Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans

[Kazhiim]

Don't you see how disregarding the game based on the image you've conjured up in your own mind- an image founded on scant evidence and admitted bias- is the wrong thing to do?

If someone sold delicious ice cream marketed under the name "poop," I'd scarf that stuff down.

 

[Kan-Kerai]

Ok, so go eat poop and die. :toilet:

Sorry, had to say it. Carry on.

 

[ThierryHenry]

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.

But they did apparently hire you to do the same to us.

Custom tailored to get a Fallout fan's attention? How? By signalling the butchering of the franchise? Come on, this game was so made for console gamers that the preview has console buttons on the f***ing screenshots. Fallout 3: Brotherhood of Steel. No buy until I see more.

 

[Kazhiim]

No buy until I see more.

At least you're still willing to consider buying the game. That's more than can be said for most other NMA'ers.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Don't you see how disregarding the game based on the image you've conjured up in your own mind- an image founded on scant evidence and admitted bias- is the wrong thing to do?

If someone sold delicious ice cream marketed under the name "poop," I'd scarf that stuff down.

See, there's your flaw. You assume we're stupid. You assume we can't use inductive reasoning. See, you said the game was set in Washington DC.

Look at Fallout 1, the coast was so heavily nuked that Barstow was a great deal larger than the habitable area of LA. This is the capital of a nation, these are nuclear warheads. The monuments mentioned to be there f***ing shouldn't. Not only that, the Brotherhood of Steel is there. It f***ing shouldn't. If there are any mention of Rangers, I'm out, because they f***ing shouldn't be there.

In fact, the only factions that should be there from the past two games are ghouls, slavers, and raiders. Super Mutants have a slim possibility if any of the FEV experiments were carried out on the East Coast, but since there was no Master there, all of the experiments would be by the Enclave and therefore not as widespread. Certainly not the game's antagonist that the article makes them out to be.

 

[Tora]

Don't you see how disregarding the game based on the image you've conjured up in your own mind- an image founded on scant evidence and admitted bias- is the wrong thing to do?

If someone sold delicious ice cream marketed under the name "poop," I'd scarf that stuff down.

Oh, of course its the *wrong* thing to do. Cept you know, we as human beings tend respond to words with imagery and feelings... else language would be a problem. I mean, when you see the word 'car' you tend to think of a car and the like. Some words just call up stronger feelings/imagery for people than others. And please don't tell me you wouldn't at least have *thought* that a crime is being committed it you hear a girl scream rape late at night. it just has to do with what *you* as an individual have learned to expect from your own experiences. And scant evidence/admitted bias? I don't see how an image I have of what I *want* fallout 3 to be based off of my experiences of fallout 1/2 being founded on scant evidence, it has nothing to do with evidence, it has everything to do with what _I_ want versus what others want. I'm such a selfish bastard aren't I?

And there's no such thing has someone without bias. There is *always* bias. Just as how you're currently biased towards giving games with *wrong* categorizations a chance, and me not wanting to do so

Everyone's biased

And I should sleep.

 

[Kazhiim]

I hate making quote trees so, "stuff"

okay, it's not canon. How does that make it a bad game?

 

[ThierryHenry]

Because every Fallout game that didn't follow canon turned out to be a miserable piece of shit that wasn't worth the shelf space at the game store.

 

[Kazhiim]

Everyone's biased

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to overcome that bias, though?

 

[Kazhiim]

Because every Fallout game that didn't follow canon turned out to be a miserable piece of shit that wasn't worth the shelf space at the game store.

None of those games were made by Bethesda.


Myth 3, made by gearbox, was an absolutely terrible game. It's an insult to the franchise. But if another company was handed the Myth liscense, I'd give it a chance.

 

[Ausir]

In fact, the only factions that should be there from the past two games are ghouls, slavers, and raiders. Super Mutants have a slim possibility if any of the FEV experiments were carried out on the East Coast, but since there was no Master there, all of the experiments would be by the Enclave and therefore not as widespread. Certainly not the game's antagonist that the article makes them out to be.

Super Mutants are effectively immortal and most of them traveled East after FO1, so I don't see any reason for them not to be there. Having BOS there is silly, though.

 

[stooge4444]

Yeah, I'd rather not read moronic reviews this time, like the ones that masturbated over Broken Sword 3, even it wasn't much more than a Sokoban 3D, but I'll play the game and see if it's worthy of the name. And it seems to be so far.

And that is all I am saying to do....give feedback now and wait to see if it's "worthy of the name"...

You can see his groin just fine, if it were any lower he would kick it when he walks.

How do we know it's male? Maybe all the females from STALKER led a mass exodus to facilitate the supermutant populace in F3...

