Fallout 3's commercial success

Ausdoerrt said:
I personally found the "dwarf bodypart" insult hilarious. It also definitely stood out to show the racism in the game.

I also think the amount of swearing is due to the time period the game is set in. In Eastern Europe the medieval "common folk" has commonly been seen as people with improper language and poor manners, hence the swearing. Also contributes to show which of the characters is being direct and honest when speaking. Notice that nobles or shady characters never swear and have good manners. I guess we're talking cultural differences here.

I do agree with you that some of the themes seemed pretty forced, but for all it's worth, it's better than any of the recent "serious" games has managed to put forth.

As for the gameplay... Well, for one thing, the game was pretty story-focused. Also, while the battle wasn't fabulous, the alchemy was a lot of fun, and some of the boss battles or even simple monsters were genuinely hard. There was also little to no "pot gulping" so common to action RPGs. The game at least made you think, from time to time, how to fight better.

But I guess I may be a little biased because the game is culturally close to me, so it has that special charm, you know, kind of like the charm FO has to American people.
Alas I didn't really get involved with the story.

I tend to evaluate a game primarily, sometimes exclusively, on the gameplay. As you yourself stated, the battles weren't amazing.

To me the game mechanics are everything, and the story is the icing on the cake. That's not to say I don't enjoy a great story. I'm forcing myself to replay PST, ignoring the combat, to see how the story ends.

But give me great, absorbing gameplay any day.

Although I am a bit of a strategy nerd, it has to be said ;) My fave games include: XCom 1 & 2, Battle Isle 2 & 3, Front Mission 3, C&C 1.

But I also loved Quake, HL 1 & 2, even enjoyed Quake 4!! Of course Deus Ex and System Shock 2. Quality games, with decent stories too!

On the RPG side, I've enjoyed BG1 and later BG2 (tho I think 1 was the more focused game). Naturally FO1 & 2, tho I won't say they're my favourites. And of course FF8, 9, 10 (8 being my favourite - again, for depth of gameplay options, but also the characters were good and the story was zany and fun).

But I really don't like any game with mediocre gameplay. Any game which doesn't really make me appreciate the depth of its game mechanics is never going to impress me.

So Witcher might have a great story, but I couldn't drag myself through what I considered to be fairly bland game mechanics. I remember alchemy being OK, not brilliant. It was similar to Oblivion. I found it no more engaging than pressing buttons in a spreadsheet, truth be told.

Oh, and Portal was great too.

/end ramble.
 
Well I wouldn't mind keeping a few of the big PC developers. Valve and Blizzard perhaps? Maybe we can trade Bethesda for Arc Systems...
 
BloodyPuppy said:
Well I wouldn't mind keeping a few of the big PC developers. Valve and Blizzard perhaps? Maybe we can trade Bethesda for Arc Systems...

I'm not sure the Japanese would want to give up ASW... But, maybe we can share? Please?

:lol:
 
Heh, yeah they might want to hold onto them, but sharing isn't out of the question. Hell, they've already made GGXX#R for the PC, so they just have to do the reverse of Bethesda. Already halfway there!
 
Yeah, I'd totally love to see BlazBlue on the PC... I guess they won't do the Beth thing, because it's be a transition from Sony to Microsoft... For Beth there was no such transition!
 
BloodyPuppy said:
Well I wouldn't mind keeping a few of the big PC developers. Valve and Blizzard perhaps? Maybe we can trade Bethesda for Arc Systems...
Better letz trade Bethesda for Interplay with the oriiginal Fallout 1 dev team ... well one is allowed to have dreams still no?

I dont even want to imagine what they eventualy would do with a 100 men team, 10 million dollar and a "good" engine.
 
Interplay managed to piss away it's sure winner in Black Isle and the best ever space combat franchise, so I wouldn't exactly trust Interplay with anything anymore.


Oh and GTA 4 is out now for PC, so the frenzy for another 'champion' game has already begun. You'll see how quickly Fallout 3 slinks into obscurity as without the media hype, you have an average forgettable game.
 
Commiered said:
Interplay managed to piss away it's sure winner in Black Isle and the best ever space combat franchise, so I wouldn't exactly trust Interplay with anything anymore.


Oh and GTA 4 is out now for PC, so the frenzy for another 'champion' game has already begun. You'll see how quickly Fallout 3 slinks into obscurity as without the media hype, you have an average forgettable game.
But you cant really blame the developers for incompetent managment. When it comes to the work of Individuals like Cain they showed a lot more of skill and visions compared to anything that Bethesda has thrown out after Morrowind.

I am sure no one of them was really happy to hear that Fallout 3, their work got canceled when it was aprox. already 70% finished. Think about it ... you maybe spend 1 or 2 years, hard work and creativeity in some project you love (I am sure most of them really loved to work with fallout) and suddenly someone gets the idea just short before you finished and reached your goal that its not worth to keep it anymore and close it in favour for totally mediocre projects like PoS 2 ...
 
