Fallout 3 reviews round-up #6

[Moving Target]

Then why don't people just pretend that Fallout 3 is a spinoff?

Because of the number?

*edit* DAMN YOU NMA AUTO-PROOFER!!

Why not pretend that the Star Wars prequels weren't in the Star Wars universe? Same issue.

And seriously, someone should come up with a "Godwin's Law" for Star Wars and canon fuckups. Seriously, it's like that with SW and canon.

So if FO is ever returned to its roots the next instalment will have skipped a number (or two). Just pretend FO 3 is a non-canonical spinoff a la Brotherhood of Steel. You don't see people complaining about Star Control 3. They just ignore it and move on.

Or, what's more likely to happen: The next installment will be even further from the core P&P emulation gameplay, VATS might be taken out .. .or maybe it'll still be in, for brand name recognition; essentially the reason why EVERYTHING from Fallout is there, despite the fact that it's all so radically changed that it can't rightly be called "Fallout: Anything," really.

Anyway... got off on a bit of a rant... Your point about Star Control is moot because we're not talking about others' IPs. Other game franchises have different "cores," some have no core at all. We KNOW what the core of Fallout is. There have been interviews, dev documents, etc. So to say that it's a good idea to ignore *core* changes in a game that's supposed to be a *direct* continuation of a series is just... weird.

IP's are ephemeral. The franchise will return to its roots, even if it will take twenty or thirty years.

Yes, IPs are ephemeral. Which raises the question: Why not leave well enough alone? The original two games are extremely good games; Tactics is a fun and decent (though buggy) tactical squad-based fighting game. Why not leave it there, continue to pretend that the *spin-off* BOS never happened (lots of people already do) and just let the IP die a semi-dignified death?

As to your other point: Really? I'm not so sure. The XCom franchise certainly hasn't risen from the tomb, and each "evolution" of the series seemed to contribute to its downfall. Wasteland too. Yes I know there's been some rumours of each coming back recently, but... they're rumors. Not fact.

At this point, the best we can hope for are indie companies picking up the slack. Right now, big companies are creating games like movie studios create movies: They make a BIG production, find a formula, and stick to it. Constantly.

Video games aren't going away, the industry has a lot of unoriginality,

True points, both of which I don't think even needed to be said...

there will be a Van Buren-styled Fallout inevitably. Considering how many remakes, series reboots, and sequels, eventually someone will make a FO that's true to form.

....Nope. Not if this one's a success; which it probably will be. Despite the complaints (not just from the "Fallout faithful") that it's duller than Oblivion, that the quest sucks, that the animations are horrid, that VATS gets boring really soon, that collision detection still is terrible, etc, etc, it's still going to sell very big.

Which means a Fallout that's further from the originals, the end of the older style IP of Fallout, and the nigh-impossibility of a good, turn-based IP.... Even forgetting iso (movable camera angles would be fine, obviously.)

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I'm not overly optimistic, I'm just young and so is the video gaming industry.

The industry is nearing what, fourty years of age? That's not exactly young and it's a cop-op excuse to boot. Silly Bobby, that youngin thought that shoving his head into a wood chipper would be fun!

I really can't be bothered to care too much about bad turns for franchises. If a story is good enough, it will be picked up eventually. If Fallout really deserves its accolades, sooner or later- give or take a few decades- it will be remade. Or, there will be a spiritual successor to it. It's merely inevitable.

A decade is a while, decades is a long ass time. I'm sure that there will be a spiritual successor but the Fallout franchise will be continually raped and mention of it will bring an entirely different image to mind. Gizmo's TMNT example is always a good one of why it's a problem for a franchise to make a huge shift but I'll take a whack at it.

TMNT was originally a comic aimed at an older demographic, it was dark, violent, and somewhat profane. In the late 80's/early 90's it was made into a kid's TV show which made the turtles happy-go-lucky "tubular" dudes who used the slang of the time. It changed characters to be ridiculous and more child friendly (April into a banana-suit wearing reporter, Baxter into a fly-man, the Foot-clan into robots [since you can't kill people on a kids show], etc). These days whenever someone mentions TMNT the first thing to come to most people's mind is that old cartoon show (like totally radical dude) and then the kids movies, most people don't even know about the comic, let alone how drastically different it was from the cartoon.

It's NOT?

Of course it isn't, it's not like I'm trying to keep people from knowing the truth

 

[Brother None]

Then why don't people just pretend that Fallout 3 is a spinoff?

It continues to surprise me how many times people name this as a solution to the crap Bethesda spews forth. It was quite popular with Oblivion too

"Just pretend it's something else"

 

[Nodder]

Then why don't people just pretend that Fallout 3 is a spinoff?

'{Beats me likes a baby seal "cuz" I am STOOPID!} of the number?

