Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans

[Maphusio]

What we have been presented with is NOT Fallout 3... It's that simple, it really is. I won't support Bethesda's decision to ignore the existing community and rape the name of Fallout for their personal gain.

Have you ever played Shadow of the Colossus?

It's a beautiful game. It squeezes all the processing power it can out of the Playstation 2. It's innovative in both gameplay and presentation. I daresay it's one of the best games on the PS2.

But it's not ICO 2.

Wouldn't it have been a shame if nobody had bought it because of that?

I can't say I've played either or understand the history.

"baaa baa, uuuuuuu!" I believe are some of the awesome audio sounds that came out of that product. Made for a good Mega64 episode too I believe (foggy on that one tho).

I'm glad you received a great product out of that... Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 were turn based ISO. The market has barely seen a successor in that genre and I would like that back; furthermore, I would like the third installment to be like its predecessors not something completely alien in nature.

With your example, I could counter it with all the failures in history that have attempted to completely disregard the first installment of the product. It really becomes quite trivial.

 

[Slicerdicer]

Seems to be a lot of Bethesda plants and plant clones about lately. Damn.

 

[Xython]

Branching dialogue a la Fallout is not possible with the Ob dialogue system. It would require heavy recoding, Beth's made it clear they don't care.

Explain this please.

I'm sorry that Bethesda hasn't hired a group of 10 people to sit here and answer questions and relay all the insults and death threats to the Fallout 3 devs personally, but I don't see how you get the "Bethesda doesn't care" thing. Not with how they bent over backwards to release the information they did so far, all of which has been custom tailored to get a Fallout fan's attention.

Turn based is dead only for those who don't have patience. There's still plenty of people around that play D&D, and other various d20 based games. However small that community may be.

Except that Bethesda is in the business of making games. BUSINESS. They do this FOR PROFIT. They cannot make games for a super small niche community like NMA. They just can't. Please don't make me explain why Bethesda has to target the market of 1,500,000 gamers vs the market of 100-1000 gamers here.

Some concessions to the mainstream MUST be made. That's how this works. Concessions like realistic backgrounds, and real time combat, and XBL Achievements for people to have something fun to do after the main game.

I just hope the PC version keeps track of them for us, too.

- Eh. The more I hear about the Fatboy the more I think they might be adding it just for Multiplayer Deathmatch, or something.

Multiplayer Deathmatch.

Yeah, I'd love to add some more comments but well, I think what you said sums it up more easily than the thought required to add on a point.

Yeah, scary thought, ain't it. Ugh.

 

[Kazhiim]

With your example, I could counter it with all the failures in history that have attempted to completely disregard the first installment of the product.

Right, but those would all be bad games.

Letting a good game go unpurchased for as frivolous a reason as its brand name is no better than supporting a terrible game.

 

[Tora]

2. Well, what would you suggest as an alternative. I'm all ears.

Lets just start with the turn based thing though. Cause AP only really works in a turn based environment.

Do we all understand why we can't have a turn based game? Not for a modern audience, anyway. 3D games are too complex to do turn based. It just wouldn't work.

Now that we've gotten THAT out of the way...

Can we also see why doing stuff like eye-shots and whatnot in a real time environment would also be a very bad idea?

For one, how would you change from standard shots to eye shots? Would your character randomly try to get eye shots if he had a "good" chance? Would you have to trigger it? Would you just set your character to constantly aim for the eyes?

None of those are really great solutions. I don't remember Fallout Tactics that well, but isn't that something similar to how they did it? Basically you interrupted the action and told your character to do a called shot, and they just kept trying until you told them something different?

I barely remember it, but I do remember it was clunky as all heck, and I just resorted to whipping out a shotgun and unloading instead.

The VATS system seems to be a better way. By default, you sit there and shoot. This isn't a twitch game though -- your shots, presumably, will still have a %% chance to hit or be deflected by armor. And you won't be able to just wail on the left mouse button and go to town -- the game will no doubt be balanced, and bigger weapons will require reloading, prepping for shots, etc.

The AP system seems like a great way to add the old eye / groin / etc shots to the system. You still shoot as fast as you would normally -- and lets be honest, in a firefight, you're not going to "store up" power or whatever. You're going to be shooting like mad. And every so often, when your AP charges up -- which does charge faster if you take a breather -- you can make an aimed shot for your opponent's vitals.

It seems like a much more intuitive way to do things to me. And more balanced. I loved just sitting there outside of San Francisco, getting into random fights and shooting idiots in the eyes, but I will be the first person to admit it wasn't balanced at all.

The combination of AP + real time + recharge delays + the enemy being able to do it right on back makes me think it'll be much more balanced than before.

