Silencer said:
To which I'd say "Remove fallouty level design stuff from Fallout 1 and there is nothing!" Big difference.
Fallout 3, who is this for?
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
To which I'd say "Remove fallouty level design stuff from Fallout 1 and there is nothing!" Big difference.
It has an active thread on the Beth forum, about 9 pages long.
quietfanatic
Ancient One
Good article, although the spite us and market jokes might be misleading. Nah. Those who might take that seriously wouldn't bother to read it anyway.
I strongly approve of the use of references.
I hadn't heard of Yakov Smirnov. So he popularised the Russian reversal jokes, okay.
Blowing up the town for no apparent reason could go under lack of moral ambiguity and dark humour. The trick is to avoid total farce.
I strongly approve of the use of references.
I hadn't heard of Yakov Smirnov. So he popularised the Russian reversal jokes, okay.
Blowing up the town for no apparent reason could go under lack of moral ambiguity and dark humour. The trick is to avoid total farce.
Now I've noticed that almost every Fallout fansite moderator/admin have expressed incredible upset at the "changes" Bethesda has made with the introduction of fallout 3. NMA seems to be one of the worst when it comes to this, so I am not suprised to see this article. I mean some of your news posts go so far as to include angry rants from Fallout traditionalists. Now I understand you've been waiting for years for a top down isometric "add-on" to the Fallout universe, but you had to have seen this coming. The hopes of a classical Fallout died with the cancellation of Van Buren.
I've seen many game sequels created or rather chewed up and spit out by new developers looking for a way to make money. What do I do about it? Ignore them. You are obviously zealous about how the game should stay exactly the same as it's predecessors so why even bother covering Fallout 3 at all? You've done so well covering similar games and Fallout mods that I'm suprised you haven't just closed the book on Bethesdas "generic" post-apocalyptic world. Though I would like to refute the word generic as the 3D renders present a believeable and detailed wasteland and comparing them to the 2D sprites from the originals seems a bit trivial, especially because most of them had been recycled and the switch to a 3D world doesnt necessarily mean a loss of character. Besides I think the shack looks hot! =P A comparison of a picture from the old game compared with the new should not lead you to believe that the game is just sprinkled with a Fallouty look. We haven't even played the game yet! There may be more personality there than you ever imagined. The incredibly detailed looking Vault doesn't seem to have lost it's character in transition. I guess since the text in "Vault Secure" doesn't fit the graphic, you think it's just slapped on instead of stylish? Well the game is obviously going to look different since it is no longer 2D artwork and now 3D rendered and while some character is inevitably lost, but what you get is a world realized. Also, Referring to the supermutants as the zombie like creatures is most fps games is pretty accurate as they are, however; How did you expect them to look and/or act? The previous look was a bit comical which was nice but in that form they were never quite as believable as wasteland abominations as they were as giant apes. I look at the Fallout 3 screenshot and it looks like a person who has been infected by a virus or some form of radiation and I think thats what most people see: vicious hulking beasts and isn't that what they should be going for? At least with the description of super mutants as they were presented in Fallout 2.
Even if you disagree with some of my statements there is one thing that I think we can all agree on and it is that the game is not out yet. You are making massive assumptions of the quality of a game based on a handful of interviews with people who don't seem to be able to articulate specific details about the game, and an article in GI that was meant to entertain and excite people about an up and coming game more than anything else. You've read GI in the past right? They sometimes imbelish or make up a story about a typical run through of a game like we saw prominently displayed about the adventures of a vault dweller in their magazine. Oftentimes their story is inaccurate and just meant for fun rather than being a detailed description of what they experienced in a demo, which is probably what happend here.
