Gamespot's Fallout: New Vegas Demo at E3

[Crni Vuk]

What I don't like at this post: You say that beeing a psycho in games means that you kill everything (even children). This leads me to my next point: Why the fuck means beeing evil in a game always kill everything and everyone? IMO, this is a very cheap way of doing "evil" characters. "Good" helps everyone and "evil" kills everyone. Bleh, how boring..

I did not said "Evil" characters. Of course the REAL ideas behind playing evil characters is not really exploited enough in most games. Particularly RPGs. But I was talking about a "psycho" I think that could be somewhat defined by the way how you kill and that you dont care about death or life. The evil character which is doing something with a target is a different kind of player.

Its more about the fact that Fallout 3 pretty much used violance as a "selling point". Yet you could not use this "violance" against very many characters ... making it somewhat a hypocritical point in my eyes. I slaughtered once everyone in the Pentagon just for the fun of it ... just to run in 2-3 unkillable characters ... how awesome is that !

 

[x'il]

I find it funny how some people believe they can justify about any inconsistant retarded direction the FO setting is taken to by clinging to the 'argument' that it's been X years and civilization is coming back and blablabla... FO4 could happen at a Deus Ex world then, just slap some retro garbage, a couple of power armors and a gizillion of "incredibly funny (and necessary!)" references and that's it!! I guess there could still be Fallout in a Post-Post-Apoc retro-future setting, right?

This 'time passes and changes everything' argument combined with the argument i was discussing with someone else in another thread, that, the current IP owner dictates what is and what is not
'fallout-y' instead of the original Fallout game (FO1), makes for a very nonsensical fanboy-ish 'this is what fallout is all about (for now), take it and shut up'... mmm, I'm sorry, but no.

 

[cogar66]

I find it funny how some people believe they can justify about any inconsistant retarded direction the FO setting is taken to by clinging to the 'argument' that it's been X years and civilization is coming back and blablabla... FO4 could happen at a Deus Ex world then, just slap some retro garbage, a couple of power armors and a gizillion of "incredibly funny (and necessary!)" references and that's it!! I guess there could still be Fallout in a Post-Post-Apoc retro-future setting, right?

This 'time passes and changes everything' argument combined with the argument i was discussing with someone else in another thread, that, the current IP owner dictates what is and what is not
'fallout-y' instead of the original Fallout game (FO1), makes for a very nonsensical fanboy-ish 'this is what fallout is all about (for now), take it and shut up'... mmm, I'm sorry, but no.

And you suggest keeping the world in the same state it was in FO1 more than 100 years later? Blame Bethesda, they were the ones who stopped Obsidian from making NV between FO1 and FO2.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

One of my problems with Bethesda handling the Fallout franchise is that how many years will pass in their games, the world will still look like several decades after the War.

That shows to me that Bethesda does not have an idea of handling the Fallout franchise, treating it like they would a generic fantasy setting were there is never any form of true progress either.

 

[Starwars]

I find it funny how some people believe they can justify about any inconsistant retarded direction the FO setting is taken to by clinging to the 'argument' that it's been X years and civilization is coming back and blablabla... FO4 could happen at a Deus Ex world then, just slap some retro garbage, a couple of power armors and a gizillion of "incredibly funny (and necessary!)" references and that's it!! I guess there could still be Fallout in a Post-Post-Apoc retro-future setting, right?

This 'time passes and changes everything' argument combined with the argument i was discussing with someone else in another thread, that, the current IP owner dictates what is and what is not
'fallout-y' instead of the original Fallout game (FO1), makes for a very nonsensical fanboy-ish 'this is what fallout is all about (for now), take it and shut up'... mmm, I'm sorry, but no.

If that was directed at my post, I did say that whether it fits thematically or not is a separate discussion.

Personally I would've rather had the franchise end long time ago so that maybe there could come a *new* game that could wow me like Fallout 1 originally did. I think both options regarding the setting will be wrong in the end. If we stay around the same general time of the first game then I think it'd be rather boring and repetitive. But, if one moves away too far from the more immediate post-apocalypse then the setting loses it Fallouty-ness.

 

[SharkClub]

One of my problems with Bethesda handling the Fallout franchise is that how many years will pass in their games, the world will still look like several decades after the War.

I think this picture sums it up pretty well:

 

[Per]

What are you complaining about? Those are some spiffy telephone poles and houses.

 

[alec]

This 'time passes and changes everything' argument combined with the argument i was discussing with someone else in another thread, that, the current IP owner dictates what is and what is not
'fallout-y' instead of the original Fallout game (FO1), makes for a very nonsensical fanboy-ish 'this is what fallout is all about (for now), take it and shut up'... mmm, I'm sorry, but no.

So Matt Groening has some financial problems and he has to sell The Simpsons franchise to the highest bidder. Spyglass Entertainment buys it and promises to continue the series, but they'll make a few adjustments just to make the series more here and now.
The new season gets launched and now The Simpsons are delivered in 3D (Spyglass: "'Cause Homer gets trapped in a 3D
space continuum in one of the old episodes, and we thought that was like really cool"), Bart and Lisa are in fact adopted Chinese children (Spyglass: "The Chinese economy is growing and it is a market we have to reach out to"), Flanders is now a fundamentalist muslim (Spyglass: "Remember 9 11?") and the Simpsons family are on the brink of starting up a space colony on Ube Cortis, an Earth-like satellite revolving around Quid Cunt Corpo, a gas giant in the Zeta Gamma Jo Jo quadrant, 258 lightyears from Earth which has now changed into a waterworld where mister Burns rules almighty, commanding an army of giant squid to overrun and take control of the last oil drilling platforms on the planet. Mister Burns is also married to Abe Simpson, after Abe lost his genitals to Obi One Kenobi.