3. They've already announced 9-12 endings. That's NOT including any modifications to the ending. I'm sure they're planning on going over what happens to the various villages and whatnots that you visit during the game. They're following Fallout 1 and 2 too closely to ignore that.

4. I can see your point. But I wouldn't call Oblivion a FPS, and it's mostly first person -- since the 3rd person sucks. Badly. But they're redoing that for Fallout 3.

5. I think you might be misunderstanding the Achievements system. This isn't going to be "Killed 100,000 Deathclaws". This is going to be "Saved the town of Bone Gulch by talking the raiders into joining the town." and "Saved the town of Bone Gulch by Slaughtering all the raiders" and "Saved the town of Bone Gulch by scaring the Raiders away."

And yeah, there will be some hard ones. Like "Killed every single living person in Washington DC." So? There were challenge guides in Fallout, too. Like "Killed every single NPC in the game" and "Never killed anyone."

Same difference.

6. I still don't see the point. There's no way anyone here would EVER consider Fallout 3 to be cannon.

I mean honestly. Think hard. Can you think of ANYTHING Bethesda could have done to make everyone think this is a "real" Fallout game. OTHER than just releasing Van Buren or a updated Fallout 2 engine?

I can't either. So with that in mind, I don't think any of the comparisons to BOS or FOT are valid, at least not yet. Especially since we haven't even gotten much information about the game at ALL yet.


BTW, am I the only one that considers the whole "zoom in and watch a gorey death in slow motion" to be the natural evolution of the Bloody Mess trait? I loved watching things go FZZZZT in Fallout 2 with the bigger guns and that trait on.

2. Not for a modern audience you say? More like the regular modern western audience than anything, note how RPGs seem to fill the asian market, yet not much of it makes it over here to the western world. And before you say that Bethesda needs to satisfy the general western audience, fallout wasn't exactly a crowd pleaser to begin with. it filled a niche market, no more, no less.

3. They've *announced* 9-12 endings, and claimed multiple ways to solve things, but we haven't exactly been given any details per say, the Fallout 2 New-Reno side quests where there's quite a few ways of dealing with the mob families in. There's only been claims. No real evidence, and they aren't exactly working off an excellent track record.

4. No, because Oblivion didn't use guns
But jokes aside, I'm not saying that it *is* an FPS, just that it *sounds* and *looks* like a FPS with some TB elements tagged on from what we can decipher.

5. Those were just quick examples off the top of my head, another example would be that my experience with multi-platform games tend to be that those not designed with it in mind ended up with really awkward controls on one of the systems, or that the system would be dumbed down or was really simple to begin with. I'm sure there's prob counter-examples to my experiences, but this is just what *I* feel.

6. I obviously can't speak for others, but if they released something that was you know, in the same genre as the originals, without all the different 'updates' to the original concept/history/design _I_ probably would've accepted it as a fallout game. Not necessarily canon, but a fallout game. And that's pretty good considering most people didn't consider the INTERPLAY Fallout tactics/BoS to be canon, and by some even really fallout games.

oh, and personally, I enjoyed the bloody critical hit descriptions more than the actual animations in the original. It was more of a humourous thing than a gore for the purpose of gore deal. To each's own though.

 

[Maphusio]

With your example, I could counter it with all the failures in history that have attempted to completely disregard the first installment of the product.

Right, but those would all be bad games.

Letting a good game go unpurchased for as frivolous a reason as its brand name is no better than supporting a terrible game.

I disagree with you in supporting Bethesda's Fallout 3 because it is a good game and ignoring the fact that it loosely relates to the first two installments of the series.

If Bethesda were to call this something other than Fallout 3 I would be interested in what they have to offer. I know I have said this before and I'm not sure if me continuing to say it will help you understand why I continue with the same statement.

 

[generalissimofurioso]

Have you ever played Shadow of the Colossus?

It's a beautiful game. It squeezes all the processing power it can out of the Playstation 2. It's innovative in both gameplay and presentation. I daresay it's one of the best games on the PS2.

But it's not ICO 2.

Wouldn't it have been a shame if nobody had bought it because of that?

I don't ever recall SOTC ever being marketed as ICO 2, hence why it was called Shadow of the Colossus and not ICO 2. They let us know they were going in a completely different direction ever since they had started work on that game, even though it was the same team that had made ICO.

Compare that to Fallout 3, they told us that they were going to remain loyal to the series, that their vision would be faithful to the legacy of the entire series. Today, we essentially have a game that uses SPECIAL, is set in a PA setting and has the Fallout name attached to it, little else bears major resemblance.