It is inevitable that technology will change and that the result will probably be a next generation title like Oblivion catered toward the masses in the form of an Action Adventure/RPG. Sadly the days of top down questing with turn based combat aren't as marketable as the new fps rpgs. That said I'm not ready to say that this is the end of Fallout as you seem to have accepted. I still believe there is a 73% chance that this thing may come out and shock all of us who are adaptable enough to appreciate a good game that keeps the style of Fallout even if it no longer looks like the 2D games and has a new style of combat. The V.A.T.S. system sounds like fun to me and doesn't sound incredibly different that original turn based combat. Apparently its only a turn off to traditionalists because the real time option exists at all, and resumes after action points are spent. After rationalizing, the only thing that appears to be meant by "if you're a fan who is adamently againt the significant changes" is that if you were expecting a 2D top down with turn based combat and classically styled Fallout 1-2 artwork, you are out of luck. It reads very clearly. (I still don't understand why, and this may not apply to your view of the teaser, some people think that the game should look less gritty. Obviously I am referencing the look of the power armor which is obbiously the first version as soon on the cover of Fallout 1 and I don't see how anyone can classify its rendering as anything short of amazing.)
Even if Fallout 3 turns out to be a horrible dissappointment, and I doubt it will unless you were expecting Van Buren or Fallout 2: Fallout Next, you'll always have the originals. Either way, this panning of the game before we even have a chance to see it in action is insanity. I'm sure there have been plenty of changes made to the engine since Oblivion to give it the flexability necessary to allow for more fluid gameplay then we saw before. Of course there is a statement you made about the designers making it for themselves. This is more true than you know! Bethesda isn't famous for taking fans advice. I KNOW! It's incredible considering the feedback Oblivion recieved, it seems like they never visited the forums/fansites once except to issue a statement such as "We have been listening and are considering implementing changes based on suggestions from the community." Which was more than half the time, complete bull. They make games as they see fit. Which is a shame considering what the Fallout fanbase has put into the community. Still I highly doubt they are idiot enough to slap together a game to sell for a quick buck. I look forward to Fallout 3 to retain and expand on a post-apocalyptic feel and feature some incredible depth in choices you can make, (Possibly including an updated dialogue function to act in the same fashion as Fallout 1-2, I doubt they'll leave it exaclty the same as Oblivion.) and some excellent action and questing gameplay. Hey, as I stated before, if it sucks, just treat it like Brotherhood of Steel and go back to playing the orignals. This is the second use of the engine and now that its more comfortably in use I believe that they can succeed in bringing the Fallout Universe to the next generation, even through the amount of contempt that it has recieved so far. =]
-FuBi0
I've seen many game sequels created or rather chewed up and spit out by new developers looking for a way to make money. What do I do about it? Ignore them. You are obviously zealous about how the game should stay exactly the same as it's predecessors so why even bother covering Fallout 3 at all? You've done so well covering similar games and Fallout mods that I'm suprised you haven't just closed the book on Bethesdas "generic" post-apocalyptic world. Though I would like to refute the word generic as the 3D renders present a believeable and detailed wasteland and comparing them to the 2D sprites from the originals seems a bit trivial, especially because most of them had been recycled and the switch to a 3D world doesnt necessarily mean a loss of character. Besides I think the shack looks hot! =P A comparison of a picture from the old game compared with the new should not lead you to believe that the game is just sprinkled with a Fallouty look. We haven't even played the game yet! There may be more personality there than you ever imagined. The incredibly detailed looking Vault doesn't seem to have lost it's character in transition. I guess since the text in "Vault Secure" doesn't fit the graphic, you think it's just slapped on instead of stylish? Well the game is obviously going to look different since it is no longer 2D artwork and now 3D rendered and while some character is inevitably lost, but what you get is a world realized. Also, Referring to the supermutants as the zombie like creatures is most fps games is pretty accurate as they are, however; How did you expect them to look and/or act? The previous look was a bit comical which was nice but in that form they were never quite as believable as wasteland abominations as they were as giant apes. I look at the Fallout 3 screenshot and it looks like a person who has been infected by a virus or some form of radiation and I think thats what most people see: vicious hulking beasts and isn't that what they should be going for? At least with the description of super mutants as they were presented in Fallout 2.
Even if you disagree with some of my statements there is one thing that I think we can all agree on and it is that the game is not out yet. You are making massive assumptions of the quality of a game based on a handful of interviews with people who don't seem to be able to articulate specific details about the game, and an article in GI that was meant to entertain and excite people about an up and coming game more than anything else. You've read GI in the past right? They sometimes imbelish or make up a story about a typical run through of a game like we saw prominently displayed about the adventures of a vault dweller in their magazine. Oftentimes their story is inaccurate and just meant for fun rather than being a detailed description of what they experienced in a demo, which is probably what happend here.