Who cares about a number. It's Bethesda's Fallout 3. Not the Fallout 3 of your preferred dev team. As I said before, Star Control fans loathe the third game and they just ignore it, seems to work fine for them.

Why not pretend that the Star Wars prequels weren't in the Star Wars universe? Same issue.

Apples and oranges. George Lucas made both series. Lucasfilm's handling of canon is pretty much an aberration, anyways. They are the most hardcore about it, and force anything Star Wars related (except those under the Infinites label) to be part of the same fictional universe, at least tangentially.

Anyway... got off on a bit of a rant... Your point about Star Control is moot because we're not talking about others' IPs. Other game franchises have different "cores," some have no core at all. We KNOW what the core of Fallout is. There have been interviews, dev documents, etc. So to say that it's a good idea to ignore *core* changes in a game that's supposed to be a *direct* continuation of a series is just... weird.

How is Star Control III not supposed to be a core instalment of that series? It's still ignorable. Fallout 3, and any unacceptable sequels by Bethesda, can be similarly ignored unless whomever takes over after them decides to treat their storylines as canon. You're not looking at the big picture here.

IWhich raises the question: Why not leave well enough alone? The original two games are extremely good games; Tactics is a fun and decent (though buggy) tactical squad-based fighting game. Why not leave it there, continue to pretend that the *spin-off* BOS never happened (lots of people already do) and just let the IP die a semi-dignified death?

Because people are greedy and dumb. No need to ask rhetorical questions.

As to your other point: Really? I'm not so sure. The XCom franchise certainly hasn't risen from the tomb, and each "evolution" of the series seemed to contribute to its downfall. Wasteland too. Yes I know there's been some rumours of each coming back recently, but... they're rumors. Not fact.

Rejoice. Even if it's just a rumor it means that people are interested in bringing it back.

At this point, the best we can hope for are indie companies picking up the slack. Right now, big companies are creating games like movie studios create movies: They make a BIG production, find a formula, and stick to it. Constantly.

But yet even big companies make changes. The Incredible Hulk film rebooted after one single film (directed by Ang Lee, no less!). Even Punisher is getting rebooted after only one.

....Nope. Not if this one's a success; which it probably will be. Despite the complaints (not just from the "Fallout faithful") that it's duller than Oblivion, that the quest sucks, that the animations are horrid, that VATS gets boring really soon, that collision detection still is terrible, etc, etc, it's still going to sell very big.

Eh, well even if they continue to have FO games with decidedly un-FO-like gameplay doesn't mean they won't go back to the storyline/setting of the original two games.

The industry is nearing what, fourty years of age? That's not exactly young and it's a cop-op excuse to boot. Silly Bobby, that youngin thought that shoving his head into a wood chipper would be fun!

Video game has yet to hit mainstream completely yet. It's still often considered the province of nerds, despite the existence of the Wii and so on. It won't have fully matured until it's as "legitimate" as Hollywood. Anyways, my point about it being young is that it still has the potential to grow a lot more- meaning more developers, more publishers, and more opportunities for the Fallout IP to be transferred to capable hands.

TMNT was originally a comic aimed at an older demographic, it was dark, violent, and somewhat profane. In the late 80's/early 90's it was made into a kid's TV show which made the turtles happy-go-lucky "tubular" dudes who used the slang of the time. It changed characters to be ridiculous and more child friendly (April into a banana-suit wearing reporter, Baxter into a fly-man, the Foot-clan into robots [since you can't kill people on a kids show], etc). These days whenever someone mentions TMNT the first thing to come to most people's mind is that old cartoon show (like totally radical dude) and then the kids movies, most people don't even know about the comic, let alone how drastically different it was from the cartoon.

A pity, but such are the whims of the public. In ten years who will remember the cheesy Battlestar Galactica of the seventies? Progress leaves no franchise behind.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

The point is that the way "developing skill" was demonstrated and implemented in the game seemed to be pretty well-done.

No they weren't well done. The trouble with the systems in Mass Effect and Deus Ex is the notion of handicapping the player at the start and increasing the character skill removes the player's handicap. What if you are good enough to circumvent the handicap, or bad enough that you can't survive long enough to gain enough points to remove it? This is a fundemental problem with action rpgs, balancing player and character skills. Virtually every hybrid game I've played has put the emphasis on action rather than role playing, and when they do try and find places to implement the role playing they chose combat skills and there's no need if you have direct control of the character's actions.

In Mass Effect you need the sniper talent before you can even use the scope mode but if you're good enough at shooters you don't need to put any points into it, same with the other weapons. Unless you want the super attacks that is. I found ME's combat the opposite to GarfunkeL, even on the hardest difficulty I only spent points on the weapons skills to unlock other talents, for some reason the ability to do other things like wear heavier armour was tied to how good you were with a certain weapon, most odd.