So in conclusion

ICO was good, developers didn't see need for sequel, made a completely different game, marketed it as such.

Fallout was good, developers wanted to make sequel, made a similar game...

Fallout 2 was good, developers wanted to make sequel, never could, different developer picks up license, makes a game that's not that similar and markets it as the "True" sequel.

Does not compute seems to ring true here.

 

[ronin84]

I tried keeping up with all the comments in this thread but alas it's the weekend.

I just thought i'd chime in and state that at first i was really excited looking at these scans, reading the article, and seeing the first glimpse into f3.

And then everything was shattered when i saw the super mutant, read about the catapult, the fact that around every corner the player seemed to be fighting super mutants, the xbox360 play test, and that beth has basically taken a really great series and are en route to creating a shitty action rpg-esque survival horror game.

to say the least i'm disappointed. i wanted to give them a chance and i had my fingers crossed. hell, the teaser excited me, but i guess i'll just wait until next year before i give a damn about this game again.

 

[Tora]

In an extreme example, would you buy the BEST anti-virus software in the world if it was advertised as an operating system? Because in a way that's what you're asking of the people who wanted the fallout 3 that was developed, abandoned, and picked up again with a promise that its roots will be respected.

I'm not following you.

What I meant is that people are arguing why we don't support Fallout 3 even though it could be a good game. I'm just saying that it may be a good action RPG, but you can't really expect people looking for a non-action RPG to support that. its the wrong genre/category

 

[Kazhiim]

With your example, I could counter it with all the failures in history that have attempted to completely disregard the first installment of the product.

Right, but those would all be bad games.

Letting a good game go unpurchased for as frivolous a reason as its brand name is no better than supporting a terrible game.

I disagree with you in supporting Bethesda's Fallout 3 because it is a good game and ignoring the fact that it loosely relates to the first two installments of the series.

If Bethesda were to call this something other than Fallout 3 I would be interested in what they have to offer. I know I have said this before and I'm not sure if me continuing to say it will help you understand why I continue with the same statement.

So you're admitting that you would not buy a good game based on name alone?

Would you care to explain to me how that is any better than buying a bad game- say, Perfect Dark Zero- because of the name?

I know that a lot of people here at NMA think that, by not buying FO3, they'll be sending the message to the industry. But that message isn't what you think it is.

 

[Xython]

I tried keeping up with all the comments in this thread but alas it's the weekend.

I just thought i'd chime in and state that at first i was really excited looking at these scans, reading the article, and seeing the first glimpse into f3.

And then everything was shattered when i saw the super mutant, read about the catapult, the fact that around every corner the player seemed to be fighting super mutants, the xbox360 play test, and that beth has basically taken a really great series and are en route to creating a shitty action rpg-esque survival horror game.

to say the least i'm disappointed. i wanted to give them a chance and i had my fingers crossed. hell, the teaser excited me, but i guess i'll just wait until next year before i give a damn about this game again.

Have you considered the idea that they might not have many models done, outside of the super mutant's?

Or that the Super Mutant makes for a really awesome screenshot for the general public? As opposed to, say, a Ghoul?

 

[Maphusio]

In an extreme example, would you buy the BEST anti-virus software in the world if it was advertised as an operating system? Because in a way that's what you're asking of the people who wanted the fallout 3 that was developed, abandoned, and picked up again with a promise that its roots will be respected.

I'm not following you.

What I meant is that people are arguing why we don't support Fallout 3 even though it could be a good game. I'm just saying that it may be a good action RPG, but you can't really expect people looking for a non-action RPG to support that. its the wrong genre/category

Ahh it makes sense now... Sheesh you should have went with that route in the first place. It helps us in need of a few mentats.

 

[abbaon]

Some concessions to the mainstream MUST be made. That's how this works. Concessions like realistic backgrounds, and real time combat, and XBL Achievements for people to have something fun to do after the main game.

The last one's not optional. All 360 games must include XBL achievements. (Via Wikipedia.) You won't get through Microsoft's certification process without them.

 

[madmonkeyzoom]

I don't understand why you make the assumption that Fallout 3 sucks, though. You say people shouldn't buy a bad game; people shouldn't support developers that rely on first-week sales of overhyped games; that developers should make a good game.

This is all true. But on what basis do you come to the conclusion that a game we've seen a handful of screenshots and an early cinematic of is bad? How can you automatically assume that the whole game takes place in the sewers of washington D.C., fighting sledgehammer-wielding mutants with a portable nuke catapult? Are you so afflicted with tunnel vision that you would assume you know everything about this game from such little information?

