cookiemonster said:
Wow, you never said the n-word that much when I was a kid, cookiemonster 
Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Wow, you never said the n-word that much when I was a kid, cookiemonster stooge4444
First time out of the vault
I do dream of ethics though...Sander said:
Well noted! I did read the posts previous to the ones I quoted but I didn't get that correlation.
(I was going to use :idea: then I realized it was a light bulb and not a smiley that just chomped on a raspberry.
Hello cookiemonster,
Thanks.
Just in time.
Thanks.
Just in time.
Xython said:
Fallout was never, and never will be, Bethesda's brainchild. Fallout is Fallout because it wasn't created by any other company.
I really don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand that when you replace elements of a game, it doesn't continue being the same game; it's an abortion of the original idea wrought by extraneous forces (Bethesda is this case).
Thus, this game is not "Fallout" let alone "Fallout 3." It's "Bethesda's Post-Nuclear FPS."
Vault 69er
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Sorrow said: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.Vault 69er said:Sorrow said:
Oooooh you did NOT just call Aribeth a whore.
You sir are a cad!
Especially with gnomes.
As a gentleman I shall refrain from abject displays of violence and instead slap you with this trout. Ha! You didn't see that coming!
Pariah said:
Because they're modernizin, man!
You just want a carbon copy of Fallout 1 you hardcore geek! First-person view is the result of advanced technology! The fact that first-person views predate isometric is just a giant coincidence! Really!
stooge4444 said:
aha now i get you. you're using the tired old argument that beth has the legal right to make the game in whatever form they will (something that i don't believe people ever said they didn't)
as for your second point it appears you're arguing against your own stance as it was you that seemed to suggest that any discussion in this thread be directly linked to the title so while i appreciate your explanation in regards to the first point i fear that i am now confused as to the second
edit: i know it's childish but both me and my brother couldn't help but laugh at the "Wasteland Volleyball with boobs" comment
stooge4444
First time out of the vault
My comment is not relevant anymore because I misunderstood the context of Sander's comment. Sorry for the confusion...Punter X said:
Edit: grammer...just joking...gammar....crap....grammars....
Turtlelove
First time out of the vault
Why am i not mad?
I'm... not mad?
WHAT THE FUCK?!
It isn't PURELY turn based or isometric... but i'm not mad?
To be honest, i was laughing insanely while looking through the magazine.
Why am i happy?
I'm... not mad?
WHAT THE FUCK?!
It isn't PURELY turn based or isometric... but i'm not mad?
To be honest, i was laughing insanely while looking through the magazine.
Why am i happy?
Kind Stalin
First time out of the vault
Fallout 3 Looks Pretty Good
I haven't heard a lot of good things about FO3 in this forum. I really liked the magazine scans I read. I don't think I'll care for the VATS system but I love some of the little touches they added. The PipBoy is an actual device strapped to your arm. The targeted shot system that zooms in instead of giving you a wireframe, which is a great way to show off some of the amazing models in the game. From the vault dweller to the super mutants and townspeople, everything looks gritty and hazardous, and creates a pretty nice fallout-y atmosphere. High hopes here.
I haven't heard a lot of good things about FO3 in this forum. I really liked the magazine scans I read. I don't think I'll care for the VATS system but I love some of the little touches they added. The PipBoy is an actual device strapped to your arm. The targeted shot system that zooms in instead of giving you a wireframe, which is a great way to show off some of the amazing models in the game. From the vault dweller to the super mutants and townspeople, everything looks gritty and hazardous, and creates a pretty nice fallout-y atmosphere. High hopes here.