Is GameInformer a good magazine? I think I've read them maybe once before this. I feel that the article is not very well written and tries to be a little to dramatic or artsy rather than laying out the facts straight. I think this straightforward approach would have cleared some of the ambiguity.

 

[Tora]

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.

What the Hell? Morally wrong? It's morally wrong to want to purchase or play a good game?

Stealing is morally wrong.

Murder is morally wrong.

Playing a good game is not morally wrong. Don't be such a God damn fool. If you're going to get so aggressive, venomous, and immature about a video game, just get up off your computer chair with the large, permanent imprint of your fat ass and go outside to be burned by the rays of the scorching sun.

"But it's not Fallout 3!" Who cares. It's a video game. I enjoy video games. This looks like a very potentially fun video game. And yes, you know what, it is Fallout 3. They own the license. This is the sequel. Get used to it.

Sequels are meant to change things. To make gameplay and mechanics fresh, new, better, fun. Bethesda is doing that. You can't blame them for wanting to use a new formula instead of something a decade old.

And who would you rather have make Fallout 3? Interplay? Sorry, they're all but dead. And they'd make changes, too, appropriate for the new generation.

No Fallout 3 made would please any of you. It wouldn't matter who made it or how it played, you people simply wouldn't be pleased with it.

It's sad that at the end of the day and upon the release of Fallout 3, there will be two groups of people here. Those that buy it, enjoy it, but are embarrassed and keep up the appearances filled with disdain; and there will be those who won't give it the time of day and continue to attack it with such literal hate.

Stop being so emotional about the whole thing. They're video games. There are things far more important to be emotional about in this world.

Everyone has different morals. Some may be viewed as good, some may be viewed as bad, but they are all different. From *my* moral view point you're much more venomous in your response, but that's just *my* view point.

Ah yes, sequels are meant to change things, I always thought they were meant to *continue* something, you know like a SEQUEL. I guess the english language is harder to learn than i thought.l

 

[ThierryHenry]

No, you see that's where you're wrong. You're not looking at the big picture. The reason Fallout games sold was because of the setting and the intricacy of the details. Fallout 3 just screws all of that up because Bethesda assumes people don't care. Bethesda is taking the same attitude that the guys behind Brotherhood of Steel did, and we all know how that turned out. Or rather didn't.

Unless I see improvements in the future, I'm quite simply not going to get this game. Especially without the branching dialogue trees. If the dialogue isn't worth the effort, then that means the game is about combat. That's something the Fallout series just wasn't about. It wasn't about the sex or the drugs or the violence, it was about the setting and the story. To do that you need dialogue. You should try telling that to your bosses, plant.

 

[Neal]

And now it's Bethesda's brainchild. And they've decided to add a little more realism to it. That's inevitable when you go from 2d to 3d. You cannot do cartoony 3d without it looking bad -- the sole exception is Mario, and that style would not work for a post-apoc CRPG.

One word Blizzard They do 3d cartoony looking games and they look great. This is not your average post-apoc game it is a 50's style game and that was taken to heart not just the posters and cars had that look everything down to the mutants had the 50's design style to it.

something else to point out the USS Intrepid wouldn't of been in New York harbor until 1978 just something i noticed from concept art not an issue its a game but it does go along with the whole over realism they are putting into it yeah they have a lot of buildings that look form that time but many that look out of place

 

[Tora]

Everyone's biased

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to overcome that bias, though?

Of course it would be nice to not be biased towards anything, but then that means I wouldn't really have an opinion on anything either, I'm only human, I have my faults, this is one of them

 

[Tora]

I hate making quote trees so, "stuff"

okay, it's not canon. How does that make it a bad game?

it does not make it a bad game
it makes it a bad sequel

How would people like the last installment of Lord of the Rings if Tie-Fighters came blazing down the skies, or the last installment of Star Wars if it suddenly ended up being magic duels all over?
That's stretching it a bit but that' the basic idea.

 

[Nim82]

Kazhiim: None of those games were made by Bethesda.

Well yeh, but Bethesda already had a track record for making miserable games before they even got the FO license. Every game they have made post Daggerfall has been progresively worse. So combine the two facts and you can see why we aren't exactly holding our breath on this one.

 

[Kazhiim]

Everyone's biased

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to overcome that bias, though?

Of course it would be nice to not be biased towards anything, but then that means I wouldn't really have an opinion on anything either, I'm only human, I have my faults, this is one of them

You can have an opinion without being biased. It's called open-mindedness.

 

[Maphusio]

Everyone's biased

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to overcome that bias, though?

Of course it would be nice to not be biased towards anything, but then that means I wouldn't really have an opinion on anything either, I'm only human, I have my faults, this is one of them

You can have an opinion without being biased. It's called open-mindedness.

Please Kazhiim, we are discussing a moot point here. Lets drop it eh?