It is inevitable that technology will change and that the result will probably be a next generation title like Oblivion catered toward the masses in the form of an Action Adventure/RPG. Sadly the days of top down questing with turn based combat aren't as marketable as the new fps rpgs. That said I'm not ready to say that this is the end of Fallout as you seem to have accepted. I still believe there is a 73% chance that this thing may come out and shock all of us who are adaptable enough to appreciate a good game that keeps the style of Fallout even if it no longer looks like the 2D games and has a new style of combat. The V.A.T.S. system sounds like fun to me and doesn't sound incredibly different that original turn based combat. Apparently its only a turn off to traditionalists because the real time option exists at all, and resumes after action points are spent. After rationalizing, the only thing that appears to be meant by "if you're a fan who is adamently againt the significant changes" is that if you were expecting a 2D top down with turn based combat and classically styled Fallout 1-2 artwork, you are out of luck. It reads very clearly. (I still don't understand why, and this may not apply to your view of the teaser, some people think that the game should look less gritty. Obviously I am referencing the look of the power armor which is obbiously the first version as soon on the cover of Fallout 1 and I don't see how anyone can classify its rendering as anything short of amazing.)
Even if Fallout 3 turns out to be a horrible dissappointment, and I doubt it will unless you were expecting Van Buren or Fallout 2: Fallout Next, you'll always have the originals. Either way, this panning of the game before we even have a chance to see it in action is insanity. I'm sure there have been plenty of changes made to the engine since Oblivion to give it the flexability necessary to allow for more fluid gameplay then we saw before. Of course there is a statement you made about the designers making it for themselves. This is more true than you know! Bethesda isn't famous for taking fans advice. I KNOW! It's incredible considering the feedback Oblivion recieved, it seems like they never visited the forums/fansites once except to issue a statement such as "We have been listening and are considering implementing changes based on suggestions from the community." Which was more than half the time, complete bull. They make games as they see fit. Which is a shame considering what the Fallout fanbase has put into the community. Still I highly doubt they are idiot enough to slap together a game to sell for a quick buck. I look forward to Fallout 3 to retain and expand on a post-apocalyptic feel and feature some incredible depth in choices you can make, (Possibly including an updated dialogue function to act in the same fashion as Fallout 1-2, I doubt they'll leave it exaclty the same as Oblivion.) and some excellent action and questing gameplay. Hey, as I stated before, if it sucks, just treat it like Brotherhood of Steel and go back to playing the orignals. This is the second use of the engine and now that its more comfortably in use I believe that they can succeed in bringing the Fallout Universe to the next generation, even through the amount of contempt that it has recieved so far. =]
-FuBi0
Critique on NMA article Who is it for by Brother None
Just as the author of the article states; It's very speculative... And I am aware of that. My critique is speculative as well. We can't be anything than speculative at this early point.
The article starts off with discussing the super mutants, and I agree to the fact that they look very off. Bethesdas Ogres in Oblivion look more like the super mutants in Fallout 1 and 2 than the one they've shown in the article. But as someone on these board already have speculated, these mutants live on the East coast. Perhaps humans responded differantly on the East Coast to FEV (or the like) than on the west coast. I don't know and neither does Brother None. But I agree, they don't look falloutish.
The article then moves on to the architecture. I agree on this point as well. The designers need to know that post 50's buildings are off bound. They need to recognise that buildings were built differently in the 20's than during the post war era. The article has, however, very little to go on here. We haven't seen many pics or screen shot from the game. One of the pics the article uses to illustrate this is quite silly. He shows a building made of wood! This building could have been built in the 20's as well as the late 80's. No proof there. But I agree that the art deco style is very important to the game, but it's quite hard to believe that Bethesda missed that. It could be possible though... and that worries me.
About moral dilemmas... The article suggests that a computer game developer would happily admit that killing children would be possible in their game. Is the ability to kill children in a game a good thing PR wise?? I think not. And... And Bethesda hasn't of yet said the opposite, that killing children will not be possible.
