First Review Drops : French Magazine PC Jeux

[lisac2k]

...there are going to be points where you simply can't avoid combat or talk your way out of it. When that happens, will it mean that the Charisma-based character is going to end up roadkill because they are too weak to defend themselves?

Somehow, I doubt the game is going to be that deep.

well, neither Fallout nor Fallout 2 were that deep so I fail to see why we should expect it from this game.

aenemic, please don't think about me as of a righteous defender of the first two sequels, but you're making an obvious mistake with this one... Actually it was very possible to talk your way through all the way to the end of the game in FO1/2.

This was just a single bit from the "depth" we're talking about here. Me personally - and that can be rather subjective opinion - find the third sequel being castrated comparing to the first two sequels. Yes, there are muscles, but no balls.

On the "lying-not lying" issue... It's not about it if it's in there or not, but HOW it is implemented. Poor design makes even the best idea look like crap. If they [Beth] makes it right, then +1 for them, but the overall feeling is that they'll f..k something up along the way. This is currently one of the "wait & see" issues, no point spending a few pages on that.

 

[Blackfyre]

it is always going to struggle to match the highwater mark of the originals.

it wont mach it, fact is old original Fallout games have a legendary status do to their impact at that time and since after a decade thy are rather a classic. Black Isle is gone and that adds even more to the myth so the expectations are sky high and unrealistic as it quiet seen by some on these boards : looking for game deeps that never existed even in the past Fallout games for example
Fallout 3 will most likely create its own fanbase but i doubt it will ever be on the same level as past games even more since its a sequel.

It is sad if the only thing games developers will try to do is to maximize their market, rather than create art

art means niche and niche never sells. Times where games where made in home garages are quiet over. Thy need to sell well to cover the high development costs and make profits. The broader the playerbase the bigger the salles.
You hardly can expect beth would include iso and turn based just to please a few old hardcore fans ?

After Black Isle, Troika, Looking Glass Studios and many others its quiet obvious that being revolutionary doesnt cover the bills.
Not that i like its just the reality of the software market

 

[Jebus]

After Black Isle, Troika, Looking Glass Studios and many others its quiet obvious that being revolutionary doesnt cover the bills.

BS.

Look at: Valve (Portal, for example), Maxis (while it's getting old now, the Sims was the first in their kind. Spore is also doing rather well), Paradox Interactive (about as niche as they get: they make complicated grand strategy games. Yet they rake in the cash hand over hand, since nobody else is doing this decently), the Total War series (unique in its kind); etc. etc. etc.

If one builds unique games and does it well, it actually usually yields a heck of a lot more money than when you build the 100th Half-Life clone.

Just sayin'.

 

[MrBumble]

I don't understand the "y'know, Bethesda's got bills to pay. They can't go innovashun all the time, they have to sell their games too !" bullshit. Why should I, as a Fallout fan and a regular gamer, consider this as a valid excuse for what the licence has been through for more than six years now ?

"Well, Tactics had nothing to do with Fallout but y'know, Interplay and Micro Forté had bills to pay y'know ? - YEAH MAN, TOTALLY MAKES SENSE NOW ! JUST FOUND MYSELF A NEW LOVE FOR TACTICS NOW !"

Dumb.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

it wont mach it, fact is old original Fallout games have a legendary status do to their impact at that time and since after a decade thy are rather a classic. Black Isle is gone and that adds even more to the myth so the expectations are sky high and unrealistic as it quiet seen by some on these boards : looking for game deeps that never existed even in the past Fallout games for example
Fallout 3 will most likely create its own fanbase but i doubt it will ever be on the same level as past games even more since its a sequel.

Of course, one has to separate out the myth from the reality - actually, something many of the regulars here are very good at, if you seek out some of the more critical discussions of Fallouts past (for instance, elements of Fallout 2 and Tactics, and pretty much all of BOS have been criticized in a very much non-reactionary, measured manner).

Still, even in carving its own niche, Fallout 3 lacks a certain amount of ambition and freshness; many plot elements are rehashed, and there are numerous gameplay compromises which seem to serve no other purpose than broadening the potential appeal via simplification.

Its notional fanbase appears to be anybody able to turn on a gaming machine - great, but why not just rehash Tetris... they don't actually care about building - or alienating - a fanbase, just shifting units by any means necessary.

art means niche and niche never sells.

Art sells, but in smaller quantities. That doesn't render it an inviable proposition.

