Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans

[concernedcitizen]

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.

I have read that, yes, and I still fail to see its relevance. What I've posted and said was that I am looking forward to what I hope will be a good Fallout game that I will enjoy at least partially as much as I enjoyed the earlier ones. I can assure that when I purchased Fallout, I guess about a decade ago now, maybe a little less as I don't recall exactly when it was purchased (forgive me!), the objective design of the game was not a factor in my purchase, nor in my enjoyment of the game. In fact, at the time I'd say I was probably all but ignorant of the reason for a lot of the design elements, but I still got a kick out of playing it. Evidently you thought, and continue to think, differently, and that's ok with me, but you're not being remotely objective by telling me that I should value the same things that you did.

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.

Actually that seems to be what quite a bit of what I've read is about, except for the periodic interruptions where people protest that regardless of the fun which can be had using an alternate approach, what we're discussing deviates from the ever-important core design. These two lines of discussion aren't discussing the same thing however, and as such it's a little bit silly trying to disprove one (hey, this could still be a fun Fallout game, which I hope I will enjoy!) with the other (no, this is heresy, the core design must be followed!), because they're just not really all that relevant to each other. Yes, it's a different design, no that doesn't mean that there aren't going to be people who see it as a fun, worthy addition to the Fallout franchise.

What you're seeing is people sharing their opinions, as they tend to do on public forums, and you are attacking these opinions with your own (which is backed up by proven objectivity!). If I had said "I think the new Fallout game will seamlessly fit with the core design principles displayed in the previous titles within the franchise", then there would be room for you to come to the rescue and prove me wrong. I didn't though, so there's not. You don't disprove opinions, it's just not cricket.

It's about whether or not it would be a worthy Fallout sequel. And indeed, objectively speaking it would not without Fallout's design.

Objectively, I can acknowledge that, if these are what define Fallout for you, then no, it will not be a "worthy Fallout sequel". However, given that my definition of what makes a Fallout game varies, my take on whether the new game lives up to it will vary accordingly. If you'd read any of my posts with an eye to understanding my perspective, rather than destroying it with your apparent objectivity, perhaps this would not have been lost on you.

Edit: wording fix.

 

[mortiz]

concernedcitizen

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?

All we've demanded is that they respect the original. It isn't respect if you change everything about it because you think you can do it "better". Ah, you've branded the old "atmosphere and feel" card again without having a fucking clue about what they actually mean.

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?

More ignorant bullshit. I've said already said this once but I'll repeat it for the hard of reading. The atmosphere and feel are not some abstract floaty thing that you can capture by slapping on a few wall textures, dotting around some props and sticking in some ambient music. The game play and perspective is integral to the type of feel that is generated. Changing either of them will produce a different "atmosphere" (I hate how this word is branded about). You'd then be changing the way the world is presented to the player and in the end presentation is everything.

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...

Where the have you been for the last couple of years? It isn't the new information which is upsetting, it's that this article seems to confirm many fears. Many people already had a good idea that Fallout 3 was going to be 1st/3rd person with real-time gameplay, still, there was always hope, before now.

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..

Time to change to what? The same old shit we're getting time after time of late? In case you didn't notice, a Turn-Based CRPG would be "something different" in the current climate of AAA games, and certainly from Bethesda. Instead they're giving us an extended version of Oblivion. Fallout 3 is turning out to be the game that Oblivion should have been instead of a Fallout sequel.

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.

Of course you are, but don't post an opinion if you don't want it to be challenged. Saying "Oh, it's only my opinion" isn't some magical get out clause from having to defend it you know.

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...

Again, we just want Bethesda to respect the original. Getting rid of most of the stuff that made it great is practically shitting on it, and disrespectful to the game and the community. As fans we aren't prepared to let that happen unchallenged.

 

[Punter X]

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...

i know i've only registed yesterday but

in addition to the points raised regarding tb/iso i personally find it difficult to invision the implementation of VATS making Fallout 3 merely a "modified version of turnbased".

it must also be noted that, unless i'm again mistaken, "all we got is some screenshots ... a trailer" (it appears you've forgotten about the "concept art") might not be necessarily the full picture if you look at the various interviews/statements of intent (and the often humorous quotes that they leave) that have regularly been discussed at length (as even concernedcitizen to whom you so admire sees nma as "thorough") as well as beth's history and behaviour

 

[Nim82]

And archiving the FT and F3 forums, and adding The Omega Syndrome and The Age of Decadence forums...

Sounds good. How about a relabel to 'No Orcs Allowed' complete with a big red line through Beth's abomination, to put the icing on the cake?

Both Age of Dec and Omega Syndrome look damn cool, O.S. especially. I tried the demo earlier and was hugely impressed, heck it felt more Fallouty than all the new FO material combined - and it isn't even trying to be! Also got to hope that some of these indie PA games (that keep cropping up in the news here) work out, though they seemed as doomed as the FO franchise, sadly

 

[Sorrow]

Heh, it would be cool if they would actually do it - NMA seems to be more a Tabletop Roleplaing on Computer website now than an "all things called Fallout"...
And Fallout seems to have no Future...

 

[Pcaristotle]

I'm here to be with the crowd of optimists.

This game is not the fallout 1&2 that we all played back in the day, but cmon, as much as we want a third that is pretty much the same it doesn't change the fact that a decade has gone by and some change is going to be expected.

I will say that the graphics and atmosphere look like they are going to be spot on for a first/third person fallout, I was hoping for isometric, but we all knew it was going to be this way. They kept the gore, and they are not going to have auto-scaling enemies. Food and drink sounds good, as well as broken bones...

Combat...I was really hoping for turn based (we all were), but I am going to hold off my judgment until I see it in action. It sounds like they are not going to let it be a twitch-reflex game, and that is a good thing. It sounds like they have a couple of modified ideas for combat, and I think it could be good as long as the character stats are the primary factor...like I said, I am going to hold off judgment until I see it.

Is it going to be the fallout that we all know and love? -of course not, there are too many differences. Could it be a decent game and a fun play regardless? Maybe...

It could be a lot worse...

 

[Punter X]

I am aware that Van Buren was intended for iso/turn based, but that idea was scraped

i'm not sure if you're saying what i think you're saying but i don't believe that tb/iso was scraped from van buren (unless i'm mistaken it's just that it wasn't yet implemented in the tech demo)

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..

err i'm not too sure how to reply to this in a serious tone considering what interplay is/has become

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.

in which case i can't help but wonder why you chose to use "true" when referring to yourself. if your vision is "true" what is someone's whose vision differs?

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.

err how to reply to this seriously without insults...

...

the only way i can think of is to suggest for you to read up on interplay (especially in regards to FO:BOS and onwards)

edit:damn typo

edit2: @concernedcitizen: just out of curiosity do you have different standard for a direct sequel as opposed to a game in the same universe? the reason i ask is that it almost seems like you are making a conscious effort to refer to a "fallout game" so if i may be so direct i suppose what i mean to ask you is "do you think that Fallout 3, as far as has been shown, will be a "worthy sequel" to the original games?"

please note that i'm not asking if you believe it will be a commercial success/fun game (or even if it will be a fun Fallout game)

 

[Innuendo]

We could elaborate all day on it and wouldn't come up with a common conclusion, so lets make it short:

To clarify: no, I'm not telling you that at all. I'm telling you that a full Fallout game must be isometric.

And I say isometric view isn't necessary. That's that/

Because the isometric viewpoint is part of the core design.

Which was the core design of Fallout 1/2. Doesn't mean it have to be a core design of Fallout 3 (especially since there is a 8 year gap between games)

But to prove that I'm no Bethesda agent I must say, I'm not so optimistic about Fallout 3. Mostly because different people are working on it and I don't think Bethesda is capable of creating something more that just another game.

But I'm not giving up on in

 

[Sander]

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..

The people who developed Fallout have stated that yes, they would go for a turn-based, isometric game with Fallout 3.

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.

And yet again a newbie misses the point entirely. This is not about opinions, but about facts and objectivity. And yes, the game's core design has been designed objectively. Yes, that design includes turn-based combat and an isometric viewpoint. How you can look at that and then say 'Eh, it's all subjective' is absolutely beyond me.

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.

You saying Interplay should be trusted at this point in time just shows your ignorance about the actual situation. None of the developers who worked on the original game have been with Interplay for years now. In fact, Interplay is essentially a corpse now, and has been for the past years. All they've done is those years is peddle off some licenses in an attempt to stave off total bankrupcy.

I have read that, yes, and I still fail to see its relevance. What I've posted and said was that I am looking forward to what I hope will be a good Fallout game that I will enjoy at least partially as much as I enjoyed the earlier ones. I can assure that when I purchased Fallout, I guess about a decade ago now, maybe a little less as I don't recall exactly when it was purchased (forgive me!), the objective design of the game was not a factor in my purchase, nor in my enjoyment of the game. In fact, at the time I'd say I was probably all but ignorant of the reason for a lot of the design elements, but I still got a kick out of playing it. Evidently you thought, and continue to think, differently, and that's ok with me, but you're not being remotely objective by telling me that I should value the same things that you did.

And *yet a-fucking-gain* you miss the point entirely.
I'll try this once more: Fallout's design has been objectively defined and it includes turn-based combat and an isometric point of view. This has absolutely nothing to do with taste or what one person values in the game, but about the objective, core design.
Maybe you would've enjoyed the game in a first-person perspective with real-time combat, *but that's not the fucking point*. Fallout was not made to be that game, so why are you trying to make it that game?

Let me say this once more: this will be a full sequel. Hence, as a full sequel, it should share the core design of the original game. Otherwise, it should be a spin-off.
Understand that?

Objectively, I can acknowledge that, if these are what define Fallout for you, then no, it will not be a "worthy Fallout sequel".

And again: this is not what defines Fallout for me, that is what defines Fallout *objectively*.

And I say isometric view isn't necessary. That's that/

That's neat. I've got solid facts to back up my point of view, you have none.
Guess who's actually right?

Which was the core design of Fallout 1/2. Doesn't mean it have to be a core design of Fallout 3 (especially since there is a 8 year gap between games)

It's a sequel, you bleeding idiot. So, yes, it *should* keep Fallout's core design. Otherwise it should be a spin-off.

 

[Sander]

sweet jesus, stop bickering and whining over these points....

in case you have not noticed this is a computer game, not a computerized table top game...

It was designed as a computerized table top game, in case you hadn't noticed.

afaiac - having the game open ended.... quest effects and results order (in other words the order of effects (like, if you kill someone that a later quest wants you to kill you can mention it and collect the quests reward directly... or have the string of events disrupted (like fallout)))... and the feel and ambiance of the game that just screams "fallout" I think the franchise / game can easily 'survive' the dropping of isometric perspective, and the addition of a real time aspect to combat.... and if it can't then it wasn't strong enough to bother defending tooth and nail....

expecting a game publisher to make a game exactly how YOU want it is very unrealistic, they have to look at the bottom line. sometimes its a bad thing, other times not so bad...

by what i've been seeing most of you would be happy with another fallout rehash just in a different location with different items/factions/npc's...... good for you, go back to 1999 or replay 1 and 2... or if you're really ambitious take fallout 2 and code in stuff you want....

honestly, until i see some actual game play footage I will pretty much reserve unilateral judgement.

and frankly, unless the game play really sucks I will probably still get it....

as for the title issue... why / who dictated that fallout 3 must be iso, hex turnbased rpg in 256 colors? but any other game with fallout in the title is ok, just as long as it's not followed by a 3....

Do you people even read any of the previous posts, or are you just here to rehash the same old shit someone just said 2 posts ago constantly>

 

[Tannhauser]

Just Vat trolls.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Just Vat trolls.

Correction, Tannhauser, V.A.T.S.

 

[welsh]

Cluster Fuck.
This is a cluster fuck.

What they've done is that they've take some of the ideals of Fallout and fallout 2-
SPECIAL, Vaults, Overseer, Mutants, BOS, and many of the toys,
then they've turned into into FPS- but perhaps a better FOBOS (essentially they've made a piece of shit stink a little less), add some aiming and targetting gimmics (and it sounds a bit like Halflife 2), Add all the stupid shit from Tactics combat system- throw in the BOS in the wrong part of the continent, add a BFG, and some other shit. They've added stealth elements like Thief.

And they got a fucking mess.

They've tried to please everyone- the console gamer, the oblivion fans- and have managed to fuck the fans in the process.

Why? Perhaps because they could? Because their gaming experience is based more on every other game out there?

For fuck's sake, call it something else, make it another post-apoc game, give it a new meaning. Get rid of the all the fallout stuff. Really.

Because this is a fuck up.

 

[Innuendo]

Which was the core design of Fallout 1/2. Doesn't mean it have to be a core design of Fallout 3 (especially since there is a 8 year gap between games)

It's a sequel, you bleeding idiot. So, yes, it *should* keep Fallout's core design. Otherwise it should be a spin-off.

oh rely? And who says so? you? and who the f*** are you?

some examples;
Ultima series - Ultima 1-8 isometric view, Ultima IX full 3d tpp
Dark Forces - from fps shooter to tpp slasher
Final Fantasy - totaly reinvented gameplay mechanism in XII. From Turned based random fights, to a mmorpg battle style
Vampire The Masquerade Redemption and Bloodlines
GTA
Myst
...

 

[Bad_Karma]

Okay again (as again a few pages are posted between this and my last post).

Star Wars:
X-Wing vs Tie-Fighter is not a sequel to Jedi Knigths (or the otherway round, as i don't know wich came first).
Both of them are so to say, are spin off's of the movie, they are not a sequel to the movie, nor are they sequel to the first Star Wars games. They are a spin-off brand.
And if you want to do a sequel to X-Wing vs Tie-Fighter you have to keep real-time, First Person combat, or in other words, you have to keep it a 'space-fighter'-simulation...

Beth is making
'The younger Discs - Fallout' or something like this, it's a spin-off of the original Fallout. It changed major core elements (gameplay and also graphical design as it seems - i don't mean 'uh it's an orc' but the colour palette we saw until now) and while it's still some 'Role-Playing-Game' it's no more in the same Genre as the first Fallout.
It's like Might and Magic and it's 'Action-RPG'. The Action-RPG was a spin-off.

So please dear 'This game might be fun'-posters, keep refering to it with marks around 'Fallout 3' or use my beautiful term of "The younger Discs - Fallout" (yeah i'm trying to establish this one ). And you won't get as much problems with the hardcore fans i think

When you were hoping for a CnC 3 and got CnC Renegade you wouldn't be all to happy, would you?
If you were hoping for a ISO/TB Game and get a First Person/RT game you wouldn't be too happy right? And so saying "Ahh, you must have been an idiot for hoping for a ISO/TB" don't help you either.... They said what they hoped for, and saying it's Fallout, just because this was the best thing you could hoped for isn't that smart, and i don't intend to doubt anyones intelligence here, with this words.

So plz, plz, stop saying this have to be the ture sequel in our minds, because it was the mos realistic anyone could have hoped for. It's like saying 'Don't complain about the problems in the democracy, as it's the best we could have hoped for' only because of sloth and complaints the humanity is now where it is (and no, i don't think complaining about 'The younger Discs - Fallout' is really helping the humanity to evolve further )....


-Edit-

Bloodlines isn't a sequel to Masquerade you [insert witty offence]

 

[Sander]

oh rely? And who says so? you? and who the f*** are you?

some examples;
Ultima series - Ultima 1-8 isometric view, Ultima IX full 3d tpp

Widely considered not to be a valid sequel.

Dark Forces - from fps shooter to tpp slasher

Note the name change from 'Dark Forces' to 'Jedi Knight"

Final Fantasy - totaly reinvented gameplay mechanism in XII. From Turned based random fights, to a mmorpg battle style

Widely disputed.

Vampire The Masquerade Redemption and Bloodlines

Not a sequel.

GTA

Has always kept the core design. The core design did not include a perspective for the GTA series.

Myst
...

Has always kept the core design of an adventure game.

Now, please do tell, how the fuck are you going to define what a sequel should have other than the core design aspects of previous installments?

 

[Innuendo]

Ultima series - Ultima 1-8 isometric view, Ultima IX full 3d tpp

Widely considered not to be a valid sequel.

It has a IX in a titles doesn't it? So it's a valid sequel. Not my problem they raped it...

Dark Forces - from fps shooter to tpp slasher

Note the name change from 'Dark Forces' to 'Jedi Knight"

I'm talking about Jedi Knight and Jeci Academy

Final Fantasy - totaly reinvented gameplay mechanism in XII. From Turned based random fights, to a mmorpg battle style

Widely disputed.

How about that? Just like us regarding Fallout 3?

Vampire The Masquerade Redemption and Bloodlines

Not a sequel.

my bad

GTA

Has always kept the core design. The core design did not include a perspective for the GTA series.

since when you are an oracle of saying what is the core design and what is not? From 2d to 3d with a change of perspective, just like in our case...

Myst
...

Has always kept the core design of an adventure game.

And bethesda is doing what? Making Fallout a racing game?

 

[Misteryo]

For all the "I have a right to my opinion. It's just as valid as yours." -

That's not how opinions work, and that's not what's going on here.

Here's an example of opinions you DO have a right to and which ARE just as valid as anyone else's: "I like the article. I like the sound of V.A.T.S. I like the mutant. I think this is going to be a kick-ass game." Those opinions will make you unpopular on these boards, but nobody can argue with them.

Here's an example of opinions which are NOT just as valid as anyone else's: "I think Bethesda has Fallout spot-on! I think an RT FPS is going to capture the feel and atmosphere of Fallout just fine! I think opera-lovers should shut up and listen to Arcade Fire, because opera is outdated, and music has to move forward with the times, and I think Arcade fire is so good I'm going to call it opera!" Those opinions will be argued against. You can still have those opinions, but you will look more and more ignorant and illogical and stubborn as the debate goes on.

All we're really saying is don't call it opera. We love opera. We can define what opera is and what it isn't. You don't have to like opera. You can go ahead and like Arcade Fire if you want to. But it's not opera. And we've been waiting TEN YEARS for this opera! Don't, please don't, pretty please, don't give us Arcade Fire and just call it opera. Please. Don't put wigs on Arcade Fire and say, "See? It's opera. See the wigs? That's what opera was really all about anyway was the wigs. Why do you get so upset? It's just music."

I like opera. I like Fallout. It doesn't matter if I like Arcade Fire or Doom 3 or even Oblivion, for that matter. If you say you have tickets to the opera, it better be opera, darnit! And if you tell me you've got Fallout, don't give me Doom 3 or Resident Evil 4 or Oblivion with Guns.

Misteryo

 

[Sander]

It has a IX in a titles doesn't it? So it's a valid sequel. Not my problem they raped it...

So your point is that any game made as an official sequel is automatically a *worthy* sequel?
What a bunch of horseshit.

I'm talking about Jedi Knight and Jeci Academy

Oh, you mean Jedi Academy, that *spin-off*.

How about that? Just like us regarding Fallout 3?

The point was that it was a very disputed move.

]since when you are an oracle of saying what is the core design and what is not? From 2d to 3d with a change of perspective, just like in our case...

GTA was designed around the idea of running amok in cars, around a town. The perspective was not essential to that design, which it is in the case of Fallout which was designed around the emulation of pen and paper gameplay.

Has always kept the core design of an adventure game.

And bethesda is doing what? Making Fallout a racing game? [/quote]
Making Fallout an action-RPG. Again: not what Fallout's core design is.

Let me put this simply, yet again: the point of making a sequel is to make a game in the vein of the previous game. Otherwise, you might as well make an entirely new game instead of a sequel.

 

[ManiO]

since when you are an oracle of saying what is the core design and what is not? From 2d to 3d with a change of perspective, just like in our case...

Are you fucking stupid? Strike that, we already know the answer. The original developers, the guys who gave birth to Fallout (not the ones who bought the franchise...) have said so, and if they are not the authority on the matter, WHO THE FUCK IS? (excuse the caps). And again with the 2d/3d crap. No one has said that 2D is essential to Fallout, get your facts straight asshat.