The next topic in the article is humor. I agree to the fact that it's a very big part of the "feel" of Fallout. The Authour of the articles does however speculates that Hines doesn't "get" the fallout humor. I really think Hines qoute is pretty good when reflecting on the humor of Fallout. Doesn't the humor in Fallout rely on absurdities and extremes? The example in GI magazine is such an absurdity (and it's very 50's sci-fiesce). This is the only example of FO3 humor we've seen so far (I did however laugh about pressing the button and nuking that small town). We have to see more examples to really form an opinion on this subject. The claim that the humor in fallout 3 isn't very "fallout" is based more on what isn't said than anything else.
Moving on to branching storylines/choice and consequence. Mind you that the whole article until this point is mostly based on single references if that even. Here, on the other hand, the author clank down because there is only one mentioning on the subject. And I agree to some degree. The dialogue system of the original game and the consequences that followed the dialogues are a big part of what made Fallout special. But we don't know how much Bethesda showed the GI journalist, nor what angle the editor of the magazine wanted the article to have. While the dialogue of FO3 is what causes most angst, it's also something very inconlusive. We really don't know how it actually will work. We know nothing, except that it's going to be multi branched, which is a good thing.
Who is it for? The author seem very unhappy about the fact that the designers and developers make FO3 they way they would like it, that they are making a game they would love to play. I really don't think this is something strange nor worrysome. I actually think it's great that they are making a game they would love to play. It supports creativity, but creativity doesn't seem a good quality when developing a fallout sequal. I can't really think of any case where a movie producer, musician or game developer where this is held against them.. Hell, wouldn't you make your dream game if you had the opportunity?? I would.
My fallout conclusion this far... Fallout will change! It will perhaps not be for the better, but I don't think it's going to be for the worse either. It will merely change.
Just as the author of the article states; It's very speculative... And I am aware of that. My critique is speculative as well. We can't be anything than speculative at this early point.
The article starts off with discussing the super mutants, and I agree to the fact that they look very off. Bethesdas Ogres in Oblivion look more like the super mutants in Fallout 1 and 2 than the one they've shown in the article. But as someone on these board already have speculated, these mutants live on the East coast. Perhaps humans responded differantly on the East Coast to FEV (or the like) than on the west coast. I don't know and neither does Brother None. But I agree, they don't look falloutish.
The article then moves on to the architecture. I agree on this point as well. The designers need to know that post 50's buildings are off bound. They need to recognise that buildings were built differently in the 20's than during the post war era. The article has, however, very little to go on here. We haven't seen many pics or screen shot from the game. One of the pics the article uses to illustrate this is quite silly. He shows a building made of wood! This building could have been built in the 20's as well as the late 80's. No proof there. But I agree that the art deco style is very important to the game, but it's quite hard to believe that Bethesda missed that. It could be possible though... and that worries me.
About moral dilemmas... The article suggests that a computer game developer would happily admit that killing children would be possible in their game. Is the ability to kill children in a game a good thing PR wise?? I think not. And... And Bethesda hasn't of yet said the opposite, that killing children will not be possible.
The next topic in the article is humor. I agree to the fact that it's a very big part of the "feel" of Fallout. The Authour of the articles does however speculates that Hines doesn't "get" the fallout humor. I really think Hines qoute is pretty good when reflecting on the humor of Fallout. Doesn't the humor in Fallout rely on absurdities and extremes? The example in GI magazine is such an absurdity (and it's very 50's sci-fiesce). This is the only example of FO3 humor we've seen so far (I did however laugh about pressing the button and nuking that small town). We have to see more examples to really form an opinion on this subject. The claim that the humor in fallout 3 isn't very "fallout" is based more on what isn't said than anything else.
Moving on to branching storylines/choice and consequence. Mind you that the whole article until this point is mostly based on single references if that even. Here, on the other hand, the author clank down because there is only one mentioning on the subject. And I agree to some degree. The dialogue system of the original game and the consequences that followed the dialogues are a big part of what made Fallout special. But we don't know how much Bethesda showed the GI journalist, nor what angle the editor of the magazine wanted the article to have. While the dialogue of FO3 is what causes most angst, it's also something very inconlusive. We really don't know how it actually will work. We know nothing, except that it's going to be multi branched, which is a good thing.
