here; especially when this site has pretty much been labeled by most of the wider web as a very vocal and childish minority.

...is why I really can't take this "most of the wider web" even remotely seriously. Per your own dictum, they need "to get a life and find a better argument".

Now mind you, this argument is really just focused on the people who think that Fallout 3 would be a fine game if it were just named something else: You people need to move on. But if your argument goes deeper, and you just don't think it'll be a good game, regardless of its title, then continue on.

Huh? Wait, so you don't think the name "Fallout 3" implies "this is a sequel" and specific criticisms to Fallout 3 as a sequel are invalid per definition? And your only back-up for the argument is "it is what it is" as if market reality should dictate our attitude?

Ok.

Don't expect to win over anyone with that.

 

[pkt-zer0]

IMO, the Fallout franchise hasn't been used as an RPG in ten years, and pretty much every franchise that's ever been brought back after that much time has been either the same thing rehashed again with no real reason to make the product except to milk the cash cow, or it's a much more glittery product that seems to forget about some of the fundamentals of the original property in favor of things that will make it more accessible to a wider audience.

Starcraft 2 is the exception, then? I'm not too up-to-date regarding the game, but it seems to do a fair number of things differently so it's not just a rehash, while keeping true to the fundamentals of the original.

 

[fedaykin]

Point being, if you think that Fallout 3 will be a good game, but you're all up in arms because of its title, then you need to get a life and find a better argument and get over it, because, unfortunate as it may be, this really is the way of pop culture, and sitting around on the internet bitching about it is just a profound waste of time. If you're really intent on changing things, there may not be easier ways, but there are certainly better ways of going about it than complaining around here; especially when this site has pretty much been labeled by most of the wider web as a very vocal and childish minority.

So the guy who just used the "put up or shut up" argument is calling NMA childish? Umm...oookay.

As for the s0rethumbs article, way too much focus on isometric view, indeed.

 

[Bodybag]

BN, did you just throw that sorethumbs blog in to be funny?

Because it was pretty funny!

 

[Tyshalle]

Apropos, I know one thing which is even more useless than sitting around on the internet bitching about something.

Can you guess what it is?

It is sitting around the internet bitching about people bitching about something.

Which is a great flip, and I'm sure you felt that was a great line, but it really doesn't hurt my point any. The fact that I only show up around here once every few months while you basically make the same arguments several times a day, every day, shows the enormous difference between the two of us.

Huh? Wait, so you don't think the name "Fallout 3" implies "this is a sequel" and specific criticisms to Fallout 3 as a sequel are invalid per definition? And your only back-up for the argument is "it is what it is" as if market reality should dictate our attitude?

I think it does imply that it's a sequel. But specific criticisms targeted at Fallout 3 as a sequel don't really occur. People skew their arguments about FO3 toward that because it's the most substantial thing they can come up with, which in the grand scheme of things is very weak sauce. The complaint that this isn't a "true sequel" is, all in all, a pretty small complaint, yet it's being blown up as if anyone who even touches this project or likes this project is a complete idiot who's likely the result of inbreeding and dropping out of high school.

It reminds me of something I saw on the Late Late Show a few weeks ago, when Harrison Ford was promoting Indiana Jones and some guy asked him if he knew what color the stitching was on his whip from the very first movie, and Ford rightly answered: "Who gives a fuck?"

Starcraft 2 is the exception, then? I'm not too up-to-date regarding the game, but it seems to do a fair number of things differently so it's not just a rehash, while keeping true to the fundamentals of the original.

Sure, there are exceptions to most rules. It doesn't change anything.

So the guy who just used the "put up or shut up" argument is calling NMA childish? Umm...oookay.

I'm trying to figure out what's childish about telling someone to make a valid argument. And I wasn't claiming that NMA is childish (though I could), I was saying that's NMA's image to a lot of other people outside of this place, and it is.

 

[ushdugery]

Point being, if you think that Fallout 3 will be a good game, but you're all up in arms because of its title, then you need to get a life and find a better argument and get over it,

You're attacking someone for trying to express a reasonable point of view for having opinions that don't affect you, maybe you're a trying to be web councillor: "Can't you see you're wasting your time dwelling on these issues? There is more to life!" What do you care you made an a pointless attack just so you can have your own online wordy interjection. Then you reference others to put them down like a child telling another in the playground that no one likes another child:

this site has pretty much been labeled by most of the wider web as a very vocal and childish minority.

Maybe not as useless as "sitting around on the internet bitching" as it might serve to pump you ego but so much more self serving and much less entertaining.

 

[Kyuu]

Point being, if you think that Fallout 3 will be a good game, but you're all up in arms because of its title, then you need to get a life and find a better argument and get over it,...

I don't believe anyone is up in arms just for the simple fact of its title. Some of us are bitter and disappointed that Bethesda went out of its way to purchase the rights to Fallout, and then used the lore and intellectual property to make a completely different sort of game. Honestly, what the hell is the god damned point of buying the rights to make a new game in a series just to rip out elements (vaults, super mutants, Vault Boy, SPECIAL stat system, action points, post-apocalyptic setting, etc.) and place them in a game that's almost a complete counter-point to the design philosophy of the originals?

That's what I, and I think most others, are mostly "up in arms" about. We like Fallout. We wanted and expected a sequel that would appeal to those who like Fallout. Instead, the sequel is aimed at those who liked the overrated whack-job of a game known as Oblivion. And unless Bethesda is going to do a total 180 on their "evolution" of game design choices, I doubt that FINO3 will be even a good game on its own merits, myself. What I've seen so far supports my doubts, in my opinion.

