GameSpot poll

[Vault 69er]

It doesn't surprise me. Almost everybody I argue with over Fallout accuses me of being stuck in the past and say "naturally games need to be updated for 2007".
Once I responded that Van Buren was 3D and I didn't mind that, and they come back with "It's still isometric! Only first-person is modern."
What?

 

[Odin]

Talk about taking a stab at people on a poll, never thought we would see this from a "respectable" gaming site..

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

As someone far better at me at writing a well grounded text pointed out, "First Person Perspective" seems to be the magic word on every gamer's list these days if the game is not an RTS or sports game, and if it is not FPP than it at least should be 3rd Person.

On some forum I read that it would be 'scarier' to run into a Deathclaw in FPP mode than see it from miles away in Isometric viewpoint.
Why would it be scarier? Is Fallout trying to emulate Doom these days?

I have played my load of horror/survival theme games and last I checked Fallout was not a part of that genre.

I can not help but to think that when a game becomes FPP and involves action elements that sooner or later you have to take precise shots at someone to take him or her or it out, and rather than depending on just the skill of your character it depends on how well you can aim with your mouse or gamepad.

Yes, people might say that a Deus Ex approach should be done, the weapon jerking around until enough you have allocated enough points to that particular weapon skill, but what stops me from running head on with a minigun to fire it at close range.
Yes I am going to waste ammo but I take out the damn thing I want to kill.

In Fallout it did not matter how close you were with your weapon, if your character sucked at using a weapon like a gun or a knife, you could still miss and be open for a counter attack.

I think that makes a player far more worried than seeing another digital beast in front of you in FPP mode.

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

The generic mood for most of these websites is (at the moment):

"What the fuck, Bethesda is working on FALLOUT? Who the hell even plays that sort of horseshit? , come on guys let's go review the Halo 3 Beta again."

 

[Vault 69er]

The generic mood for most of these websites is (at the moment):

"What the fuck, Bethesda is working on FALLOUT? Who the hell even plays that sort of horseshit? , come on guys let's go review the Halo 3 Beta again."

I think it's more like:

"Fallout? These stupid fanboys should be grateful that Bethesda is making a Fallout and updating it for modern times! But no, they want their isometric 640x480 resolution sprites! LOL lamers."

 

[Sander]

It doesn't surprise me. Almost everybody I argue with over Fallout accuses me of being stuck in the past and say "naturally games need to be updated for 2007".
Once I responded that Van Buren was 3D and I didn't mind that, and they come back with "It's still isometric! Only first-person is modern."
What?

Actually, I've seen the exact opposite. Most people who've actually played Fallout (and hence have some form of interest in it) *do* feel that it should be isometric and turn-based. Although they're generally not as adamant about it.

 

[aries369]

The options in gamespot's poll are kind of *stupid*. They automatically seem to think that people either want Oblivion with guns or some rehash of the old TB, isometric games from 10 years ago. And some us really don't want either game...

 

[Terrasque]

I'm not sure they're trying to make Oblivion with Guns seem like a good thing. From the way it was written, it seems more a-matter-of-fact. "Yep, that's Oblivion with guns, alright." Kind of like, "Yep, my assumptions look to be correct. I thought it was just going to be Oblivion with guns and I think I'm right. *sigh*"

In either case, their options were limited to a basically negative response. It was either:

"It looks okay...but I'm still not happy cause now I have to wait a long time."

"Yep, that's what I thought. It's just gunna be another Oblivion with guns...fuck..."

"I'm a pissy, whiney Fallout fanboy who's stuck in the past and is afraid of technological advancements."

"Durrrrrrr...wuut r falloutz?"

I personally would have liked something along the lines of:

"Well, it looks pretty good, but I don't think we can make any assumptions about how closely it's going to follow the original games and from what perspective it's going to be from."

Or something of that nature...

((What, I don't even get to make fun of 733t speak? The site calls me a motherfucker for saying wut))

 

[greene]

I've given up on it being a turn based game.


I am not hip to some of the lingo so I don't know what it's called, but what I think would be cool is if they made a combat system where the weapons and actions have a cooldown time or a reload time or whatever but still being able to move and dodge your enemies. So in a sense it's kind of turn based but you aren't just standing there waiting for your enemy to make their move. I think if they implemented a system like that and kept a HEAVY EMPHASIS on the Role Playing part of the game then they would be able to appeal to quite a few people. Turn based was a part of the game for me but it was the Character development/storyline/content that kept me interested in fallout and fallout 2 for all these years.

 

[Brother None]

Amusing that "What's Fallout?" is winning the poll

Actually, I've seen the exact opposite. Most people who've actually played Fallout (and hence have some form of interest in it) *do* feel that it should be isometric and turn-based. Although they're generally not as adamant about it.

Actually, while it's really hard to judge majorities and minorities, I think there is a large group pro-iso/turn-based, either adamantly or not, and a group, even people who liked the originals, who think it should be FP/realtime, but the largest group really just doesn't care about combat mechanics, and would probably be just as happy with an iso/tb game as an fp/rt game.

 

[scypior]

The generic mood for most of these websites is (at the moment):

"What the fuck, Bethesda is working on FALLOUT? Who the hell even plays that sort of horseshit? , come on guys let's go review the Halo 3 Beta again."

And think that they treat like that the game which certainly figure on top positions in 'what's your favourite game' surveys and so on.

