Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans

[Brother None]

Kind of expected to see you sign with "Regards, Concerned."

No amount of comments is going to change much. Want to change the mode of discussion in NMA? Then post in another way here than others do. There's no "you have to hate Bethesda, and you have to do it *our* way" either in the rules or enforced by the mods/admins. Disagree? Then post your opinion (good post, by the way), but there's little point asking other people to change.

Also, it's nice that you enjoyed the setting, but it'd be odd to claim the game is defined only by that. It's a game, not a movie. Simply put: Star Wars is a setting, KotoR is a type of game. KotoR III can not become an FPS. Fallout might be a setting too, but Fallout 3 is a part of a series, a type of game. It should fit it.

 

[Sander]

Did you even care to read any posts in this entire thread?
Because you're just rehashing the same old useless bullshit amounting to 'It was just the setting I cared about!'
Neat for you, but that's not what made Fallout Fallout. Yes, this has been objectively assessed. It was designed, from the ground up, as a P&P emulation. *That* is what made it so special, along with the setting. It is, objectively speaking, absolutely essential to the core design of Fallout. So if Bethesda ignores that, they are ignoring *the core design of Fallout*.

 

[Sorrow]

Troika Games Untitled Post-apocalyptic RPG
Watch around 3:00 you'll get your precious FPP.

It clearly demonstrates everything I dislike about 3d graphics. Having to control and rotate the damned camera, weird unnatural movement in FPP and complete lack of artistic value of 3d graphics.
There's a reason why 2d art is still used comics, animated movies, book covers, paintings, drawings etc., etc. and why I don't have a single 3d graphic in my favourites.
But this is more a personal taste thing. Some prefer free camera, I prefer art and simple controlls.

On the other hand they got they got the tabletop atmosphere very good and the whole scene looks like a tabletop game terrain .

 

[analord]

if the character creation is exactly like the one in Oblivion (as GI says it is) i will shit on beth and her money.

 

[concernedcitizen]

If my first post reads as me requesting that people change, then I fear I have been misunderstood. Like I was saying, my only goal was to try to explain how I felt when visiting this site, and perhaps some of the other "plants" too. I realise that the community is very well established and healthy, and wouldn't dream of requesting or demanding changes, as that would be ridiculous. I just thought that by posting I might point out the fact that with a new Fallout game being made there are likely to be new visitors signing up and posting, and perhaps being equally lost amongst the differing opinions on here.

Again, fair points regarding the definition of the experience, but it's a pretty subjective matter, and it's difficult to really discuss in any great depth without having played the new game first.

At this point in time, it does seem to me that a new Fallout game which I find to be reasonably enjoyable *could* be made without some of the fundamentals of the originals, providing the style, setting, humour and similar "squishy" bits and pieces from the first two were maintained. At the same time though, when I do finally play it, I may be proven wrong, and realise that these nuts and bolts regarding gameplay, which I currently think I can live without, actually added much more to the experience than I realised, and that the game is trash without them. That's why I'm keeping an open mind about it, and I don't know, it just seems weird that the same optimism is rare elsewhere in these parts.

 

[Pope Viper]

Let's just say that Beth's track record seems to run in the same rut, both from a design and innovation standpoint.

 

[Punter X]

while i could be wrong it appears that much appears to be based on what people view a sequel to be.

from my reading (again i might be wrong as i wouldn't like to be accused of putting words into his mouth) concernedcitizen appears to view a sequel be sucessful (just to be clear i mean successful as a sequel not necessarily sucessful financially) if it can "conjure up at least a portion of the enjoyment that the others did" and has "the ideas, atmosphere, humour"

personally i have a more demanding standard as what he regards as necessary for a sequel i would regard as necessary for a Fallout game while for a direct sequel i would demand a certain degree of continuity from the previous installments

edit: after re-reading this, i would like to apologise to everyone for essentially repeating that most here could accept many of the changes if this was merely a "Fallout game" and not "Fallout 3" which has been said time and time again

 

[concernedcitizen]

Did you even care to read any posts in this entire thread?

Yes I did, and if you read my post perhaps you would see reference to these. Similarly, you may have noticed the bit where I explained why I was posting. Perhaps, in particular, some attention should be paid to:
a) the part where I responded to a specific post; and
b) the part where I respond to several references to new posters as being "plants".

In addition to these, I have read what I would say is at least half of the thread, which was what provided the stimulus for me to finally join, after years of watching NMA. Thankyou for your kind welcome, friend.

