Fallout 3 developers on Fallout

Ravager69 said:
So what? You'll hate me if I do? Call me a fanboi?
Click to expand...
Huh, it's your life, it's your money... But it's everybody's series... I don't care what you with your money, I just find you'd probably have better things to spend it at. Furthermore, I won't buy the game, so, as a matter of fact, I don't want anybody to buy the game, but that's only natural from me. You see, when somebody likes something, that somebody expects it to stay alive for as long as possible, so that somebody will want that something to have the most success possible. The same applies when somebody dislikes something...

So what? You'll hate me for wanting everybody not to buy Fallout 3? Call me a fanboy?
 
Morbus said:
Huh, it's your life, it's your money... But it's everybody's series... I don't care what you with your money, I just find you'd probably have better things to spend it at. Furthermore, I won't buy the game, so, as a matter of fact, I don't want anybody to buy the game, but that's only natural from me. You see, when somebody likes something, that somebody expects it to stay alive for as long as possible, so that somebody will want that something to have the most success possible. The same applies when somebody dislikes something...
Click to expand...

Wow, that's one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.
 
Dopemine Cleric said:
Dan: I really didn't like any of the organizations or settlements... none of them would do as I commanded immediately. I'm gonna have to go back and purge them for their impertinence.
Click to expand...

So basically, this is going to be Oblivion with the option of killing everyone including the quest givers..... Ohh... Wait..... shit.... "LoL"
Click to expand...

So the quest givers are supposed to be killable in Fallout3? Hah, it'll probably be just like Morrowind, "You killed an important character. Restart from a saved game."

The response about the mutants pretty much shows how much some of the people at Bethesda care about sticking to the "original" design. Congratulations on his part for being so blatant about it.
 
Makagulfazel said:
So the quest givers are supposed to be killable in Fallout3?
Click to expand...

There will only be a few unkillable NPCs, they've said, so only NPCs vital to the progression of the storyline.

After all, Fallout 1 had an unkillable NPC too, and in Fallout 2 you couldn't slaughter Arroyo without getting a "you failed" message.

What part of it? The whole thing
Click to expand...

Mostly that you don't like it when other people like things you don't like. That's just childish.
 
well, when the main quest was "save arroyo" it seems plausible that killing them all would lead to failure in that quest.

I do think that being able to slaughter the overseer in Fallout would have been nice, but then who would tell you that you aren't welcome and that you have to leave???

UNLESS... they just showed a scene of the pc coming to the locked vault doors and reading it on the computer screen outside, or the vault citizens collapsing the cave and sealing themselves back in..


if they'd set that kind of standard in FO, by making everyone killable, I wonder if we'd even be discussing this now like it was a viable option to have unkillable npcs..
 
my gripe with unkillable PCs is that Bethsoft did it in Morrowind and it worked spectacularly. There were even well hidden quests that would allow you to circumvent the main story if you fucked it up and still beat the game. They were REALLY well hidden though. They all relied on a single guy hidden far underground in a cave, but if you killed him AND fucked up the main quest, you had no way to finish.
 
Morbus said:
Huh, it's your life, it's your money... But it's everybody's series... I don't care what you with your money, I just find you'd probably have better things to spend it at. Furthermore, I won't buy the game, so, as a matter of fact, I don't want anybody to buy the game, but that's only natural from me.
Click to expand...
I think that would it need a deeper ideological and practical explaination, not only a dislike.

For example:
Every dollar paid for Fallout 3 is a dollar that supports the rape of the very idea of Fallout. A dollar that rewards Bethesda's lies and Bethesda's contempt for the original Fallout.
 
Sorrow said:
For example:
Every dollar paid for Fallout 3 is a dollar that supports the rape of the very idea of Fallout. A dollar that rewards Bethesda's lies and Bethesda's contempt for the original Fallout.
Click to expand...

