FO3 Hype - Because it's FO3 or by Bethesda?

[patriot_41]

its inevitable for mods to completely fix the game in areas.

Is it just me, or was it not accepteble once upon a time to launch a shitty game, hoping that the fanbase would fix it?

 

[Mutoes]

I dunno, all of my friends and relatives that are more into games or rpgs in general took oblivion pretty much mediocre game. Here in finland fallouts are relatively popular. Fallout2 won last years best game voting that was in our biggest gaming magazine also f1 was in that list ( n:4 if i remember correctly) Actually the guy who wrote the piece about winner said he was suprised, not by that it was fallout, but that it was the second one.
Also many of those that are intrested in f3 that i know of are pretty concerned about the fact its made by bethesheda, allthough they still seem to think that bethesheda might be capable of pulling it, and it just remains to be seen.

 

[Flamescreen]

Well, I'm Greek and a lot of gamers here know and are Fallout fans.
Obviously for most it's Bethesda's hype and you can see that by people actually accepting the many unFallouty changes Bethesda has made. In effect it's "Gone with the wind" the miniseries. Some things, are not meant to be summoned from their grave I guess. At least if you can't be respectful of them.

Some younger people here are aware but don't seem to care if it's a shooter in a RPG mask, which is understandable to a degree.

What somewhat irritates me is that traditional gamers, like the renown here RPG critic/journalist Tsourinakis seems to be ok with it too. I wouldn't expect that from someone that originally had problems with games like Diablo-Diablo 2 that don't have an accurate saving system.

I guess working in a magazine changes you as a person. Or maybe with FO cult status, some people do believe it's better to have anything out than nothing at all.

As for Tactics, despite its many faults(scenario, modern weapons Horned armour), it still captured the atmosphere of Fallout and remains a strategy game, was never meant to be an RPG. If one judges it as strategy it's a very good one, and the flaws can be modded out, with the editors available now.(with the compromise of not having a dialog tree editor that actually adds dialog, or it would be perfect to creat FO 3 as a mod with).

 

[Infernomance]

I didn't mean it like that, What I meant was that, with a large enough modding community and enough time, it isnt surprising to see something changed for the much better, I didnt mean "launch a bug filled game and hope the community would fix it", which Morrowind isnt.

Maybe I am just a bit too accepting of change, I would absolutely loathe a series that just stuck to the same gameplay, the same area, the same style, etc.

as for on-topic discussion, I also believe its hype comes mainly from Bethesda, but I wont hold it against them for that.

 

[Sander]

I didn't mean it like that, What I meant was that, with a large enough modding community and enough time, it isnt surprising to see something changed for the much better, I didnt mean "launch a bug filled game and hope the community would fix it", which Morrowind isnt.

Maybe I am just a bit too accepting of change, I would absolutely loathe a series that just stuck to the same gameplay, the same area, the same style, etc.

Ehm, so you hate it if a series, you know, is actually a real series instead of a sequence of games with coincidentally the same name?

 

[Infernomance]

Eh, I probably should have stopped the post at "same game play".

 

[Sander]

Eh, I probably should have stopped the post at "same game play".

And what do you feel is 'same gameplay'.
Do you really think that a series should be a totally different type of game with each installment?

Because, you know, that's the exact opposite of what most people expect of a series. They expect a continuation of what came before, and if they want a different experience they play spin-offs or other series.

 

[Shinigami]

I think what he's trying to say is new content within the structure of the series: yes, fans want a continuation, but I know that I also want new features and something that indeed will draw me back to play the game as a new experience within a much-loved world.

I believe you can have some compelling new content and still stay very true to the series: Now whether or not Bethsoft will do that...

 

[goffy59]

Wow! Bethesda fans don't know what a series is.

 

[LionXavier]

I would absolutely loathe a series that just stuck to the same gameplay, the same area, the same style, etc.

Eh, I probably should have stopped the post at "same game play".

... How can you love Morrowind so much when you're admitting you loathe The Elder Scrolls series?

 

[EnglishMuffin]

No one gives a flying fuck about it being a fallout game. Do you know how I know this? Every single preview has been comparing fallout 3 to oblivion not fallout 1 and 2. Now this would be equal to me writing a review of....say....starcraft, and saying that it's diablo...WITH GUNS!!!!

It has that number 3 on there for a reason. Why don't you compare it to its predecessors and not a game in a completely different series. At this point I just want to get the game so that I can do my first game review ever....that no one will read.........I can show my mom.....

 

[pevvy]

More to the topic of this thread, I don't care whether the hype is for whatever reason or how much or little hype there is. From what I gather from all the previews (I've tried to read all to this day), FO3 promises to be an awesome game and that is all I care about. This recent one from CVG, for example, was very nice in portraying the impression of the overall feel of the game:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=193691

And (to counter some claims here) it also compares things to the previous Fallouts.

 

[Ashmo]

But don't you see? That's the entire problem.

It's Oblivion with Fallout elements.

It doesn't matter how many elements it has taken from Fallout, it's still not Fallout because the core is not Fallout, but Oblivion.

The devs even say so themselves: they took Oblivion and then added bits and pieces from Fallout. The only thing they don't acknowledge is that it's NOT in any meaningful way a sequel to the originals.

It doesn't share the setting (apart from transporting nearly every notable element into its own setting, no matter how unlikely), it doesn't share the perspective (duh), it doesn't share the style (yes, it has 50s elements, BUT), it doesn't share the gameplay (this should be a given -- it's an FPS ffs) and it most certainly doesn't share the attitude (the violence alone is closer to Unreal Tournament than to Fallout and the humour at large has been pointed out often enough).