Stop using logic around here... i think its verboten...
As has always been my stance, I will reserve final judgement until I:
1. see some reviews
2. get some gamelay in myself

I'm not gaga over the screens, but the way people here are acting like bethesda sodomized their mothers is just rediculous

From what I see its not a carbon copy of fallout, which apparently is what people here want...
I say good... I wouldn't mind seeing a huge post apoc world from a first person perspective. I like that kind of immersion.
The combat system I'll have to try, but hell I remember that even the original fallout combat system pissed me off at first...

 

[Tora]

Would you care to explain to me how that is any better than buying a bad game- say, Perfect Dark Zero- because of the name?

I know that a lot of people here at NMA think that, by not buying FO3, they'll be sending the message to the industry. But that message isn't what you think it is.

Where did people say that they would buy a bad game because of the name? That _IS_ what we're trying to avoid no?
The game might not be *bad* in the general sense, but bad in the *wrong genre* *wrong franchise* kinda way

 

[Tora]

Ahh it makes sense now... Sheesh you should have went with that route in the first place. It helps us in need of a few mentats.

I'm not exactly thinking straight myself either, its almost 4 am, and I've been drinking whisky. My logic might not be working right exactly

 

[Kazhiim]

Where did people say that they would buy a bad game because of the name? That _IS_ what we're trying to avoid no?

You misread my post.


The vocal majority of NMA has, in essence, stated that it is not buying Fallout 3 because it is called Fallout 3. If it were a post-apocolyptic FPS of any other name, they'd have no problem with it.

You're not buying (what may be) a good game with a bad name. I believe this is as harmful to the quality of videogames as buying a bad game with a good name.

 

[Maphusio]

With your example, I could counter it with all the failures in history that have attempted to completely disregard the first installment of the product.

Right, but those would all be bad games.

Letting a good game go unpurchased for as frivolous a reason as its brand name is no better than supporting a terrible game.

I disagree with you in supporting Bethesda's Fallout 3 because it is a good game and ignoring the fact that it loosely relates to the first two installments of the series.

If Bethesda were to call this something other than Fallout 3 I would be interested in what they have to offer. I know I have said this before and I'm not sure if me continuing to say it will help you understand why I continue with the same statement.

So you're admitting that you would not buy a good game based on name alone?

Would you care to explain to me how that is any better than buying a bad game- say, Perfect Dark Zero- because of the name?

I know that a lot of people here at NMA think that, by not buying FO3, they'll be sending the message to the industry. But that message isn't what you think it is.

I guess I do not comprehend what you are getting at. I'm not on that high of a level of thought at the moment... It's late here.

What I am stating is I will not purchase Fallout 3 because it is not Fallout 3 in my opinion. I am at moral conflict, do I support a possibly good game and forget the deception involved? Or do I stand next to my morals that what Bethesda is doing is wrong.

 

[Tora]

I tried keeping up with all the comments in this thread but alas it's the weekend.

I just thought i'd chime in and state that at first i was really excited looking at these scans, reading the article, and seeing the first glimpse into f3.

And then everything was shattered when i saw the super mutant, read about the catapult, the fact that around every corner the player seemed to be fighting super mutants, the xbox360 play test, and that beth has basically taken a really great series and are en route to creating a shitty action rpg-esque survival horror game.

to say the least i'm disappointed. i wanted to give them a chance and i had my fingers crossed. hell, the teaser excited me, but i guess i'll just wait until next year before i give a damn about this game again.

Have you considered the idea that they might not have many models done, outside of the super mutant's?

Or that the Super Mutant makes for a really awesome screenshot for the general public? As opposed to, say, a Ghoul?

I think he was also complaining about the new look of the super-mutant. But that's my interpretation of his wording anyway.

 

[Tora]

Where did people say that they would buy a bad game because of the name? That _IS_ what we're trying to avoid no?

You misread my post.


The vocal majority of NMA has, in essence, stated that it is not buying Fallout 3 because it is called Fallout 3. If it were a post-apocolyptic FPS of any other name, they'd have no problem with it.

You're not buying (what may be) a good game with a bad name. I believe this is as harmful to the quality of videogames as buying a bad game with a good name.

I think I've responded to that earlier too, but I'll clearify for you. it *may* be a good game, but its not exactly the fallout *genre* or at least what we perceive to be the fallout *genre*. Its like how you wouldn't expect people looking for a great action game to buy a great puzzle game that was marketed as the sequel to a great action series. it *may* be a good game. But its not what we're looking for.

And before you complain more about the name issue, it *may* seem silly, but I doubt people would enjoy a really great chocolate ice cream if it was called poop or shit... or at least *I* wouldn't anyway

its all about the imagery that words call up in people, if it doesn't fit.. well, it might cause problems.