Who is it for? The author seem very unhappy about the fact that the designers and developers make FO3 they way they would like it, that they are making a game they would love to play. I really don't think this is something strange nor worrysome. I actually think it's great that they are making a game they would love to play. It supports creativity, but creativity doesn't seem a good quality when developing a fallout sequal. I can't really think of any case where a movie producer, musician or game developer where this is held against them.. Hell, wouldn't you make your dream game if you had the opportunity?? I would.
My fallout conclusion this far... Fallout will change! It will perhaps not be for the better, but I don't think it's going to be for the worse either. It will merely change.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Why couldn't the pro Bethesda Fallout camp always write like this? The world would be a better place, and there wouldn't be 80% of the problems that exist in this forum and on the bethesda fallout 3 forum.
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Except a design that was 50's pulp inspired doesn't tend to include detailed and realistic. Graphics can be updated without losing character, look at Lara in the original game to the most recent release. Sam and Max weren't remade to look like realistic animals in human clothing. If the screenshot of the mutant had been leaked without saying what game it came from how many people would of guessed correctly it comes from Fallout 3?FuBi0 said:
The super mutants weren't zombie like in the original games, that was the ghouls. And other than one or two characters most of the super mutants were dumb and ape like and comical. Which again fits in with the comic book style and the dark ironic humor.FuBi0 said:
Given the exclusive deal between GI and Bethesda it's kind of hard to believe that Bethesda didn't factor in some sort of approval clause.FuBi0 said:
Doesn't matter how it's rendered, again you don't see Sam and Max or Sonic rendered as photo realsitic animals.FuBi0 said:
I couldnt help but smack my head several times on my desk while reading this article. I totaly respect your opinion but I simply cant agree with almost anything you said. Its incoherent and totaly biased.
I for one think the design of those supermutants (what appears to be one of the most important aspects of the game) to look pretty hulkesque and seem to fit into the setting. I do like the design of the world, or at least the stuff I have seen from it. I dont realy get your comparison images cause to me each time both of them look fairly generic post-apocalyptic material.
Anyhow, I do understand the frustration of all the fallout fans. You are all waiting now for 10 years to get your succesor and now apparently its not what you were expecting. Very frustrating! It makes me pretty glad I never realy liked isometric games and so I never bought and played them.
On the other hand this ranting has to stop. Perhaps Bethesda shouldnt have called this Fallout 3 but just something with the word Fallout in it or related to it. I for one am anxiously waiting for this game to be released. I could care less about the name of the game and its heritage but I just want the game that STALKER was supposed to be: a free-roamability post-apocalyptic world thats difficult to simply survive in. From what I have seen and read, thats exactly what Fallout 3 has to offer.
I guess lots of Fallout fans will not buy this game and a lot of other people that just want to wander around in old barren wastelands and utterly destroyed cities are probably going to love this game. I guess it wont be a true Fallout game like you want it because its only using the name for the game's title and the setting for the game's world. But hey, its exactly like System Shock. I loved SS and SS2 but you can be very assured that I wont give money to EA for System Shock 3 because I know they are going to fricking screw that game up, I am just going for the real deal with Bioshock.
I guess for you people the waiting still isnt over and I hope for all of you that some developer will appear that will make a spiritual succesor to your game. But for now, I think it would be a lot wiser to stop your coverage of Fallout 3 OR accept the fact its not Fallout 3 but just a game using the name and setting.
Sorry for the long post but ey, I had to read a long article too hehe
I for one think the design of those supermutants (what appears to be one of the most important aspects of the game) to look pretty hulkesque and seem to fit into the setting. I do like the design of the world, or at least the stuff I have seen from it. I dont realy get your comparison images cause to me each time both of them look fairly generic post-apocalyptic material.
Anyhow, I do understand the frustration of all the fallout fans. You are all waiting now for 10 years to get your succesor and now apparently its not what you were expecting. Very frustrating! It makes me pretty glad I never realy liked isometric games and so I never bought and played them.
On the other hand this ranting has to stop. Perhaps Bethesda shouldnt have called this Fallout 3 but just something with the word Fallout in it or related to it. I for one am anxiously waiting for this game to be released. I could care less about the name of the game and its heritage but I just want the game that STALKER was supposed to be: a free-roamability post-apocalyptic world thats difficult to simply survive in. From what I have seen and read, thats exactly what Fallout 3 has to offer.