Because you're just rehashing the same old useless bullshit amounting to 'It was just the setting I cared about!'
Neat for you, but that's not what made Fallout Fallout. Yes, this has been objectively assessed. It was designed, from the ground up, as a P&P emulation. *That* is what made it so special, along with the setting. It is, objectively speaking, absolutely essential to the core design of Fallout. So if Bethesda ignores that, they are ignoring *the core design of Fallout*.

It is perhaps fortuitous that what I was discussing was in fact "my Fallout experience", and not "the core design of Fallout". This distinction was perhaps a little too subtle for you, so I have reinforced it here for your benefit. Given your dedication to the "core design of Fallout" however, you may find the section of my post in which I ask what exactly is it that "purists", if you will, expect to bring to the table in discussing a new Fallout title, is somewhat relevant. To clarify once more, if that's what you really enjoyed about Fallout, then that's great, but I don't think that should really justify your attack on me, and your derisive comments about my participation here, just because I valued something different.

and to respond to Punter X, that would be fantastic too, but if it's not going to happen, I will settle for less. What it boils down to, as some of the other new members have attempted to say, is that I'll settle for anything Fallout that isn't a steaming heap, because it's one of those "the more the better" things (to an extent, there's a quality standard which I'm hoping Beth manage to live up to).

 

[Sorrow]

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

Oooooh you did NOT just call Aribeth a whore.
You sir are a cad!

Aribeth was such a slut that she needed to show off her breasts even in a plate armor. I bet she slept with every student in that academy of hers. Even with gnomes.
Especially with gnomes.

 

[Daedalos]

concernedcitizen

You are by far one of the smartest people I've encountered on this site yet.. I agree wholeheartly with your points and opinions..

I just think it is funny how especially the moderators and claimed "hard-core" fans in here feel that they have got the ultimate right and definite answer as to how Fallout 3 might or might not look and play out..

I know most of the fans, including myself, will want a return to the atmosphere and feel of Fallout, but who are you to dictate how that special feeling will best surplant itself in a sequel? Have you asked Interplay/BIS about changes in Fallout 3 and their view?

Perhaps a turn away from Isometric view is not a bad thing, albeit, an entirely different and new change of direction.. *IS* change really so bad, if we assume that Beth stays true to most of the "feel" of the game? To me it looks like atleast some of the atmosphere and etc from the old games have a good chance of being implemented.. But Who am I to say?

We've seen a few screensshots, a biased article and a trailer...
And you are already spewing doomsday prophecies about the future of Fallout 3.. Cmon give it a chance...

I was a little frigtened too when I saw that they wanted to make something different from Fallout 1+2.. But maybe it's time to change.. I refuse to believe that Fallout 3 couldn't at least be moderately as good as the old games given that the releasedate is still so far ahead in the future and what not..

I will probaly get flamed for my post.. and Actually I don't really care.. I AM a true fallout fan.. am I am entitled to my opinion as everybody else.. and it no more true or right than anybody else.
It just seems to me that these forums contain alot of hostility towards another opinion except flaming the new game.

Sometimes it almost feels as if some fans feel that they somehow OWN the fallout franchise.. because they believe it was somehow specially made for them by Interplay/BIS.. and now grissly Beth wants to take it all away...

For god's sake people.. lighten up.. and wait for the bigger picture.. hate is baggage

 

[Brother None]

It's always amusing that people call people they agree with "the most intelligent poster here." Objective much?

The same applies to you, Daedelos, as did to concerned. We never claim to have some special knowledge that makes our opinion more important. What we do is structure our arguments from solid examples, and go from there. "You, but I think you're wrong" is never a good reply. Go to NMA's frontpage, read the History of Fallout, read the Troika PA interview. You'll see the original design intent, you'll see Boyarsky noting he would've made Fallout 3 turn-based and isometric.

 

[Sorrow]

my little idea how to boycott Fallout 3 - no news on NMA about this crap

just silence.............................

And archiving the FT and F3 forums, and adding The Omega Syndrome and The Age of Decadence forums .
Fallout is a sinking wreck . But the bright future is awaiting .

 

[Sander]

It is perhaps fortuitous that what I was discussing was in fact "my Fallout experience", and not "the core design of Fallout". This distinction was perhaps a little too subtle for you, so I have reinforced it here for your benefit. Given your dedication to the "core design of Fallout" however, you may find the section of my post in which I ask what exactly is it that "purists", if you will, expect to bring to the table in discussing a new Fallout title, is somewhat relevant. To clarify once more, if that's what you really enjoyed about Fallout, then that's great, but I don't think that should really justify your attack on me, and your derisive comments about my participation here, just because I valued something different.

And again you miss the point, proving that you indeed have not read much of this thread.
For the umpteen-and-twentieth time in this thread: Fallout's actual base design has been *objectively defined*. It isn't about what you liked better about the game and hence think is disposable, or what anyone else thinks is disposable: it's about what Fallout's actual design is. Creating a game without keeping Fallout's core design would, by definition, make it not a full Fallout game.

The point that it could be a fun game, or that it could capture Fallout's setting is not what any of this discussion is about. It's about whether or not it would be a worthy Fallout sequel. And indeed, objectively speaking it would not without Fallout's design.

 

[Punter X]

...

you'll have to excuse me for being rude but i was wondering if you've read many of the articles here regarding Fallout? or whether you were active around the time of van buren? as quite a few of the changes that were proposed were discussed, if memory serves correctly (i still have a chuckle thinking about how many times it had to be explained that just because it was going 3d it didn't mean i was gonna be a fps)

with your statement that you are a "true fallout fan" (thereby explicitly suggesting that those that disagree with you are not) i can only presume you were and can only wonder at some of the "points" that you bring up.

was it your intention to troll?

edit:minor typo

 

[Daedalos]

Because Turn-based gameplay and Isometric view was a specific feature of the past games.. does that automatically mean that future games cannot and must not suceeed with a different "angle" at all ?

I just fail to see how inconcieveable it would seem to you if Fallout 3 had 1st og 3rd person view and maybe a modified version of turnbased as this V.A.T.S seems to be. I would be content if it worked together with the rest of the game to create the fallout atmosphere and feel.. If it will do that, we can't really say yet.. because all we got is some screenshots which are probaly alpha and are subject to change.. a trailer and the game got long ways till release...

 

[Brother None]

does that automatically mean that future games cannot and must not suceeed with a different "angle" at all ?

Pretty much, yes, but mostly because the turn-based combat mode (and isometric angle to support it) were consciously chosen to represent the attempt to emulate pen and paper gameplay, just like choice and consequence, dialogues, open-ended gameplay. I don't feel qualified to pick any of these out and say it's less important than the rest, do you?

As for: early alpha. Well, if it's that early in development, what better time to let them know what we want than now?

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Aribeth was such a slut that she needed to show off her breasts even in a plate armor. I bet she slept with every student in that academy of hers. Even with gnomes.
Especially with gnomes.

Dammit Sorrow,

Now you have filled my mind with the image of excited 'little people".

 

[Karak]

concernedcitizen
Perhaps a turn away from Isometric view is not a bad thing, albeit, an entirely different and new change of direction.. *IS* change really so bad, if we assume that Beth stays true to most of the "feel" of the game? To me it looks like atleast some of the atmosphere and etc from the old games have a good chance of being implemented.. But Who am I to say?

We cannot assume, that Beth stay true to Fallout by throwing out it's entire purpose of recreating a pnp table-top rpg on a computer, can we? A FP/RT approach disqualifies them from being taken seriously right there.

Also, judging from what we've seen so far the art direction of the originals is already gone, replaced by realistic looking critters and environments...what makes you think they intend to recreate the setting, humor, dialogue or anything else faithfully?

 

[Tannhauser]

A bit crude, but I think it illustrates the point well:

 

[Daedalos]

Punkter X..

I am aware that Van Buren was intended for iso/turn based, but that idea was scraped and the rights were sold.. so it does not apply any longer.. what I was really aiming at with my question, was what interplay feels about the PRESENT fallout 3 game... would they consider the fact that it might work with more or less "drastic" changes to some of the features of the old games? Perhaps this have been explained in previous articles or forums, though I might have missed them..

I am not explicitly implying anything.. My opinion as a fallout fan.. hard-core or not.. is just as valid as my next man.. we each have a different mindset and experience with the game itself... coming to this forum as seeing much negativity just makes me ponder about what people are trying to prove.

anyways.. gunning for change is not likely to come.. either you will buy the game or not.. the choice is yours.. I just sought some answers to the negative attitudes i see around here..

Why would interplay sell off the rights to Fallout, if staying true to the world of Fallout was so essential to them and their fans? because they thought another company could do it just as good? maybe.. So don't you think they had some kind of reassurement or contact with beth in order to ensure that Fallout 3 would be made a good sequel? Because if not... Interplay seems alot like a Sellout to me.. why would you wanna sell highly regarded and respected franchise to a game company you knew would fail at every attempt? and then moan about it afterwards? doesn't make much sense to me.