Times where games where made in home garages are quiet over. Thy need to sell well to cover the high development costs and make profits. The broader the playerbase the bigger the salles.

Yes, it ended in or around the mid-90's. Of course sales need to cover cost, but that really doesn't mean all-out prostitution of ones wares.

You hardly can expect beth would include iso and turn based just to please a few old hardcore fans ?

Wait, where did this idea come from? It is a canard to suggest that only older gamers will understand and appreciate those mechanics. Old fans were new fans once upon a time. Has there been some sort of international genetic change which makes people allergic to turn-based, isometric games?

It is a canard to suggest that only older gamers will understand and appreciate those mechanics.

After Black Isle, Troika, Looking Glass Studios and many others its quiet obvious that being revolutionary doesnt cover the bills.
Not that i like its just the reality of the software market

Well, it isn't good enough then.

Why should I shrug my shoulders if the entire direction of the gaming industry is toward carbon-copying multimedia, chicken-soup for the mind? homogenization equals blandification, and we should all be bloody upset by it.

 

[Blackfyre]

in the end you aint forced to buy Fallout 3; beth made it thy gonna sell it and it will sell. You can howl now as much you like, claim its not a sequel and on pair with old Fallouts but the reality is that the company made a wining move.

Look at: Valve (Portal, for example), Maxis (while it's getting old now, the Sims was the first in their kind. Spore is also doing rather well), Paradox Interactive

well im my own view i would hardly call those games niche (other that Paradox titles but those are rather limited to the fans of the EU series) since all of those are mainstream.
Let me add an prime example: System Shock 2, one of the best games made for PCs , very well taken by the media yet it had horrible initial salles. Bioshock a very obvious spiritual successor of that game took a more mainstream (some would say console) aprouch, hype included. The hardcore fans howled yet the game was a market hit and a decent game.
What obvious some of you ignore is that game development down the line is just buissnes. Yes in a perfect world innovation , art and whatnot should prevail but just like with hollywood numbers make the calls.

Despite all that F3 might turn to be an entertaining game, since that is the purpose of a good game, rest i dont care.

Still, even in carving its own niche, Fallout 3 lacks a certain amount of ambition and freshness

thats a thing of opinion, some might call the open world design an evolution in the series as an example

Art sells, but in smaller quantities. That doesn't render it an inviable proposition.

Art is expensive and it takes longer development times; do those artist work for free? financial problems is the main thing that oposes that kind of concept

Has there been some sort of international genetic change which makes people allergic to turn-based, isometric games?

How many pen and paper turn based games that sold well you know off in recent years ?
Face it this gameplay concept aint popular, it was 10 years ago when the development resources where more limited, including the tech. Games moved forward for better or worse.

 

[Daimyo]

in the end you aint forced to buy Fallout 3; beth made it thy gonna sell it and it will sell. You can howl now as much you like, claim its not a sequel and on pair with old Fallouts but the reality is that the company made a wining move.
...
What obvious some of you ignore is that game development down the line is just buissnes. Yes in a perfect world innovation , art and whatnot should prevail but just like with hollywood numbers make the calls.

Well, this is not a website dedicated to economy or marketing strategies. It is dedicated to Fallout.

So while FO3 may sell like no game before it that still renders your arguments void in this context.

Despite all that F3 might turn to be an entertaining game, since that is the purpose of a good game, rest i dont care.

And I could not care less what you might think about it since all your arguments boil down to "in my opinion", which is again, totally void if you want to have a serious discussion.

 

[Blackfyre]

And I could not care less what you might think about it since all your arguments boil down to "in my opinion", which is again, totally void if you want to have a serious discussion.

Ofc thy do since i only state my own opinion that might be right or wrong nor do i represent someone else with it.

And i find it funny how some use the " And I could not care less what you might think " line yet somehow thy always tend to point their own thing about it


Oh and the market in the game industry is a factor that influances the development of a game , so it is a factor

 

[Brother None]

Bethesda does not have the reputation of releasing finely polished games. Fallout 3 is likely to change that. The game, is not bug-free. There are still collision, pathfinding and lighting problems but they are not too numerous.

1. Oblivion was a bug-ridden mess with broken gameplay elements. If that didn't break their "reputation" I'm sure Fallout 3 won't.

2. The game isn't even gold yet - unless it is and they're keeping it a secret. I wonder what version this guy is reviewing.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

in the end you aint forced to buy Fallout 3; beth made it thy gonna sell it and it will sell. You can howl now as much you like, claim its not a sequel and on pair with old Fallouts but the reality is that the company made a wining move.

Time will tell - many previews suggest that Fallout 3 may receive a more critical appraisal than, for instance, Oblivion. We'll see how well sales hold up once pre-orders have been dispatched.

thats a thing of opinion, some might call the open world design an evolution in the series as an example

The open world design has very little to commend it over and above a world-map full of encounters and locations. They amount to essentially the same thing. It is different, but not an evolution.

Art is expensive and it takes longer development times; do those artist work for free?

Do they need to? The cost is to the bottom line; I'm not proposing an unworkable business model, just a less profitable one.

How many pen and paper turn based games that sold well you know off in reacent years ?
Face it this gameplay concept aint popular, it was 10 years ago where the development means where more limited. Games moved forward like it or not.

Utter shit, and I don't normally throw insults around.

a) How many pen and paper turn based games have been produced and marketed by leading developers in recent years ?

b) It is popular - hence a thriving Indie market for such things.

c) Costs are relative - a good game will sell, if someone has the balls to make it.

d) moved forward implies some kind of natural progression, which isn't what we're seeing here; this is simply a concerted change in the industry to move towards mass-appeal products. It isn't because of progress, it is due to over-commercialisation of the industry.

It is the same model that the movies and music industries adopted probably 20 years ago, and the one that is currently failing as some fans demand a return to authenticity, others simply circumvent legitimate distribution (thereby crashing a very cash-dependent sausage-machine model of development). Meanwhile, the artists - attempting to move back to producing meaningful work - have been deliberately undermining the traditional distribution and production process by selling smaller-scale products directly.

The demand exists for what you might choose to brand old-school, and at the moment it is being met by some very successful Indie studios...

 

[Jebus]

Look at: Valve (Portal, for example), Maxis (while it's getting old now, the Sims was the first in their kind. Spore is also doing rather well), Paradox Interactive

well im my own view i would hardly call those games niche (other that Paradox titles by those are rather limited to the fans of the EU series) since all of those are mainstream.
Let me add an prime example: System Shock 2, one of the best games made for PCs , very well taken by the media yet it had horrible initial salles. Bioshock a very obvious spiritual successor of that game took a more mainstream (some would say console) aprouch, hype included. The hardcore fans howled yet the game was a market hit and a decent game.
What obvious some of you ignore is that game development down the line is just buissnes. Yes in a perfect world innovation , art and whatnot should prevail but just like with hollywood numbers make the calls.

They're not niche - because different than the rest != niche.

My point is that making a different game from the rest doesn't automatically relegate it to a niche game. If you do it well, it might even turn out to be a bigger hit than all those dime-a-dozen mainstream games that flood the market nowadays.

Portal, for instance (probably the best known game on this list) is in no way a main stream game. If you can show me even one game that's similar to it, I'll take my hat off to you. Yet, even then it good excellent reviews everywhere, and proceeded to be a big hit. Sometimes sticking your neck out actually yields you more than playing it 'safe'.

In the case of Fallout 3, this is even more the case. It's already got an established fan-base - and that's not only the 'hard-core' fans I'm talking about here; I guess most people over 16 played it at some point in time, and most of those are bound to like it. I simply don't see the problem, then, in transposing the format of F1&2 to F3: I simply don't grasp why a isometric, turn-based game wouldn't sell.

Most Bethesda fans, at this point, come dragging in statistics about FPS to isometric/turn-based sales; but the point is that not a single decent isometric/turn-based game has been made in the last five or so years. And when there's no-one to compete against, FPS wins by default.

I'm 100% sure, therefore, that an isometric/turn-based Fallout 3 would've turned out to be just as much a succes as an FPS Fallout 3 will/might be.

Heck, then it would at least stand out in the gamestores. Now it's just going to go in the FPS corner with a gazillion other games.

 

[Blackfyre]

I'm not proposing an unworkable business model, just a less profitable one.

Can you give me an example of a successful developer using that model ?

How many pen and paper turn based games have been produced and marketed by leading developers in recent years ?

you call it over--commercialisation i call it less popular; thy produce a concept that appeals to a broader audience. There is a reason that turn based games haven't been produced and lack of innovation ain't it. Less people gonna like it.