Then of course there's the Beth PR machine filling the minds of easily swayed rabble that their game will be the ultimate RPG experience and that detractors are rabid, irrational fanboys. Because, you know, there's just no way that anyone could not like a Bethesda game whilst sane and reasonable. Add to that people who like to get on their soap boxes and tell NMA forum-goers that they need to "get a life" and quit complaining about something as totally irrelevant as whether the game series the website is about is going to have a proper sequel (while seeming to forget that they're going out of their way to defend a game and a game development studio... get a life, seriously)... well, all I can say is: either make a serious argument as to what exactly about FINO3 is looking so damned great to warrant your devotion, or quit whining yourself.

... especially when this site has pretty much been labeled by most of the wider web as a very vocal and childish minority.

Right, because we should really care about the opinion of a non-tangible entity known as "the wider web" as professed by you. Everybody should totally adjust their lifestyles, behaviors, habits, likes and dislikes according to what the "wider web" thinks.

 

[Tyshalle]

You're attacking someone for trying to express a reasonable point of view for having opinions that don't affect you

I think you're honing in a bit too much on specific words and not paying enough attention to my statements as a whole. I'm not attacking so much as I'm making arguments of my own. And most of these "expressed opinions" by you guys are far more hostile than anything I've said, so I'm finding it difficult to take these "how dare you attack us" babblings seriously. You can't attack other people and other ideas and then whine when somebody else comes along to point out your (believed) errors, even if they (in this case, me) do it somewhat brazenly.

Now, hostility, so long as it doesn't become the basis for argument, is fine with me. I'm not going to piss and moan about supposed attacks on me or my arguments, nor am I going to hone in on "the way you say" things over what you're actually trying to say, so long as they're not the same thing. I don't think it's too much to ask for the same respect.

maybe you're a trying to be web councillor: "Can't you see you're wasting your time dwelling on these issues? There is more to life!"

Not really. I'm just saying that it's a tired argument, the importance of which is being extremely blown out of proportion. We're talking about a superficial title change, something which does not actually change or affect the gameplay in any way shape or form. At worst, it only affects the way you look at it, and you're taking your personal perceptions and trying to make it seem like anybody who doesn't share them is wrong, missing something, or is just an outright idiot. This is the equivalent of being pissed off at soy milk because you don't believe that anything not coming from an animal can be considered "milk," and are trying to argue that soy milk tastes bad as a result of an inaccurate name.

It's as the old cliche goes, a rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

What do you care you made an a pointless attack just so you can have your own online wordy interjection.

I will concede to you on half your statement: It was pointless making my original post. Sound logic and rationality never win arguments when it's the minority. It does of course win out in the long run, though when it happens the irrational majority never admits to it.

 

[ushdugery]

I don't disagree with your original point in any way and I wasn't disputing its validity. I was however disputing the making of it, since it seemed in my eyes to advanced the topic of conversation no further but merely to blunt it. You both have such differing perspectives that standing the what is virtually the polar opposite to his argument benifits no one, which I wouldn't have minded if you hadn't in following chastised him on the making of pointless conversation in an internet forum.

 

[Tyshalle]

I see what you're trying to say, but I wasn't attacking the act of complaining about something so much as I was attacking the act of, essentially, repeating the same argument again and again like it's enormously valid and potent when ultimately it's trivial and superficial. I don't mind "pointless" internet conversation in theory (the theory being akin to one man's trash is another man's treasure), but I do think there comes a time when assumed righteous anger becomes an act self-indulgence (not to mention self-importance), and I think Brother None and others around here have hit that point a long time ago.

Brother None argued that I wouldn't win anyone over around here by the way I was wording my arguments, but I dare to argue that there's no winning most of you over regardless of the argument. Minds have been made up and set in stone so permanently that being reasonable no longer has any meaning. It's the reason 95% of the active members around here (if not more) share mostly the same perspective about FO3. Unless you agree near-absolutely with the opinions here, it's almost impossible to stomach this place, as it's so far to the right and so absolute that any remote deviation is met with open hostility, or at the very least subdued disgust and resentment.

This place seriously feels at times (at least when it comes to Fallout 3) like a hard core religious group, like those Westboro people who hang out in front of funerals holding up signs that say "Thank God for 9/11" and "God hates fags!"

And maybe that seems extreme and like an exaggeration to you, but try to take a look at how extreme and unreasonable this place is when it comes to FO3. Anybody who likes the prospect of Fallout 3 is a kiss-ass who belongs to the lowest common denominator of the Halo 3 FPS OMGZPWNEDJOO class. Anybody who is looking seriously forward to Fallout 3 hard core is assumed to never have really played the original or its sequel, or if they have then they never really "got it." There's not really room for opposing viewpoints here, and if you don't think there's anything wrong with that, then you're only proving my point.

 

[ushdugery]

I understand and I don't seek to excuse or even completely understand other peoples behaviour, (I don't have the arrogance to believe that{not in anyway suggesting you are arrogant}) but for me even as just a long time lurker here rather than poster it's backlash against the extreme opposing viewpoint everyone has against any argument from here. I'm made defensive by it because to all extents and purpose my view on the close examination of these arguments and there minutiae sees the outside and the inside as having many similarities and feel myself targeted. Although this is possibly because I'm so involved and engrossed in the small details of it all, being a huge fan of fallout. Anyway I'm sorry I was so defensive I've misread what you were trying to convey through your early piece, (I'm still fairly defensive I almost labeled it a tirade unconciously) I think I get what you were trying to convey now that you've expanded on your point.