 

[Slicerdicer]

20-21? yeesh! Talk about making me feel old. You kids are significantly younger than the average Xbox 360 owner.

I do think age plays a big part, considering that if what you say is true, the average NMAer here was what, 10-12 when Fallout came out? Odds are that you were kind of on the rare side for even playing the game at your age. I was the same way. I starting on playing PC/Apple II RPGs when I was around 8 or 9 with games like Wizardry and Akalabeth. I guess I was about that 10 when Wasteland came out. But I'm sure that 90% of the kids I was friends with didn't know what those games were.

Snip-

I'll say. I'm 35 and played wasteland when I was around 12-14 age on a c64. Heh. Great fun though.

I hope this new Fallout will have the same enjoyment factor as the first two and Wasteland for that matter. I lean more to TD ISO TB my self.

 

[thorsen-ink]

Tor from GameSpot

Uh, anyone who thinks that poll is a stab at NMA need to chill the hell out. It is a joke, nothing more, with no barbs at anyone in particular, about the various viewpoints about FO3. If you're sounding off that it's an expression of some grand conspiracy out to get your personally you need to:

a) realize you're not the center of the universe (I'm looking at you, Odin, and not just b/c you appropriated my pagan god's handle)
b) get a sense of humor (As foghorn leghorn) "It's a joke, son, a joke."
c) accept that there's varying opinions on this issue--none of which GameSpot is pushing
d) Need to find something more pressing to sound off about.
e) watch more daily show

And for all you "he's biased" kids in the house, for the record:

1) I love Fallout 1 & 2 with a passion
2) I HATE, HATE, HATED Fallout: POS for Xbox/PS2 and think everyone involved in its making should be burned alive
3) Loved Oblivion so much I played it for 200+ hours
4) Was frustrated with aspects of Obliv's skill system
5) Think Bethesda gets FO and will do it right, albeit not in ISO form
6) I strive to instill neutrality in all GS News articles and have written objectively about many games I loathe

OK? E-mail me at tor@gamespot.com if you need further reassurance.

 

[Brother None]

Hey Tor! Prepare to be flamed! Heh, just kidding. I love the current results of the poll, tho'

I HATE, HATE, HATED Fallout: POS for Xbox/PS2 and think everyone involved in its making should be burned alive

Greg Kasavin disagrees with you. 7.3, good?

 

[thorsen-ink]

Flame away! I welcome the distraction.

I find the results of the poll--the fact most GS users don't even know what FO is--disheartening to say the least. It's like hearing some whiny teen talk up the latest Michael Bay craptacular and then seeing the blank look on their face when you mention Seven Samurai. "Transformers looks awesome!....Akira who?"

 

[FeelTheRads]

a) realize you're not the center of the universe

Yeah, typical counter-strike when you don't want to look like a moron - blame the others for misinterpreting.

b) get a sense of humor (As foghorn leghorn) "It's a joke, son, a joke."

How come there wasn't a "ZOMG!!! OVLIVION WIHT GUNZ!!! I LOVZORS MINDLESS GAMEZ!!!!!" option?
Then it would've been funny indeed.

 

[Tannhauser]

c) accept that there's varying opinions on this issue--none of which GameSpot is pushing

Well, out of the four options, three are rather neutral. The last is comically overstated, but still portrays traditionalists in a negative light. It seems a bit one-sided.

I do have a question though, why "Oblivion with mutants?" You seem to use that expression frequently, though the common phrase is "Oblivion with guns." That goes back to when Bethesda first bought the rights, it used to be "Morrowind with guns." and it has gained a strong foothold in certain communities.

 

[thorsen-ink]

Greg Kasavin disagrees with you. 7.3, good?

When Greg K worked here, he and I saw eye-to-eye on almost every game review--with a few exceptions. The biggest one was this. I actually stepped into his office after playing POS and asked him how he could give it a semi-decent review. He said that on its own merits, as a dungeon crawl set in a post-apocalyptic setting, it was OK. I told him I thought he was wrong about that and Deus Ex Invisible War at length.

Whatever. Greg K used to talk a lot about integrity and not selling out. Homeboy works for EALA now. You do the math.

 

[thorsen-ink]

a) realize you're not the center of the universe

Yeah, typical counter-strike when you don't want to look like a moron - blame the others for misinterpreting.

b) get a sense of humor (As foghorn leghorn) "It's a joke, son, a joke."

How come there wasn't a "ZOMG!!! OVLIVION WIHT GUNZ!!! I LOVZORS MINDLESS GAMEZ!!!!!" option?
Then it would've been funny indeed.

a) Sorry you feel that way. Being in a public forum requires you take the slings and arrows. (offers bow)

b) That's a little obvious, methinks.

 

[Brother None]

Still, Tor, personal disagreement or not, without taking any possible motives or integrity into it, don't you see how review like those of BoS are pretty harmful for how reliable gamers can find your site? A number of gaming sites gave BoS good reviews despite enormous consensus everywhere that it was a badly executed bad idea, I feel that says something about the gaming media and especially the way the gaming media grades games, and I think one the long run it'll hurt your credibility too much, if you keep doing it.

Same goes for Oblivion. It was a good game, some would say great, but from the reviews, you'd figure it was completely flawless. And that's just nonsense. It had bugs, it had bad design decisions, and it had elements some people will like and some will dislike. So cover those, honestly. Haven't seen much of that.