Costs are relative - a good game will sell, if someone has the balls to make it.

thats to simplistic, no just quality alone doesn't sale, sadly you have plenty of good games that did bring their producers down due to lack of sales. I already mentioned some above.

It isn't because of progress, it is due to over-commercialisation of the industry

Yes i fully agree, but this is the reality of the gaming industry hence i dent blame beth if thy chose to jump on the band wagon. I rather have several good games from them i can enjoy that one revolutionary one that brings the company down.

and at the moment it is being met by some very successful Indie studios...

And we will see how long those studios last...i do look forward to AoD tho.

Portal, for instance (probably the best known game on this list) is in no way a main stream game

altrough i own the Orange Box i didn't play Portal yet but as far i know its not a stand alone game since it comes in a bundle including episode 2. Hardly Valve made a risk doing it, since it had plenty of content that would sell.

I simply don't grasp why a isometric, turn-based game wouldn't sell.

because fan base alone isn't enough. Oblivion did sell what 3- 4 mill. copys including consoles ? I would say Beth did plan for those numbers of higher at the moment thy bought the license. Thy bough it to make profit, turn based doesn't sell that high. Fallout 1& 2 didn't came even close to those sale numbers

I for one prefere the 3d fps/ rpg gameplay, despite that i loved the old Fallout games but for me at least its more realistic, immersive and the action is more fluid

 

[Jebus]

I simply don't grasp why a isometric, turn-based game wouldn't sell.

because fan base alone isn't enough. Oblivion did sell what 3- 4 mill. copys including consoles ? I would say Beth did plan for those numbers of higher at the moment thy bought the license. Thy bough it to make profit, turn based doesn't sell that high. Fallout 1& 2 didn't came even close to those sale numbers

See, I utterly dislike kids who think they are smart but then come up with asinine things like tihs.

Why do you think Fallout 1&2 didn't sell in those numbers, eh? Because they were turn-based?

Ask yourself the simple question (try, at least): How many games sold that many copies, back in 1997? Oh right, none. The market wasn't remotely close to being as big as it is today.

See how grown-ups do it? It takes about two seconds more, one question more, only one thought more and you avoid looking like an idiot.

Try it sometimes!

 

[aenemic]

...there are going to be points where you simply can't avoid combat or talk your way out of it. When that happens, will it mean that the Charisma-based character is going to end up roadkill because they are too weak to defend themselves?

Somehow, I doubt the game is going to be that deep.

well, neither Fallout nor Fallout 2 were that deep so I fail to see why we should expect it from this game.

aenemic, please don't think about me as of a righteous defender of the first two sequels, but you're making an obvious mistake with this one... Actually it was very possible to talk your way through all the way to the end of the game in FO1/2.

This was just a single bit from the "depth" we're talking about here. Me personally - and that can be rather subjective opinion - find the third sequel being castrated comparing to the first two sequels. Yes, there are muscles, but no balls.

On the "lying-not lying" issue... It's not about it if it's in there or not, but HOW it is implemented. Poor design makes even the best idea look like crap. If they [Beth] makes it right, then +1 for them, but the overall feeling is that they'll f..k something up along the way. This is currently one of the "wait & see" issues, no point spending a few pages on that.

I was actually referring to the bit about always being able to lie in all situations.

and yes, you could complete Fallout simply through dialogue, but as has been stated many times before you still had to resort to a lot of cheap tricks to completely avoid combat. and you couldn't even complete all quests in the games without resorting to violence.

I love Fallout 1+2, they're without a doubt the best rpg's around. but I'm tired of people making up things when talking about how deep they were. I'm actually playing through the first game right now. so I'm thinking about these things as I play. and it feels like some people haven't played it in years and have afterhand somehow exaggerated certain aspects of the game based on memories.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

Can you give me an example of a successful developer using that model ?

Well, look at the Indie developers, say Spiderweb. They make games that are niche (because they only have cRPG appeal - no fancy graphics or real attempt to innovate; just good quality writing for a crappy engine). They do very well with what must be a relatively high cost base (given their size), and modest profits.

Larger companies, with larger margins, could easily take smaller profits (as a percentage; I'm not talking about paralysing revenue flows in the name of art).

you call it over--commercialisation...

Actually, I call it over-caution, and underestimation of their audience.

...i call it less popular; thy produce a concept that appeals to a broader audience. There is a reason that turn based games haven't been produced and lack of innovation ain't it. Less people gonna like it.