I guess lots of Fallout fans will not buy this game and a lot of other people that just want to wander around in old barren wastelands and utterly destroyed cities are probably going to love this game. I guess it wont be a true Fallout game like you want it because its only using the name for the game's title and the setting for the game's world. But hey, its exactly like System Shock. I loved SS and SS2 but you can be very assured that I wont give money to EA for System Shock 3 because I know they are going to fricking screw that game up, I am just going for the real deal with Bioshock.
I guess for you people the waiting still isnt over and I hope for all of you that some developer will appear that will make a spiritual succesor to your game. But for now, I think it would be a lot wiser to stop your coverage of Fallout 3 OR accept the fact its not Fallout 3 but just a game using the name and setting.
Sorry for the long post but ey, I had to read a long article too hehe
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Why who's it hurting? Isn't it healthy to let off steam in a controlled environment?MeSSeN said:
Being premature aren't you? What evidence are you basing that on? Shouldn't you wait and see?MeSSeN said:
Sheesh and they say Fallout fans are rabid.
So, if you've never even played Fallout what the hell are you doing here?MeSSeN said:
Also, how can you presume to speak on the subject of setting if you haven't even tasted the setting of the original games?
requiem_for_a_starfury said:
>I'm talking about the tiny details that are rendered. Sam and Max are rendered in 3D but don't sport details like this, they didn't need to, they were cartoons. I am not suggesting that everything that is rendered in 3D looks photo real, thats just ridiculous. Maybe I misphrased. Oh well. =P
Great article. This can be a real eye opener for those BS-corp's fallout 3 defenders. Keep them coming because this is great. Almost everything we hear from Howard is a contradiction after the next. The guy needs to learn on how to publicly speak. At least a while back he was able to say the notorious line "we are not ready to say anything yet"
Urgh, sorry for commenting something on this site. Seems like you need to belong to somekind of elite group to be welcome here?
All I was saying is that I understand your frustration and that fallout 3 probably isnt fallout but just a game using the name. I am bit confused on what I said wrong, dont blame me, blame bethesda that they are using your game's name....
And okay, I fullheartedly agree:
. I am just getting a bit tired of all the "this-isnt-fallout" comments here and elsewhere (like on the official forums 
). Yes, you are probably right and it isnt fallout. We get it... or well I get it . Can we start talking about something else? Like what kind of character will you play? And knowing bethsoft we can expect huge possibilities to mod-out the game, hell, if you dont like the art you can already begin with organising designteams that can already start modeling new buildings and stuff. It wouldnt suprise me if the same tools as for oblivion can be used for fallout 3.
but at the same time at such low expectations I dont even want to play that game anymore. Perhaps EA will suprise me but I dont count on it.
I am realy sorry Fallout 3 isnt what most of you expected and waited for, on the other hand I am wondering how many of you would think the game shows potential at this stage if it wasnt called "Fallout 3" and had completly no relation with the franchise whatsoever?
argh, now I wrote a complete new comment. I am sorry if I am trolling in on your webspace cause in that case I wont do it again
All I was saying is that I understand your frustration and that fallout 3 probably isnt fallout but just a game using the name. I am bit confused on what I said wrong, dont blame me, blame bethesda that they are using your game's name....
And okay, I fullheartedly agree:
Thats probably alot better than to go torch the place at bethsoftrequiem_for_a_starfury said:
. I am just getting a bit tired of all the "this-isnt-fallout" comments here and elsewhere (like on the official forums ). Yes, you are probably right and it isnt fallout. We get it... or well I get it . Can we start talking about something else? Like what kind of character will you play? And knowing bethsoft we can expect huge possibilities to mod-out the game, hell, if you dont like the art you can already begin with organising designteams that can already start modeling new buildings and stuff. It wouldnt suprise me if the same tools as for oblivion can be used for fallout 3.Hehe, I just think I can have a rough guess on what to expect from the mighty gamefactory thats EA. So, no I dont think I have to wait. I already put my expectations on such a low level that I cant and will not be disappointed with System Shock 3requiem_for_a_starfury said:
but at the same time at such low expectations I dont even want to play that game anymore. Perhaps EA will suprise me but I dont count on it.I am realy sorry Fallout 3 isnt what most of you expected and waited for, on the other hand I am wondering how many of you would think the game shows potential at this stage if it wasnt called "Fallout 3" and had completly no relation with the franchise whatsoever?