Hup: canon. 'Cause the franchise now belongs to a different company and they'll decide what is Simpson-like and what not.



Right. I think NOT.

One of my problems with Bethesda handling the Fallout franchise is that how many years will pass in their games, the world will still look like several decades after the War.

I think this picture sums it up pretty well:

No, it doesn't. You guys don't think this through: the world of Fallout is out of oil reserves. The oil is gone. There is no more black gold to rebuild society. There are no neighbouring countries willing to lend you a hand. The world is completely fucked up. If anything, FO3 and New Vegas still look too clean and well-maintained.

Personally I would've rather had the franchise end long time ago so that maybe there could come a *new* game that could wow me like Fallout 1 originally did.

This.
Instead of having publishers spend millions of dollars on old successful franchises only to see them tear it apart and fuck it up for good, I'd rather have a world where people come up with new things, new stories, new settings instead of just new engines, new ways of copyprotecting their mediocre product, new ways of plastic embalming their mediocre product, new ways of adding completely irrelevant and kitschy bonus material to their already mediocre product and so on.

However, as long as there will be a sufficient audience who is content with those mediocre products, an audience that is even willing to defend these mediocre products to death, well, as long as that is the case, not a bloody thing will change.

 

[SharkClub]

No, it doesn't. You guys don't think this through: the world of Fallout is out of oil reserves. The oil is gone. There is no more black gold to rebuild society. There are no neighbouring countries willing to lend you a hand. The world is completely fucked up. If anything, FO3 and New Vegas still look too clean and well-maintained.

In Fallout 1 and 2 you could witness the change and rebuilding of California. Green grass and trees starting to grow, just like how it should progress realistically.

In Fallout 3 (20 or so years after Fo2?) everything looks like it was nuked last week and the wasteland is filled with people without enough common sense to scavenge Supermarkets or not to build a town around an unexploded bomb.

Even without oil, nature would take its course and trees would grow. Instead the world of Fo3 is full of brown and bloom.

 

[alec]

Oh, I totally agree on fauna and flora. They should be abundant. I don't agree on complex cities, complex economies because the lack of oil does not allow for that to happen. Tribal/raider communities would make much more sense, people working the soil and their souls, people scavenging and recycling stuff from the olden days, most of which they do not understand any longer.

 

[Ausir]

Well, there were complex cities and complex economies long before we were dependant on oil, although they should mostly be on 19th century tech level.

 

[Lexx]

Reminds me of Caesar's time. :>

 

[nemetoad]

One of my problems with Bethesda handling the Fallout franchise is that how many years will pass in their games, the world will still look like several decades after the War.

I think this picture sums it up pretty well:

That...doesn't sum up anything. All three examples here happened when the rest of the world was still functioning, able to give immediate aid, and NOT struggling to survive. Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit by very early designed nuclear weapons (atomic bombs) that are about 1/100th the power of nuclear weapons existing today. Considering Fallout has technology far superior to our own today, while keeping the aesthetic of 1950s' science fiction (That being DOS-based computers, fuzzy tvs, 1950s-styled city-of-tomorrow architecture, and nuclear weapons looking like atomic bombs) I think it's safe to say that what leveled the US wasn't anything to the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What we should see isn't trees, brown rubble, etc. but rather large craters where everything within at least 10 miles of the detonation is literally vaporized. We shouldn't even HAVE a DC area to see, just a giant crater. Regardless, that wouldn't be a fun environment to play, so why would they design it that way?

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

To be honest, I felt that Washington DC was not a good setting to start with, as the poster above me made clear.
Washington should have been a collection of radioactive craters and the 'skeletons' of building, twisted metal and blocks of concrete.

Perhaps that is not realistic correct but that is at least the imagine I have with a devastating nuclear attack; something from the first two Terminator movies, minus the Hunter Killers.

What I meant earlier is that after two hundred years I would expect some kind of society to have emerged again that is bigger than a couple of shacks spread across the wasteland, with traders maintaining contact with another.
Real traders, not two man and their single brahmin.

It would not necessarily mean electricity and running water everywhere, but at least small realistic towns as in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

Edit: sentence wrong written.

 

[nemetoad]

Aye, I do have a problem with that myself. It's more of an issue that outside Megaton and Rivet City they left "settlements" with bare essential NPCs for quests. Of the settlements the two that are the most interesting in design were Canterbury Commons (Ignoring the wannabe superheroes that is) and Arefu, both of which were actual settlements with at least 4 members. They definitely needed more development, but were interesting.

I understand what you mean though. For an area that is so small in comparison to Fallout 1 and 2, there is a lack of actual trading existing. Each "city" seemed more in the direction of self-sufficiency instead of interconnected relationships. Rivet City easily could have been a source of water for other settlements while Megaton a source of scrap, etc. The biggest connection seen was Little Lamplight and Big town.

More or less it just felt like the cities were good concepts that never made it past the development stage.