That's good reasoning. Who would want to reward a company for making a product that in almost no way is faithful to the series, especially when they could have just not bought the license? Hell, they even have the balls to put a "3" behind the title, instead of some sub-title showing it's going to be a completely different style of gameplay.
I'm not spending my money. I'm not going to ridicule anyone for buying it, but I'd think about what your money is going towards first. One copy isn't going to make a difference, but I usually don't give my money to people that I don't feel deserve it.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
http://www.insidegamer.nl/pc/fallout3/impressies/19312/?antid=1105&pollid=279

It seems my fellow Dutch men (and women) are rather blinded by the shine of Bethesda's Fallout 3. Its once more clear that the Oblivion crowd is the main target group and not Fallout fans.
Click to expand...

Funny, that's the same guys who published this flagrant anti-Fallout 3 bit.
 
Sorrow said:
Morbus said:
Huh, it's your life, it's your money... But it's everybody's series... I don't care what you with your money, I just find you'd probably have better things to spend it at. Furthermore, I won't buy the game, so, as a matter of fact, I don't want anybody to buy the game, but that's only natural from me.
Click to expand...
I think that would it need a deeper ideological and practical explaination, not only a dislike.

For example:
Every dollar paid for Fallout 3 is a dollar that supports the rape of the very idea of Fallout. A dollar that rewards Bethesda's lies and Bethesda's contempt for the original Fallout.
Click to expand...

Aren't you overreacting a bit? You are forbidding (in some way, not directly) people to do something they have right to do. The only thing I want is to see the effect of their work with my own eyes, to judge it fairly. Should I be critised for it? If it bothers you so badly what Beth does, just forget that Fallout 3 even exist (or will exist) and stick to original one or games that are related to Fallout's world. That is the best thing you can do, that makes sense. Why? Because Bethesda simply does not give a fuck about any protests. They bought the license and now need to make profit on it. And they will find people that will buy it, no matter what true fans'll do. You think they will give up after they've only aquired the license, just because the sales were, like 10%, lower than they expected? The only thing you'll get through protest is satisfaction, and if you want to protest, slander and flame them - fine! You have right to do so, I won't (or ever wouldn't) object. But it's not fair to condemn people that do diffrent than you, especially if they do it for some higher purpose.

That is what I meant in my previous post.
 
Uh, this is all in german....can you at least write a short version of what is written in there?
 
Actually, it's in Dutch. If you scroll most of the way down, there's a button which will pull the article through Babelfish, providing a somewhat weird and vague, but perfectly understandable (for the most part) translation.

edit: "most of the way down the article". Forgot there are comments and whatnot below.
 
Ravager69 said:
Uh, this is all in german....can you at least write a short version of what is written in there?
Click to expand...

That's Dutch, not German. Please.

The article I linked to lists the usual complaints traditional fans have against the game: changing too much, simplifying too much, fears of story-depth etc.

Dutch Ghost's piece says it has the potential to be "one of the best cRPGs", but also says they fear it might not make a 2k8 release (Bethesda is known for delaying releases) and that they worry about how close it'll stick to Fallout's core elements.
 
Analyzing the weapons selection in fallout 1, why do you think the most common weapons of today (Like M16, Kalashnikov) were not included? (tricky one i know
Click to expand...

That question's actually not very difficult. They made a big production out of it, but all they had to say was that those weapons were too industrial to fit the Fallout decor. When you think of a post-apocalyptic wasteland ala Mad Max, what comes to mind in an environment of "broken-ness" and ruin. Because of this, everything has to be scavenged and thrown together--Especially the weapons. The ones you find and use are more esoteric and customized--Sometimes in an amateurish fashion. The M-16 and the Kalashnikov have too much of an assembly line feel maintained by mental images of guards and soldiers working for corporations and/or governments. That would only create a juxtaposition for the ramshackle atmosphere provided by Fallout's run down and thrown together civilization. And before anybody brings up the Enclave, please to note that even they were little more than a shanty organization simply held together by an enduring ideal.

Even if you do encounter those uniform-types in the game anyway, they're using bigger weapons to scale themselves to the dangers of the wasteland. M-16's and Kalashnikovs would be obsolete in that setting.

So the question can be answered from both an atmospheric and a utilitarian point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top