The same for Deus Ex I've played plenty of straight shooters with sniper rifles that were just as shaky as with an unskilled JC. Those games tended to have the function to hold your breath to improve your aim, Deus Ex allowed you to mod your rifle to a similar effect. I found skill points were better spent in skills I had no direct control over like swimming and environmental.

When you are playing with a system that doesn't allow direct control, be it pen, paper and your imagination or a button masher you need skill and stat points to define your character, but not for an action role playing game if you have direct control over the character's aim. Hybrid games should give you the best of both worlds allowing you to role play the character of your choice, not force some players have to invest in certain skills because their own are lacking.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Why not pretend that the Star Wars prequels weren't in the Star Wars universe? Same issue.

Apples and oranges. George Lucas made both series.

Good point. The fact that Bethesda bought Fallout and screwed it up is even worse than what George Lucas did with the newer Star Wars movies. At least the creation he mauled (no pun intended) was his own. What's happened to Fallout is like Michael Bay acquiring the rights to Star Wars and changing it to suit his whims. I'm sure some people who like Michael Bay would be defending him on the grounds that the nutty Star Wars fanatics simply refuse to move on.

 

[Nodder]

The point is that if the rights were to ever to be required by the original team or those who really want to follow their vision then it would be child's play to ignore Fallout 3 then, since Fallout 3 was created by a foreign entity and not endorsed by the original dev team.

It would be absolutely hilarious if Tim Cain and co. gave Bethesda their blessing and FO 3 their endorsement, though. Warren Spector blessed Deus Ex 3 and right now it looks nothing at all like the DX we know and love.

 

[UniversalWolf]

The point is that if the rights were to ever to be required by the original team or those who really want to follow their vision then it would be child's play to ignore Fallout 3 then, since Fallout 3 was created by a foreign entity and not endorsed by the original dev team.

The odds of that ever happening decreased dramatically when Bethesda bought the license. Do you really think they would ever voluntarily let someone create a better Fallout 3 now that they've made a Fallout 3?

The more money they make with this game, the lower the chance of there ever being a true Fallout sequel, and that chance was low to begin with.

 

[Nodder]

Bethesda will not exist forever. Maybe it will take twenty, thirty years, but who knows what the industry will look like in ten.

 

[Pope Viper]

Everyone needs a hope to build a dream on.

Yes. I bastardized it, so what.

 

[ciolan]

It's not complex: Fallout 3 is a part of a franchise, that means it sets itself up to be judged as part of a franchise. You can't make that judgement if you're not familiar with the originals.

Indeed, Fallout 3 is a part of a franchise. The Elder Scrotums franchise.

I kinda liked poor Oblio. It wasn't a brilliant RPG, but it was very enjoyable if you didn't take it out of context (aka TES series). So yeah, I liked Oblivion because I've liked the Elder Scrolls series. But now comes the fun part. Bethesda and every "experienced" reviewer out there seem to think that I should keep an open mind and enjoy Falout 3 for the main reasons I've enjoyed the TES series. Of course, how silly of me to expect some (not all of it, my head would explode like those mutants in the F3 movies) Fallout goodness from a game named Fallout 3. "Oblivion", "The Elder Scrolls", "free roaming", "absolute freedom", "oblivion's problems were fixed" (by the way, AI, sound mastering, voice acting and the animations are still somewhere down below, but I guess they weren't so important for the "imershun") come up waaaay too often in those FALLOUT 3 reviews to convince me that Fallout was the first thing in their minds when they made and reviewed this game. Call it "The Elder Blueprints: A Canticle for Septim" and you'll have a fan. Keep calling it "Fallout" and you'll have my boot stuck up your arse. The funny thing is I'm not what Bethesda and the big gaming sites (and magazines) would consider a "rabid" Fallout fan. And (hehe, me and my youthful optimism) I really believed they could pull out a decent Fallout. I even advised some angry people "on the Internetz" to calm down and wait for the game. Of course, that was before I managed to talk to "The Man" Hines in person. Didn't matter what you've asked him, he could go on for hours about how cool the exploding heads are and how The Team managed to capture the true spirit of Fallout. Ok, mister, you captured it, it's your humble servant, I bet he gives you a foot massage every now and then, but why do you keep it in the bottle and won't allow it to roam the wasteland as God intended him to?

Oh, and I instantly stop reading a review the moment I see the words "brilliant" and "writing" in the same sentence. Come on. I've seen bad fan fiction better written than the most of the dialogues in Fallout 3. Remember the old drunk who welcomed you in Klamath? Not a VIP, but that didn't stop Black Isle to give him some good lines. That was good writing. Not brilliant, but a lot better and smarter than "Don't know why, but I like you". So ... you like me, eh? Then let's cut the crap and tell me where my father is so that i could return to the wonderful free roaming and exploring which made Oblivion so damned good.