Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans

[ManiO]

The thing is, most of us here are not liking the what we see the final outcome as, you can't tell us that we can't or shouldn't because it's our fucking right as human beings to form our own opinions. Gameplay is as important as the story, if you don't enjoy playing the game, how are you supposed to enjoy the story, and if you haven't noticed not a lot of people here are big fans of the gameplay of Oblivion, and that seems to be the benchmark Bethsoft has set for fallout 3.

 

[Sander]

I think that the point that is being made here is that they're not going to make a game for the hundred or so people who post HERE. Which is pretty much what it said.
In the same way that not all of the fans of Fallout post here, not all of them are crying themselves to sleep because the super mutants are big, ugly, people.
Which I think means that there are more of them than there are of you, since if they did care they'd be signing up and crying right here.

Oh good, more retarded logic.
Here's a hint: by far most people who have, across the internet, shown an interest in the first two games *liked the contents of the first two games*.

I really cannot see why Bethesda making a Fallout game is the worst thing they could do. Oblivion with guns, yeah, right. All I can see is a cool looking game with guns and mutants and stuff. I can't see any mages fireballing two-headed cows, I can't see any elves shooting big scorpions with their guns. So why the Oblivion with guns deal? Oh yeah, same company. Besides, it's not as if Oblivion was the biggest pile of shit to every get played, as a matter of fact it's pretty much the opposite. Sure it got boring eventually, but that's when you made your own fun.

Whether or not it's a fun game is irrelevant. Whatt *is* relevant is whether or not it fits Fallout's design. Which it doesn't. In any way.

EDIT: Just because I care more about the story, and not how well I can shoot a scorpion in the groin doesn't mean I'm a troll. It means that I didn't care that much about how I did it, just as long as I got there. The best part about the gameplay was that it didn't matter that much in the same way that good lighting in movies doesn't get noticed. It isn't there to blow you away, it's there to help you get into the story.

So you'd be satisfied with a non-interactive movie?
Give me a break. The gameplay is just as much a core part of the design as the setting is.

Way to be fans, I thought that with a sequel coming you guys would be stoked, evidently I was wrong. Would you feel better if they just copied the game? No, because they wouldn't be doing anything new with your precious fallout. So they do something new and BAM!, all of a sudden your precious fallout is weeping because it isn't a top-down game about a messed up world.
Do you know what made Fallout for me? It was the characters, the locations and the crazy encounters. I couldn't care less about how the game played because it wasn't the important part. If this game is nothing more than a glorified shooter then I'll be annoyed, but as far as I can tell that is exactly what they're trying not to do. As long as they keep the history and the style (I mean story-wise) it will be awesome.
So until someone actually gets to play the game can't we all just turn the pissing and moaning down a notch?

Oh good, now we're not allowed to complain about what we're shown. We also should not complain because 'at least they're doing something'.
Give me a fucking break.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

We can garner certain information from the article, interviews with the developers, statements from their media spinners. That information leads to the conclusion that it's going to be nothing like the previous games. It's called Fallout 3 not Fallout The Oblivion, a sequel should retain the core gameplay of the previous games not just the setting. Different gameplay in the same setting is commonly called a spin-off, not that it looks like they've got the setting that correct anyway.

If you'd read anything beyond the last two pages of this thread before posting you'd know that at heart Fallout was about emulating the pnp gaming experience not just a post apocalyptic story. That came later in the design. If you just want a story go rent a movie or read a book.

If the gameplay doesn't matter why are there so many different types of games? Why aren't we all playing the same engine with different textures?

 

[Jimminny]

You're entitled to your opinion in exactly the same way that I am, it just so happens that my opinion is that maybe we shouldn't complain about the finished product until we actually get to play it, or at least not be so extreme about disliking a brief description and a bunch of screenies.
That's why I pointed out he lighting in movies as well, if it's bad the whole thing sucks, but if it's good, you hardly notice.
Even though Oblivion is the benchmark I can't help but feel that no matter how hard Bethesda try, the games are going to be very different, but I can't be sure because like everyone else here, I haven't played it.

EDIT: Hardly retarded logic, yes everybody liked the games. But funnily enough everywhere I've seen disscussions about this game they don't seem to be complaining about it, as a matter of fact they seem to like it.

So now it doesn't matter if the game is fun? Of course I wouldn't enjoy a movie, but I hold firm that the gameplay is not the most lasting part of a game, when I finish playing it I remember what happened, not how I made it happen. I think back and I go "Woah, blowing that dude's head off was awesome" not "Whoah, by right clicking and selecting the raider's head I removed it from his shoulders".

