Crave said:
The original Fallout games were PC titles from the early '90s, so the franchise can't rely on the faded memories of aging fans to sell big holiday numbers when it's released this fall. Instead, developer Bethesda has modeled the game on its previous big hit, the popular 2006 sword-and-sorcery RPG Oblivion.
Yes, I'm a veritable geezer at the age of 24. Good thing I have my prescriptions for Gingko pills to help with those fading memories, otherwise I'd have a hard time remembering if I put on a clean pair of diapers this morning, let alone some ancient game I played all those decades ago. How fortunate, by the way, that Blizz isn't relying on the "faded memories of aging fans" to sell Diablo 3 and instead opted to reinvent their game as a first-person action RPG, a style of gameplay that is clearly fresh and innovative and not 30 years old or anything.
Also, early fucking '90s? I don't expect high journalistic standards from a tech blog (if I did, I'd be baffled by the fact that a supposed professional gaming journalist doesn't know the release date of one the most influential CRPGs in the history), but by Todd's bollocks, I've seen people do more thorough research when writing Twitter entries on color and texture of their own shit. Wikipedia is only a mouseclick away, fuckwit.
GameDaily said:
We go in and find an attractive blonde inside. After talking to her for a bit, we decided to play dirty and loot her house.
If you ever find yourself alone in the room with an attractive blonde and your first thought is to loot her house, chances are there's something severely wrong with you. Everyone knows that the best course of action in that situation would be to do something bold and manly, such as invite her for a game of Magic: The Gathering.
VGChartz said:
In the ruined DC area (Capital Wasteland), for instance, you can listen to a propaganda broadcast from the "President", who's taken over the country, while you play the game. There was also a news broadcast, and even one from a China-based station. Some of the broadcasts appear to give you information for seeking out side quests as well. Really this was the most entertaining part of the demo, but I'm one of those people who enjoys listening to the fake talk radio stations in Grand Theft Auto, too.
By the sound of it (lol, puns), FO3's post-apocalyptic wasteland has enough radio stations per capita to rival most of today's high-income countries. So much for the feeling of desolation, something that would have been fairly easy to recreate if Bethesda employed designers who could actually *design*. Seriously, I have no idea what reasoning leads Bethesda to make these mind-bogglingly stupid design choices in every single game they develop, but I suspect it invariably begins with "Wouldn't it be cool if...".
WorthPlaying said:
WorthPlaying get a cookie for managing to write a full paragraph about VATS without a single erroneous use of the term "turn-based". It sounds almost as if they know what they are talking about. Shocking, I know.
The twist is that not all of your choices are available at all times, and certain conversation choices are only available to certain characters. Your skills will also influence the success rate of conversations; a character with high Charisma and Speech skills may be able to charm information out of a normally uptight individual, and those with a high intelligence may notice something that less clever characters don't.
While player stats having influence on conversation choices is undeniably good CRPG design, I wonder why they feel compelled to point it out as if it's a novel or uncommon concept, when it's been a staple of both Fallout games at the very least as much as the Vault Boy or turn-based combat. Hell, even in BioWare games it's been standard fare for years now, and everyone knows those talentless fuckers never introduce a game mechanic unless it's been done to the death.
All in all, Bethesda did a phenomenal job of translating the 2-D Fallout world into 3D, and all but the most rigidly inflexible of Fallout fans should find it to be a satisfactory adaptation.
What a way to ruin a somewhat decent preview. I can just imagine this previewer's thought processes: "Hmmm, my preview isn't anywhere near <strike>groveling</strike> enthusiastic enough. I should embellish it a bit, as I wouldn't want anyone to get the mistaken that I'm a journalist who is actually... what's the word... oh yeah, p-... pr-... pref-... *profeshunal*. I know, I'll shower some unwarranted praise on Bethesda and take a potshot at the Fallout fans, while simultaneously making flagrantly false statements that can be debunked by simply citing what I wrote earlier in the preview. Yeah, that'll do it. Oh, hey Todd! You want me to suck your cock? Well I never! Ah, what the hell, whip it out, big boy."
Gamester said:
It’s also in large part an action game, almost to the point of first-person shooter. But Fallout purists, don’t be worried. As a Fallout purist myself I like the system because in addition to pure FPS it’s also very tactical thanks to a targeting system that lets you stop the action to target limbs and other body parts. It fits the atmosphere of the game very well.
I don't get this. What the fuck is the matter with these people? When they write their mind-numbingly retarded bullshit, do they ever stop to think that hey, someone on the other side of teh Intarnetz might actually end up *reading* these malformed puddles of fecal matter that pass for thoughts?
It's not even the groveling-PR-shill tone of the article that offends me. I'm already accustomed to the fact that 99% of all game journalism in the world sounds like someone copy-pasted a transcript of a detergent commercial and changed some words. I won't throw a tantrum about the fact that this so-called "preview" contains maybe a promile of actual *information* about the game.
No, what really outrages me is the sheer *stupidity* of statements made. VATS is supposed be tactical? Really now, journalist boy? Did you stop to think about what that word means or did you simply throw it in because you decided it would make you sound more edjumificated and stuff? I'm willing to bet my left testicle on door number two.
There is nothing "tactical" about VATS, if you actually bother to think about it. In fact, VATS is far less tactical than even the standard FPS mode. In standard mode, you have a variety of actions on your disposal: you can move along four degrees of freedom - two translational (three if you count jumping/crouching) and two rotational. You can attack. You can switch between weapons. Movement alone is the mechanics which most of all is conducive tor tactics. A fairly simple and intuitive mechanic in its own right, it provides countless tactical options, from retreating and seeking cover to moving in within striking range of a melee weapon.
VATS contributes almost nothing to tactics. Au contraire, it is detrimental to tactical gameplay because it reduces the number of actions available to the player. In VATS mode you can't move. Your action-set is drastically reduced to what is essentially only one action - firing your ranged weapon at one of the targets from a small, discrete set. Essentially the only tactical element is deciding which of these targets to hit while economizing the consumption of a (renewable) resource - action points. That's it.
In fact, I'd go one further and say that VATS contributes nothing to gameplay in general. It disrupts the pace of the game, which is a bad thing in a fast-paced action game like FO3. It detracts from the challenge by letting the player easily dispose of enemies who would otherwise pose a serious threat, essentially working as a built-in cheat mode. It is the gaming equivalent of fitting your bike with side-wheels, and I must say I have never heard anyone describe the experience of cycling with a set of side-wheels as "tactical".
I think it's indicative how all previews are fixated upon the ludicrous amounts of gore in VATS combat. It's obvious to me that blood fountains and disembodied limbs are the only concrete thing that VATS "adds" to the game. Given the fact that FO3 mostly revolves around combat and that the high-point of FO3 combat is ridiculously over-the-top violence, I can't help but conclude that FO3 is built around violence as *the* central game element, especially since all the other elements appear to be largely unremarkable. In that sense, FO3 seems to be like a post-apocalyptic reimagining of Postal 2, which is probably the most pitiable qualification that can be made about a triple-A action RPG. In other words, if this is the best Bethesda can come up with a budget of tens of millions of dollars and a four-year development cycle, then maybe they should throw in the towel and apply for positions at local KFC, because they suffer from severe, and I mean *severe* deficiency of design talent and creativity.
Or maybe they can simply accept that they suck and base a new PR slogan off of that fact. "Bethesda Game Studios: Even Your Grandma Can Do Better". Yep, definitely has a nice ring to it.