argh, now I wrote a complete new comment. I am sorry if I am trolling in on your webspace cause in that case I wont do it again
MeSSeN said:
...Elite group? You mean "having played Fallout"? This is a Fallout fansite, don't you think it makes a little sense that all of our users have, in fact, played Fallout?
MeSSeN said:
Yes, and maybe puppies? We have a whole board where people talk about all kinds of stuff, including a Fallout 3 suggestions and speculation forum (even though it is one of the sillier parts). Do you really mean that "My first Fallout 3 character maybe" is a better choice of subject for an article? Don't try to pretend that 49-page threads bashing the latest preview is all we do here.
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sorry you've lost me, Fallout has an established style, that style came from the elements that influenced the setting. That style isn't realistic and from the talking heads and some of the cutscenes would still work very well in 3d. It should have nothing to do with what would appeal to a larger audience. Fallout was meant to have a pulp comic book cover style. Taking it away and making it more detailed, more gritty, more modern is taking away part of what makes it Fallout. It's been said that it's impossible to define what made Fallout, Fallout. But how much can be changed before it no longer contains anything Fallout beyond being post apocalyptic? From what we've seen so far, from what Bethesda have said in the past, it doesn't have Fallout's combat, it doesn't have Fallout's graphical style, Fallout's character system has been changed, it doesn't have Fallout's freedom of character design choice. Whether it has Fallout's dialogue or dialogue system is unclear, whether it has Fallout's choice and consequences, or dark humor is unclear and debatable. So really what's left?FuBi0 said:
And perhaps the author identified them that way because they look more like zombies from another game and was confused.FuBi0 said:
Of course they'd approve something that hyped their game, and of course stuff that was shown to the reporter might not make it into the end game. But would they really allow an article that was totally inaccurate at the time of writing?FuBi0 said:
No but you've made assumptions that just because Fallout features humans they should be realistically rendered. In Sam & Max is everyone an animal? Are the humans depicted realistically or cartoony?FuBi0 said:
Why should Bethesda be financially rewarded if the modders are going to have to do all the work to make it a game I want to play? I'd be better off saving my money for a game that gives me what I want from the get go. Or waiting for the fan made engines to be finished.MeSSeN said:
I was being sarcastic, when Fallout fans are that negative about Fallout 3 we are told don't be so pessimistic, don't judge it until you've played it, don't be so down on Bethesda. Despite the fact they have no track record in making a game like Fallout. Or have a good history about listening to input from the fans.MeSSeN said:
Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Sorry, I'm not going to reward Bethsoft for failing to create a real Fallout 3.MeSSeN said:
Especially, that I have a long list of things that I would like to buy. I believe that most of them are satisfying and finished and that their creators deserve a reward more than Bethsoft.
Here:
An album of Marduk, Emperor, Nile, Behemoth, Richard Wagner, Dimmu Borgir, Ildjarn, Zyklon, Amon Amarth, Satyricon, Ziltoid, Battlelore, Therion, Cradle of Filth, Morbid Angel, Ministry, Within Temptation, Puissance, Vader or a similiar band or a DVD with a movie like Brasil, Jin Roh, Metropolis, Them, Akira Kurosawa's and Cubrick's movies, 1984, Japaneese porn etc. or comics like EC Comics archives, Buck Rogers, Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon, Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot, Mister X, Electropolis, Terminal City, Click, Punisher Archives, Warhammer Monthly subscription, etc. or book like one those about medieval and renaissance history, WWII, Korean War, firearms, medieval and renaissance arms and armor, medieval and renaissance martial arts, tanks, life advice, etc. or various novels, art albums or PnP RPG manuals like GURPS Basic Set, GURPS Atomic Horror, GURPS High Tech, GURPS Ultra Tech, The Riddle of Steel - The Flower of Battle, old AD&D manuals, etc. or a computer game like C&C3, Close Combat 6, various indie and shareware games, a monthly Fitness Club subscription, music lessons, etc., etc.,
Sander said:
Getting ready to play the game, duh!