It is Fallout In Name Only, indeed.

 

[pevvy]

But don't you see? That's the entire problem.
[...]

Okay, very good, Ashmo, perhaps you could now be so kind as to give some good explanations to these issues, even though they might be already scattered in the thousands of other posts in the forum? I'll give my impressions first, please reply your take on them.

The devs even say so themselves: they took Oblivion and then added bits and pieces from Fallout. The only thing they don't acknowledge is that it's NOT in any meaningful way a sequel to the originals.

But when, as you also say, there are so very much elements from the previous games (I mean FO and FO2), how can you say that it is not in any meaningful way a sequel? (or perhaps the answer is best given in the following separate issues?)

It doesn't share the setting (apart from transporting nearly every notable element into its own setting, no matter how unlikely)

As I understand it, "setting" refers to the history and premise of the game universe, which in the previous Fallouts I would summarize as a broken, desolate world after a nuclear holocaust that contains different groups or factions of people as well as mutated humans and animals, and exciting technology, and also importantly, the vaults. This certainly would seem to be the case also in FO3, and even most of those items are very similar to what they were in FO and FO2. Or perhaps you have a different understanding of what "setting" means?

, it doesn't share the perspective (duh)

If you mean the 1st person vs. 3rd person isometric difference, yes, this is certainly true

, it doesn't share the style (yes, it has 50s elements, BUT)

But what? Please explain, at least some examples perhaps?

, it doesn't share the gameplay (this should be a given -- it's an FPS ffs)

As the 1st/3rd person was already handled above, that would leave the turn-based combat and RPG elements (what else?). Turn-based is gone, yes, leaving V.A.T.S. as the only tactical addition to real-time shooting. But the RPG elements are certainly still very much in, albeit some of its effects are now handled differently. But stats, skills and perks are still in and affect the character's abilities!

and it most certainly doesn't share the attitude (the violence alone is closer to Unreal Tournament than to Fallout and the humour at large has been pointed out often enough).

If you mean the level of violence, the first Fallouts also had strong violence, and with the Bloody Mess trait/perk it certainly was on par with what has been seen in the E3 footage from FO3 (and most, if not all of them were played with Bloody Mess, or at least it's shown to be present in some of Todd Howard's demos), it just is that much more effective/shocking since it is now seen close up!

The humour is propably a bit different, I don't have any specific take on that.

 

[HostileMutantCacti]

Mostly because it's Bethesda I think, they have always had huge hype.

Like Oblivion the hype was huuuuge. The game looked amazing and ahead of its time at first but after some time it wasn't so great after all...

Morrowind and Oblivion were good games but I really doubt Fallout 3 is going to be nearly as good as FO1 and FO2. It will be a fun game though and it might give ideas for modding, but it won't be real Fallout, sadly

 

[rcorporon]

The hype, in North America at least, is definitely tied to the fact that Bethesda is making it.

Whether it's liked here or not, Oblivion won a ton of GOTY awards last year, and was a huge, smash hit for Bethesda. Naturally, their follow up game will garner much attention.

You see it in all fields. In movies, you hear the term "From the creator of...", on a novel's cover you see "From the Author of..."

Fallout, whether we like to admit it or not, is a cult classic, not a mainstream gaming giant. If Fallout 3 was being developed by Interplay, it sure as hell wouldn't have the same level of hype and publicity it's getting now.

I think that all of this hype is a good thing though. How many new gamers, who are either too young, or just missed FO 1 and 2 the first time, will be introduced to this great series?

 

[Moving Target]

I think that all of this hype is a good thing though. How many new gamers, who are either too young, or just missed FO 1 and 2 the first time, will be introduced to this great series?

There is a difference, though: those who missed FO1/2 the first time around (or for the past ten years) won't be introduced to Iplay/Black Isle's Fallout universe.

Bethseda's Fallout will be very different, and not just because of the perspective. Big parts of the lore, as well as the mechanics, have changed drastically. Bethsoft also seems to have no interest in re-releasing the old games- which is strange, considering they have the rights to it and this is allegedly the third in the series. You'd figure *someone* might want to play the first two.

Which I suppose works for those people who liked Oblivion. I never played it, but Morrowind (which supposedly was better than non-modded Oblivion) bored the crap out of me. I'd probably not like this game, and I'm certainly not wililng to give money to a company that's shown so little regard for the fans of a franchise they bought.

 

[PlanHex]

Bethsoft also seems to have no interest in re-releasing the old games- which is strange, considering they have the rights to it and this is allegedly the third in the series. You'd figure *someone* might want to play the first two.

Pretty sure Interplay still has the rights to sell the first ones, which is why they're up at gog.com and GameTap.

 

[rcorporon]

I think that all of this hype is a good thing though. How many new gamers, who are either too young, or just missed FO 1 and 2 the first time, will be introduced to this great series?

There is a difference, though: those who missed FO1/2 the first time around (or for the past ten years) won't be introduced to Iplay/Black Isle's Fallout universe.

Bethseda's Fallout will be very different, and not just because of the perspective. Big parts of the lore, as well as the mechanics, have changed drastically. Bethsoft also seems to have no interest in re-releasing the old games- which is strange, considering they have the rights to it and this is allegedly the third in the series. You'd figure *someone* might want to play the first two.

I agree that while Beth's vision of Fallout may be different from what the first two games are, nevertheless, there will be gamers who have never heard of FO1 or 2 who may now want to see what those games were about.

Then, they'll be able to decide for themselves if they like the originals or not.

This is a chance they might not otherwise have had, had they not been first introduced to Fallout in the first place by the hype now about the franchise.