Well of course it's not the fault of the developers, but Interplay is not just developers, it's the management and like the management of Jowood that destroyed Gothic, they are bloodsucking vampires killing the goose that lays them golden eggs just to maximise short term profit.
 
Thats why I think developers should be heads of the company and not marketing analyst or strategists. Just like they did it in the begining.
 
Well though that would be nice for the gamers, that would probably be a disaster for the companies. Those companies need to be run by people that know how to make money or else they'll drive themselves into the ground with debt.

Course if you can find a money-smart creative developer I would expect a company to hold onto them for dear life.
 
BloodyPuppy said:
Well though that would be nice for the gamers, that would probably be a disaster for the companies. Those companies need to be run by people that know how to make money or else they'll drive themselves into the ground with debt.

Course if you can find a money-smart creative developer I would expect a company to hold onto them for dear life.
most companies back then made enough money to survive in good shape and develop their games with making new technology as well over time.

The issue is just that when this walking suits cant get enough of the sweet green. And thus have to catch for straws outside of their usual target audience, just like as they did with Commandos, changing it from a birds view tactical game to a first person action shooter ... and in that process killing the game (as it seems unlikely that ever a commandos 5 will be made again).

A lot of smaller/medium companies (like westwood and maxis) got absorbed by other companies (in this case EA) and thus had to change their poilicy. I think the last C&C I somewhat was satisfied with was Tiberian Sun even though when I think they already started to become weak with this game.

As said a lot of the names we know today created in the stone age of gaming managed to become quite big and large. One of the only games were I think where REAL evolution took place was Sim City, you can see the core design and concept in all Sim City games and a lot of good progress (visualy and mechanicaly) from Sim City to SC 2000 and SC 3000. Sim City 2000 even had multiplayer (frankly extremly bugged ...). At least till Sim City 3000 they realy went a similar design (as simulation). SimCity Societies is somewhat breaking with this now and in my eyes removing what made the game appealing in the first place.

Anyway. What they do now is if you look in a long timeframe not that good anyway. The gaming market becomes more and more a monoculture.
 
Crni Vuk said:
The issue is just that when this walking suits cant get enough of the sweet green. And thus have to catch for straws outside of their usual target audience, just like as they did with Commandos, changing it from a birds view tactical game to a first person action shooter ... and in that process killing the game (as it seems unlikely that ever a commandos 5 will be made again).

Exactly, a lot of the companies in the 90's were doing well enough to survive, but the call went out from the bosses that it wasn't enough money to fund more ambitious projects in future so they either had to be absorbed by EA or Activision or other publishers to get capital or get a loan. Either option meant that they had to fiddle with their products to try and make them appeal to everybody, or they tried to pack them with things that they were too inexperienced to implement properly. Often the game would then be delayed, cancelled or released half-arsed, thus sealing the demise of the company who couldn't pay back the creditors.

Hmm, as I write this I see that it wasn't just the men in suits that were the problem, it was ironically the success the game companies had made them try to make the 'perfect' game that made them take on too big projects. They were also somewhat naive in thinking that just because EA was making the big money, they would too.
 
I'm mostly upset that company s make a game and try to make it M but also try to sell it to a much younger target audience. if you're going to make a M rated game why not target people that are 17 and older?

game developers are not going to stop till a parent successfully sues one for targeting there 8 year old (and he grabs daddy s gun) tho. yes of course if the parent got the game for him they can't sue but it is easy for a kid to get a game that their parents didn't get them.
 
I already made a thread on this but I will sum it once more:

Money Talks, Bullshit walks.

If the console kiddies will line up by the thousands with wallets of cash begging for more head shots, more guns, more gore are the CEO's going to say no we need to make a real sequel?

Those who know what a good RPG is all about got fucked and the console kiddies got a cookie while Beth just takes in the cash.

Game over and yes it sucks.
 
Fallout: RPG
Fallout2: RPG
Fallout3: 75%FPS 5%RPG 20%movie
Fallout4: 50%FPS 50%movie
Fallout5: interactive movie
Fallout6: pure movie showing nothing but body s exploding

I'm the first to call it.
 
Darkform said:
Fallout: RPG
Fallout4: 50%FPS 50%movie
Fallout5: interactive movie
Fallout6: pure movie showing nothing but body s exploding

I'm the first to call it.

lol, not happening unless Bethesda hires Hideo Kojima to write the game's story.
 
you guys are all wrong I already spoted Bethesdas new secret project. Here a leaked video of the Beta! Thats absolute inovashion. Never was it that immersive of playing the role of a plumer.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p0Yap5iG6o[/youtube]

*Yes its based on a valve product. After the extrem good co-operation with STEAM and Valve they decided to licence the source engine.
 
Back
Top