Hello guys. I'm just a brazilian guy (sorry for my bad english) who always loved fallout. I read and liked a lot the article and now have 2 questions that I'd like to be answered by someone that cares about fallout.
But first I'd like to write something.
Why the hell guys that never played fallout are here making noise? Really, why? Why register yesterday only to write things like "I never played fallout, but the bethesda guys are good and the game will be awesome". Someone? I mean, nobody here is talking that the game will be a "bad" game, a flawed game with poor graphics or poor physics or a bad gameplay.
The point is that this is not fallout. It's all about this. The game can be terrific, very good, 5 stars, whathever, it's not fallout. That's the point. That's the way I see it. For those who don't understand: Oblivion is a very good game. Really good. Very nice. But I don't like these kind of RTS mixed with RPG with swords figths in first person. It's an opinion, got it? I never play Oblivion because I don't want to, not because it's a bad game. It's the same reason that I never play Need for Speed or The Sims (all of them very good games, whathever).
So here comes my first question: why?
Why bethesda bought the fallout name if they never intended to make a continuation to fallout? Why they didn't let another company with these intentions to buy it, so bethesda could develop the same game that they are developening and call it "Oblivion: a Post-Nuclear approach"? We would still had a hope of seeying another fallout game then. Really, i didn't get it. Fallout was never a top-seller game. There are lots of series that can make more money than fallout, so I think the money was not the reason, right? Someone? Why screw a game series just for the fun of screwing it? Why?
Second question: and now?
It has been a long time waiting for a fallout continuation; it has been a hard time watching what happened to the van buren project, and now some more time waiting to see what bethesda would do. It has been almost 10 years, and now we do know for sure that a fallout continuation is not coming soon. What happens next for a fallout fan? Wait for someone fall down from sky to finish van buren? Wait until fallout 4? Wait for the next Wasteland? Wait for a different game? Any polish post-apocalypt rpg? Really, there is any other option than waiting?
Why? And now?
Sorry for the long post, sorry if I missed the point, thanks in advance for the answers and hope for a better next-ten-years for fallout fans.
But first I'd like to write something.
Why the hell guys that never played fallout are here making noise? Really, why? Why register yesterday only to write things like "I never played fallout, but the bethesda guys are good and the game will be awesome". Someone? I mean, nobody here is talking that the game will be a "bad" game, a flawed game with poor graphics or poor physics or a bad gameplay.
The point is that this is not fallout. It's all about this. The game can be terrific, very good, 5 stars, whathever, it's not fallout. That's the point. That's the way I see it. For those who don't understand: Oblivion is a very good game. Really good. Very nice. But I don't like these kind of RTS mixed with RPG with swords figths in first person. It's an opinion, got it? I never play Oblivion because I don't want to, not because it's a bad game. It's the same reason that I never play Need for Speed or The Sims (all of them very good games, whathever).
So here comes my first question: why?
Why bethesda bought the fallout name if they never intended to make a continuation to fallout? Why they didn't let another company with these intentions to buy it, so bethesda could develop the same game that they are developening and call it "Oblivion: a Post-Nuclear approach"? We would still had a hope of seeying another fallout game then. Really, i didn't get it. Fallout was never a top-seller game. There are lots of series that can make more money than fallout, so I think the money was not the reason, right? Someone? Why screw a game series just for the fun of screwing it? Why?
Second question: and now?
It has been a long time waiting for a fallout continuation; it has been a hard time watching what happened to the van buren project, and now some more time waiting to see what bethesda would do. It has been almost 10 years, and now we do know for sure that a fallout continuation is not coming soon. What happens next for a fallout fan? Wait for someone fall down from sky to finish van buren? Wait until fallout 4? Wait for the next Wasteland? Wait for a different game? Any polish post-apocalypt rpg? Really, there is any other option than waiting?
Why? And now?
Sorry for the long post, sorry if I missed the point, thanks in advance for the answers and hope for a better next-ten-years for fallout fans.