concernedcitizen
First time out of the vault
I'd say that's a fair observation to make, yes I'm hesitant to call it a "worthy" sequel, but I've already said as much; I'm waiting till I know enough to make up my mind, and that'll be when I play it, but at this stage I am attempting to be optimistic. I'm open to the idea of a "worthy" Fallout sequel using different gameplay mechanics, but I think the chances are probably limited. In that way, assuming Beth don't succeed in making a game which meets my expectations, I would expect that the new Fallout will only achieve the rank of a Fallout spin-off type game, rather than a true and worthy addition to the series, similar to BoS. So I guess it's relegated to "a new Fallout game" instead of "Fallout 3", in my mind, until I play it and see how it turns out.Punter X said:
As I said, by my reckoning the "core design" was not a factor in my enjoyment of the originals game as far as I can tell. Why would I care for it now? With all your swearing and talk of objectivity, you do not appear to have addressed this directly, aside from by telling me that I've missed the point, which is in this case synonymous with "I am too filled with rage to read your post and respond in an appropriate fashion".Sander said:
If you can't understand the words "I do not care especially for the original design, what I am hoping for is a game which in some way lives up to the experience I had playing the first game, via conjuring up a connection through means other than gameplay mechanics" then this "conversation" is going nowhere.Sander said:
Correct so far... but it goes downhill from here.Sander said:
No, the "objective definition of Fallout" does not have anything to do with values. As noted though, I'm not being objective in discussing my preferences, because they're not objective, in that they were formed through *my* experiences with Fallout. You fail to point out exactly why the objective design of the game should actually matter to me at all, when core design is not something I care for when defining what I got out of Fallout. To preempt the next response, also, "because it's (swearing) the way it was objectively defined" does not clarify this reason.Sander said:
If I'm saying what I might enjoy from the new Fallout game, you're actually mistaken, as that pretty much is the point. If I say "Hey, maybe I can get a bit of enjoyment out of a Fallout game even if it's not isometric and turn based", that IS my point, no matter how abusive you are, or how much you call on objectivity and the core design of Fallout games to justify your attack.Sander said:
I'm not, Bethesda are, I'm waiting in the wings to see how it turns out, and am hopeful that it might in some way be as enjoyable as the original Fallout games. As noted, obviously it won't hold a candle to them, but that's not part of my expectations, and as such I'm still optimistic that they can make something worth my time.Sander said:
Yes I understand this completely, and let me point out once more that this reflects your opinion on what a sequel should entail, and what elements of the Fallout games you demand to see maintained in anything with the Fallout name applied. If that works for you, then fantastic, but it's pretty obvious that it's an exacting standard and one which will not be lived up to. Again, that's fine, but it does naught to invalidate my expectations of a Fallout game. I do not expect a sequel to be cast in the exact image of the originals, though I'm aware that many people do.Sander said:
Perhaps one example of this is Bullfrog's Syndicate and Syndicate Wars. I enjoyed the latter of these immensely, though I do recall many people being upset by the departure from the original. For me however, the mood and aesthetic from the original was very much in tact and I enjoyed it at least equally, if not more. Does this mean that those who didn't like it because of the change were wrong, or that I was? No, It means that we have differing expectations, mine were met, but those of others were not; no more and no less.
You're discussing Fallout's original design, ok, so far so good. You're saying that that's what really defined the games for you, ok, still doing well. You're saying that that's what should define Fallout for everyone, because that's how it's meant to be; not so good.Sander said:
When I played the games originally, and when I play them now, I didn't, and don't, do it because I'm infatuated with a turn based interface, or because I crave an isometric perspective once in a while. I do it because I want to experience the game again, go through the ruined areas, be amused by the jokes, to follow the story through one more time, and maybe make a few decisions differently. To me, these concepts (and others like them), are the defining points of Fallout, and I don't see them as being any less valid than your fixation on how great the game's core design was, and how important it is that that be preserved.
What this says is that I took different things away from my interaction with the Fallout games, and perhaps these are rare in that I seem to value things which are different to what you, the original designers, and perhaps many others here do, or even the majority. Again, that does little to invalidate what I'm saying. We've all experienced the games in different ways, and taken away different things that made it especially enjoyable by our own standards. Why on earth would, or should an "objective design" override these experiences and values, in guiding what it is that I personally want from a new Fallout game?
I would hope that I am about to state the obvious, but I will do it in the hope that perhaps you understand what I'm saying, instead of responding with another abusive post about objective design. With so many things in life, opinions and preferences are understood and widely discussed. Reviews, for example, hinge upon this, and the huge variations you see in reviews for some games indicate that people play games looking for different things. In the same way, it is very apparent that you and I have differing things we look for in a Fallout game, and also that you have decided that your expectations should be guided by the objective design of the originals. To me however, this is a factor of diminished importance, at least as far as I can tell so far, only time will tell whether I do enjoy the new Fallout game, and this has always been my approach, optimistic but cautious.
So in short, yes, your opinion is clear to me. No, I don't particularly agree, and no, that doesn't make either of us "wrong" in our opinions. Of course, maybe a game with the same design *would* have been nice, but evidently it's not happening, and as I've said, I may be prepared to settle for less if it yields an enjoyable experience by my standards (not yours, not those dictated by objective design, not those of the church of scientology, and not that espoused by popular gaming media or anywhere else).