You're allowed to complain as much as you want, just don't be suprised when someone disagrees with you.

I'll admit, I read the first five pages, then skipped the middle and read the last three. Sure, I probably missed some info somewhere, but I also missed around thirty pages of whining.

So Fallout became such an amazing game just because of emulating the plug and play experience? The fact that it was full of amazing and memorable characters, a pretty damn good story or a really cool setting had nothing to do with it?

Different types of games exist because of different preferences, people might like to build an army then stomp across half a world to wipe out their nemesis, or they might like to design their character then trot around slowly growing in power. Failing that I guess my entire argument that gameplay enhances the experience or destroys it just falls down because people enhance the experience through different ways.

 

[Bunkermensch]

It's been said before and I'll say it again, the only way we are going to get a true sequel is if we make it ourselves.

Many people here think exactly the same... so lets do it?

 

[Vault 69er]

My heart sank when viewing those shots. Though I shouldn't be surprised.
Christ, they're even using FaceGen despite the disaster it was in Oblivion. That guy with the hat looks like a freakin Redguard!
Oh yes and a nice big interface designed for consoles. Great.

 

[Sander]

You're entitled to your opinion in exactly the same way that I am, it just so happens that my opinion is that maybe we shouldn't complain about the finished product until we actually get to play it, or at least not be so extreme about disliking a brief description and a bunch of screenies.
That's why I pointed out he lighting in movies as well, if it's bad the whole thing sucks, but if it's good, you hardly notice.
Even though Oblivion is the benchmark I can't help but feel that no matter how hard Bethesda try, the games are going to be very different, but I can't be sure because like everyone else here, I haven't played it.

EDIT: Hardly retarded logic, yes everybody liked the games. But funnily enough everywhere I've seen disscussions about this game they don't seem to be complaining about it, as a matter of fact they seem to like it.

Yet everywhere I go, I see roughly the opposite.

So now it doesn't matter if the game is fun?

Don't troll. It could be a fun game, but that doesn't mean it'd be a good Fallout game. Pro Evolution Soccer is a fun game, but I don't want Fallout to be a football game.

Of course I wouldn't enjoy a movie, but I hold firm that the gameplay is not the most lasting part of a game, when I finish playing it I remember what happened, not how I made it happen. I think back and I go "Woah, blowing that dude's head off was awesome" not "Whoah, by right clicking and selecting the raider's head I removed it from his shoulders".

People think back and go 'that game was fun'. And they think that largely because of the gameplay, not just because of the setting.

You're allowed to complain as much as you want, just don't be suprised when someone disagrees with you.

I'll admit, I read the first five pages, then skipped the middle and read the last three. Sure, I probably missed some info somewhere, but I also missed around thirty pages of whining.

So Fallout became such an amazing game just because of emulating the plug and play experience?

...
Plug and play? Pen and paper, jesus.

The fact that it was full of amazing and memorable characters, a pretty damn good story or a really cool setting had nothing to do with it?

No one said that, don't pretend someone did. The point is that *both* the gameplay and the setting are part of Fallout's design.

Different types of games exist because of different preferences, people might like to build an army then stomp across half a world to wipe out their nemesis, or they might like to design their character then trot around slowly growing in power. Failing that I guess my entire argument that gameplay enhances the experience or destroys it just falls down because people enhance the experience through different ways.

Yes, different types of games exist. And Fallout is one type of game, not every other type of game.

This game will be Fallout 3. An official sequel. As such it should be in keeping with the previous games' core gameplay. If they make it a first-person shooter, then they should've named the game Fallout: FPS and not Fallout 3.

 

[ManiO]

So Fallout became such an amazing game just because of emulating the plug and play experience?

You sir are a complete and utter moron.

 

[mortiz]

Jimminny: A misconception is that "atmosphere" is completely separate from gameplay, which of course is not the case. The lens you viewed the Fallout world through was vital to the atmosphere by determining how the world was presented to the player. Therefore changing the gameplay style or viewpoint isn't as simple as swapping one out and another in, no harm done, you're changing something fundamental about the experience.

 

[Jimminny]

Well then I guess we go to different places, because nearly everyone I've seen has been cautiously optimistic, whereas here it seems to be exactly the opposite.

I'm thinking that now our disagreement is coming down to personal preference, (as in gameplay vs story) which is pretty much useless to argue about. Which means that we're pretty much done here.

Plug and play? Pen and paper, jesus.

Hahah, yes I have no idea what I was thinking about.

Although I don't see how I'm trolling with one remark after a pretty reasonable discussion on my part.

As an official game I expect it not to suck, at which point it doesn't really look like doing. Although at this point, since I haven't played it it could still go the way of NWN 2.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

You're entitled to your opinion in exactly the same way that I am, it just so happens that my opinion is that maybe we shouldn't complain about the finished product until we actually get to play it,

You're allowed to complain as much as you want, just don't be suprised when someone disagrees with you.

And when you express your opinion by coming on to a forum and telling everyone there to shut up and stop whining don't be suprised at be called a troll.

That's why I pointed out he lighting in movies as well, if it's bad the whole thing sucks, but if it's good, you hardly notice.

Gee I guess fans of the Film Noir genre wouldn't notice, I mean what is film noir anyway? Besides games have lighting as well, totally different from the gameplay. You'd be better off comparing the editing, though if a movie was badly edited you would notice.

EDIT: Hardly retarded logic, yes everybody liked the games. But funnily enough everywhere I've seen disscussions about this game they don't seem to be complaining about it, as a matter of fact they seem to like it.

And how many of those people have actually played Fallout? Care about the setting or would be just as excited about a PA IP that Beth had created themselves.

So now it doesn't matter if the game is fun? Of course I wouldn't enjoy a movie, but I hold firm that the gameplay is not the most lasting part of a game, when I finish playing it I remember what happened, not how I made it happen. I think back and I go "Woah, blowing that dude's head off was awesome" not "Whoah, by right clicking and selecting the raider's head I removed it from his shoulders".

If the gameplay was terrible, do you think people would bother playing it? If they didn't find it fun? Gameplay = fun, not just the setting or the story. If you can't get into the controls or the combat are you going to bother sticking around long enough to find out the story?

I'll admit, I read the first five pages, then skipped the middle and read the last three. Sure, I probably missed some info somewhere, but I also missed around thirty pages of whining.

Actually I was refering to the site in general not just this thread. Though I think most of the pages are responses to trolls like you rather than just whining.

So Fallout became such an amazing game just because of emulating the plug and play experience? The fact that it was full of amazing and memorable characters, a pretty damn good story or a really cool setting had nothing to do with it?

Again stop with the trolling.

Different types of games exist because of different preferences, people might like to build an army then stomp across half a world to wipe out their nemesis, or they might like to design their character then trot around slowly growing in power. Failing that I guess my entire argument that gameplay enhances the experience or destroys it just falls down because people enhance the experience through different ways.

Yes and my preference is isometric turnbased in depth roleplaying, like the first two games. Just because it features guns, just because Fallout is an rpg doesn't mean you can change the mechanics and still call it a sequel. You had no arguement that gameplay enhances or destroys the experience, your arguement was gameplay doesn't matter.

 

[Vault 69er]

Hahah, yes I have no idea what I was thinking about.

Although I don't see how I'm trolling with one remark after a pretty reasonable discussion on my part.

If you had no idea what P&P meant then you shouldn't have assumed it meant something else that in this context is non-sensical.
You have discredited yourself utterly by doing so.

 

[Jimminny]

I just googled pnp and it was the first thing to turn up, I thought that I was better of making an effort.
Yeah, I guess I screwed it up anyway

 

[ManiO]

I just googled pnp and it was the first thing to turn up, I thought that I was better of making an effort.
Yeah, I guess I screwed it up anyway

 

[Wyrmwolf]

Xython, as far as what I liked about the F3 article, I think it would be a decent game but not a good Fallout game. I'm sorry but once I got to the point in the article that said 1st or 3rd person prespective and how the VATS system would work, I decided I shouldnt really precieve this game as a spiritual sucessor to the orginals. It's like apples and oranges, I was expecting an apple but when I bit into it, all I could taste was orange.

In all honesty, I might have enjoyed this article more if it was Beth making its own PA IP, with some hidden Fallout referenced easter eggs.

Today's "mainstream" game market just isnt aimed at players like me anymore. By taking away Fallout's orginal combat system and POV I won't enjoy the tatical elements of combat that made me come back to F1 and 2 countless times. Even though Ian and Sulik are scary to friendlies if they are equiped with submachine guns I still braved the wastelands. Just yesterday I had to reload my F1 save game 5 times because Ian kept killing Dogmeat with bursts inside the Glow. Get some contact lenses Ian!

F3, even with optimal AI tatics and pathfinding, won't have the same impact on me like the first two.

 

[Innuendo]

Why are you so reluctant towards first person view?

Because a first-person view conflicts with the P&P design and, more importantly, the turn-based combat.

all right, personally i would prefer 2d isometric view, but since fallout 3 must be done with 3d engine, i would rather see it as a fpp.

why? Neverwinter Nights. It was isometric with a 3d engine and it sucked big times. No climate of previous games (Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale) which was totally ruined by game engine. (and the game itself)

Ignoring the fact that, you know, Deus Ex and System Shock were shooters.

BS. They were both rpg/shooters, but with an emphasis on the first.

Try playing a turn-based game in First-Person, for example. It sure as hell does define the game.

how about this? You know, back in the old days when computers were made out of wood and stone, rpgs were mostly first person. But they died by natural death (or killed by Baldurs Gate). Now will just see it they were to stay in grave or come out triumphal to reclaim what was theirs.

Yes, I liked DX and SS. Do I want a Fallout that plays like that? Not really.

And I'm looking forward seeing it like this. Just because its fpp/tpp or whatever, it doesn't mean they will make Quake 5 or Resident Evil out of it.

 

[Sander]

all right, personally i would prefer 2d isometric view, but since fallout 3 must be done with 3d engine, i would rather see it as a fpp.

why? Neverwinter Nights. It was isometric with a 3d engine and it sucked big times. No climate of previous games (Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale) which was totally ruined by game engine. (and the game itself)

What the fuck? You take one example of a 3d isometric engine, and then say 'it sucked, nothing should be done with it again'.
That's absolutely ridiculous. I could name a dozen first-person engines that sucked, that doesn't mean that first-person itself sucks.
There's no reason whatsoever to assume that the isometric viewpoint isn't doable in 3D, and games like Civilisation 4 essentially prove that they are very doable.

By the way, Neverwinter Nights was very poorly made overall anyway.

BS. They were both rpg/shooters, but with an emphasis on the first.

They were hybrids, not full RPGs, like Fallout is.

how about this? You know, back in the old days when computers were made out of wood and stone, rpgs were mostly first person. But they died by natural death (or killed by Baldurs Gate). Now will just see it they were to stay in grave or come out triumphal to reclaim what was theirs.

First-person, *strategic* turn-based games are not doable, simply because you can't view the battlefield.

And I'm looking forward seeing it like this. Just because its fpp/tpp or whatever, it doesn't mean they will make Quake 5 or Resident Evil out of it.

Yet again, first-person view by definition means that at least part of the *core design* of Fallout is gone.

 

[ManiO]

Neverwinter Nights. It was isometric with a 3d engine and it sucked big times. No climate of previous games (Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale) which was totally ruined by game engine. (and the game itself)
BS. They were both rpg/shooters, but with an emphasis on the first.


And I'm looking forward seeing it like this. Just because its fpp/tpp or whatever, it doesn't mean they will make Quake 5 or Resident Evil out of it.

Firstly, you mention that NWN was ruined by the game engine. Really? It's not like the developers can use another one... Concerning isometric in 3D, didn't most people here, amongst others, like the look and feel of the Van Buren project?


Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't quite a few people complain about lack of RPG elements in SS2 and DX, thought it was not as complete as it could have been?

Lastly, sure it's not a 100% certain that fallout 3 will turn out similar in play as Quake nor Resident Evil but those screenshots aren't doing much to state otherwise.

 

[Per]

Did you forget? Nowadays, stats = hardcore RPG.

 

[Sorrow]

its obvious that we cant return to the traditional isometric , the society changes.

Jesus Christ , under what bolder have I been sleeping these past few years...I have heard that interplay is planing a fallout 3, it's gonna be freaking rad dude. I am tiered now gonna go back to bed .

Note that he doesn't tell the usual shit about how isometric is obsolete, but that society have changed, which is true.
The most of gaming society have degenerated to pathetic junkies that buy every shit as long as it's 3d. Simply, they don't want graphics that have a big artistic value - they want to live in a game - instead living their own lives, going to a park, admiring architecture, etc. they want to live in a fucking game and and look at artificial graphics that are nothing when compared to reality.

Neverwinter Nights. It was isometric with a 3d engine and it sucked big times. No climate of previous games (Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale) which was totally ruined by game engine. (and the game itself)

NWN atmosphere was damaged mostly by the use of inappropriate special effects, stupid "magical" shining and an elven whore portrayed on loading screens.

If you'd read anything beyond the last two pages of this thread before posting you'd know that at heart Fallout was about emulating the pnp gaming experience not just a post apocalyptic story.

Err...
Tabletop - which also includes a table with miniatures. Which is viewed in top-down/isometric view. PnP alone would suggest that any perspective is ok.