Says who? Where is the evidence for that? Nobody has tried!

A new turn-based isometric game from the developers of Oblivion and the Elder Scrolls series - the hype would sell, and there'd be doubles all round.

thats to simplistic, no just quality alone doesn't sale, sadly you have plenty of good games that did bring their producers down due to lack of sales. I already mentioned some above.

You think that Black Isle and Looking Galss were finished by producing unprofitable games? Now that is too simplistic. Business was what finished them - profiteering was what finished them.

Yes i fully agree, but this is the reality of the gaming industry hence i dent blame beth if thy chose to jump on the band wagon. I rather have several good games from them i can enjoy that one revolutionary one that brings the company down.

It is the reality they have crafted.

And we will see how long those studios last...i do look forward to AoD tho.

Indie devs are much more sensitive to revenue flow, simply as a function of size. However, they are also much more sensitive to personnel turnover and expertise requirements, again due to size.

because fan base alone isn't enough. Oblivion did sell what 3- 4 mill. copys including consoles ? I would say Beth did plan for those numbers of higher at the moment thy bought the license. Thy bough it to make profit, turn based doesn't sell that high. Fallout 1& 2 didn't came even close to those sale numbers

Fallout 1/2 were PC games (okay, and Mac), in the days when PCs were less ubiquitous. It has nothing to do with turn-based.

I for one prefere the 3d fps/ rpg gameplay, despite that i loved the old Fallout games but for me at least its more realistic, immersive and the action is more fluid

Fine, you can have all of those things, but I'd rather you didn't get them from a Fallout sequel...

I play many other kinds of game, not least of all FPS, but I'm very happy to keep those distinct from the Fallout franchise.

 

[verwandlung]

Wow, so it's a great game after all...

 

[Jebus]

I really don't get this whole thing.

I mean, here you have kids arguing over the internet that game companies discard certain gameplay elements (most importantly turn-based) because they don't turn out enough profit, disregarding that

1. These kids have no clue what the fuck they are talking about. They aren't game designers, they aren't game marketers, and are so immature that they think their personal preferences are representative for the rest of the world; and that everything over ten years of age sucks by default.
If a 'hip' developer were to use TB, though, they'd be all over it.

2. What makes them money is not our problem anyway.

3. That there are, even today, games out there that are TB-heavy and still sell well. Civilization, Total War and (soon) Jagged Alliance are the first that jump to mind.
Turn-based is not some ancient relic of the past, it's a true alternative for people who don't like the brainless clickfest most games have become.

 

[Herr Mike]

For all that, you certainly don't know that the TB isometric game WOULD sell as well, either. If anything, the complete lack of them makes one think they wouldn't.

A quick poll of my 16 year old brother in law would tell us that kids his age don't like turn-based isometric games. I could never get him to give Fallout a chance. He likes the look of Fallout 3 though. I would say he is the average gameplaying kid that dominates the marketplace.

Sad but true.

But, even an old school gameplayer such as myself can enjoy the hell out of a good real-time game.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

For all that, you certainly don't know that the TB isometric game WOULD sell as well, either. If anything, the complete lack of them makes one think they wouldn't.

I'm not sure I follow that logic.

The only way that a lack of turn-based isometric games could harm a future release is because there is no established market. Maybe, although there clearly is a market out there, even if you measure it only by the number of download and budget sales of Fallout.

Still, a lack of market saturation also creates opportunity.

A quick poll of my 16 year old brother in law would tell us that kids his age don't like turn-based isometric games...

Not exactly scientific?

It may also tell you that all 16-year olds like gay clown porn, or enjoy two hours of vigorous self-abuse before breakfast, but certainly that they are all your in-laws...

Insufficient sample size.

But, even an old school gameplayer such as myself can enjoy the hell out of a good real-time game.

I've not seen anybody make an argument that this isn't the case. The only argument here is about a Fallout sequel.

 

[Multidirectional]

I think the real problem is lack of TB, not the iso perspective. I myself would prefer third person view with TB combat in Fallout 3.
Are you people so sure first Fallout installments would have had only iso perspective if technology back in the days allowed it?
What would be great for F3 - ability to switch between iso/third person/first person (Witcher has that, except for the first person), and a real choice between turn based/real time (like Arcanum).
I wouldn't care if someone else played it like a shooter, as long as I could play it as a turn based game.