Maybe I won't enjoy the game if it's crap, I'll decide when I play it. I won't be told that the game is an abortion this long prior to its actual realease though, and certainly not by someone swearing at me and calling upon objectivity to justify their actions, when in reality what you're doing is discussing your opinion (fueled by objective design as it may be, it still amounts to an opinion, albeit one which is shared by many).
Edit: redundant words.
Vault 69er
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Whether you like or don't like Fallout's original design is irrelevant; that's what Fallout was.
Yeah I'm sure many will enjoy this FPS post-apocalyptic adventure but the question arises yet again: Why call it Fallout?
Edit: I'm really baffled as to how people think you can change the entire core design of Fallout and still regard it as Fallout.
Look at it this way, chess is a turn based game. There are computerised versions of chess, which are also turn based.
Now imagine if someone comes along and makes Chess 2, in first-person real time! Sure, it has a checkerboard, and all the pieces. But if some asshat just swiped away all it's rules.. how the hell is it chess anymore?
Yeah I'm sure many will enjoy this FPS post-apocalyptic adventure but the question arises yet again: Why call it Fallout?
Edit: I'm really baffled as to how people think you can change the entire core design of Fallout and still regard it as Fallout.
Look at it this way, chess is a turn based game. There are computerised versions of chess, which are also turn based.
Now imagine if someone comes along and makes Chess 2, in first-person real time! Sure, it has a checkerboard, and all the pieces. But if some asshat just swiped away all it's rules.. how the hell is it chess anymore?
Hello Vault 69er,
Other posters already went for the new and improved real time version of chess, no need to repeat it
As this for being something else than Fallout 3, but rather a game a group of Fallout fans at Bethesda made to emulate one of their favorite series while we all wait for Fallout 3, I would have been a lot more positive.
"Well it is not a RPG like most would like it, but I enjoy Action-Adventures with stat building elements so I am definitely considering giving it a try, that keeps me occupied while I wait for Fallout 3."
Bethesda lost a serious chance here, they could actually have made their very own PA game, taking place in a world of their own design, which could have attracted a portion of the Fallout fans who want to sate their interest in a PA game during the long wait.
The exploding nuclear cars and the nuclear catapult would still have been way over top but I would have accepted it as little brainfarts on the developers' side.
Other posters already went for the new and improved real time version of chess, no need to repeat it
As this for being something else than Fallout 3, but rather a game a group of Fallout fans at Bethesda made to emulate one of their favorite series while we all wait for Fallout 3, I would have been a lot more positive.
"Well it is not a RPG like most would like it, but I enjoy Action-Adventures with stat building elements so I am definitely considering giving it a try, that keeps me occupied while I wait for Fallout 3."
Bethesda lost a serious chance here, they could actually have made their very own PA game, taking place in a world of their own design, which could have attracted a portion of the Fallout fans who want to sate their interest in a PA game during the long wait.
The exploding nuclear cars and the nuclear catapult would still have been way over top but I would have accepted it as little brainfarts on the developers' side.
Jesus tittyfucking Christ that nuclear-powered car exploding pisses me off. The first thing the engineers of such a car would do before ever releasing it would be to make sure that in the event of a crash it wouldn't blow up. Fuck, all nuclear technology is designed that way - remember the Kursk Russian submarine: it fucking EXPLODED (not a bullet hitting it, no; it was half a dozen goddamn torpedoes EXPLODING), it sank, it corroded in sea water, and still had no nuclear leaks, fallout or detonation. Why on God's green earth would a nuclear powered car, that was presumably approved for public sale after rigorous safety testing, explode when you hit it with a measly bullet? Dammit, I won't even touch the issue that a nuclear-power-generating application works on an entirely different principle that an nuclear-weapon application, with neither the material type nor critical mass being there to allow any kind of "mushroom cloud".
It's one thing to suspend disbelief for whimsical 50's sci-fi ideas - e.g., radiation makes things grow larger and more powerful! How FUN!!; or, aliens crash-landing? Of COURSE they'd be packing Alien Blasters - but it's another thing to put up with lazy, gratuitous shit that's just needlessly stupid.
It's one thing to suspend disbelief for whimsical 50's sci-fi ideas - e.g., radiation makes things grow larger and more powerful! How FUN!!; or, aliens crash-landing? Of COURSE they'd be packing Alien Blasters - but it's another thing to put up with lazy, gratuitous shit that's just needlessly stupid.
Concernedcitizen,
Instead of trying to define Fallout, how about you take a look at the first two instead and then tell us how what we've seen qualifies as anything similar to them.
I don't think anyone here can accurately define a game without highlighting specific segments of said game and extrapolating dynamic interpretations. While everyone is busy doing this, the fact remains that the only definition that is required is the game itself.
Numerous times, you've made a point to say that this version looks like it has particular qualities, which Fallout had, that you see them preserving and, therefore, see it as a true Fallout game. The problem with this is that segments of a game do not make the game. It, in fact, butchers the game and displaces its harmony as a singular structure.
Because such is the case, wouldn't that mean that you could find any other game with a different title, yet isolating your preferred qualities from FO, to be an appended Fallout game?
Instead of trying to define Fallout, how about you take a look at the first two instead and then tell us how what we've seen qualifies as anything similar to them.
I don't think anyone here can accurately define a game without highlighting specific segments of said game and extrapolating dynamic interpretations. While everyone is busy doing this, the fact remains that the only definition that is required is the game itself.
Numerous times, you've made a point to say that this version looks like it has particular qualities, which Fallout had, that you see them preserving and, therefore, see it as a true Fallout game. The problem with this is that segments of a game do not make the game. It, in fact, butchers the game and displaces its harmony as a singular structure.
Because such is the case, wouldn't that mean that you could find any other game with a different title, yet isolating your preferred qualities from FO, to be an appended Fallout game?
The even dafter thing (regarding the car) is the simple fact that stuff that goes 'boom' is a commodity item in the FO universe. You'd think scavengers would have nicked anything of value like fusion cells/reactors or whatever from them.
Guess the Post Apoc population in DC didn't put enough points into Int... this is confirmed by the fact you are asked to nuke a nuke (presumably creating a dirty bomb of epic proportions)... Mentats anyone?
Guess the Post Apoc population in DC didn't put enough points into Int... this is confirmed by the fact you are asked to nuke a nuke (presumably creating a dirty bomb of epic proportions)... Mentats anyone?
Has anyone of you ever seen the movie "UHF" with 'Weird Al' Yankovic?
The main story is about some guy who gets to be director of a UHF television station and manages to make it known from coast to coast but that is not important,
During a dream scene he re enacts or parodies a scene from Rambo (probably Rambo 2) during which he attacks a Vietcong base as a pseudo Rambo armed with just a gun.
Whatever he shoots, it explodes.
Wooden houses, they explode.
A soldier who shoots the main guy from very close range, the soldier explodes when shot himself for no apparent reason.
This is probably kind of like that, whatever you shoot, it explodes, probably with a mushroom cloud.
The main story is about some guy who gets to be director of a UHF television station and manages to make it known from coast to coast but that is not important,
During a dream scene he re enacts or parodies a scene from Rambo (probably Rambo 2) during which he attacks a Vietcong base as a pseudo Rambo armed with just a gun.
Whatever he shoots, it explodes.
Wooden houses, they explode.
A soldier who shoots the main guy from very close range, the soldier explodes when shot himself for no apparent reason.
This is probably kind of like that, whatever you shoot, it explodes, probably with a mushroom cloud.
concernedcitizen
First time out of the vault
I'd agree on this, and that's why I've never said that I expect the new one to live up to the standard set by the old one. All I'm saying is that I hope for something that's halfways enjoyable and has some of the vibe left in-tact. That's not enough for everyone and I can understand that, but for me, it'd be acceptable (though not shining), and it seems to be about all I'll be seeing in terms of additions to the Fallout line any time soon, so I guess when it comes down to take it or leave it, I'm hoping for something that I'm happy to take. I acknowledge the potential, and perhaps even likelihood, that it will seem butchered, but I'm hoping that Bethesda can cook something up which avoids this. Only time will tell in my opinion, because so far I've seen things that make me hope that this is the case, and other things which remind me that it's unlikely.Pariah said:
True enough as well, but then that's why I'm not really expecting a "true" Fallout sequel, and not something that's widely embraced as a worthy sequel that fits perfectly, just something that's not utterly worthless, and takes some of the ideas that I enjoyed from the first two Fallout games and does something enjoyable with them.Pariah said:
