GGL previews Fallout 3

[NukaColaClassic]

Perhaps, but it doesn't belong in the Fallout gameplay.

But who are you to decide what is Fallout and what's not? In the end it boils down to the decision of the creators. But you know what, what I'd love to see is some interviews with former Black Isle employees and the Fallout creators. I want to know what they think of how Fallout 3 is shaping up. Has anyone been able to contact Tim Cain? Brian Fargo?

 

[FeelTheRads]

Anything right now is just speculation, I think. Let's wait 'till the game comes out.

No. No. NO.

Again this bullshit.

Not everything is speculation. We have enough details to tell us this is not a Fallout game. Again, whether it's a good game or not, I don't give a rat's ass. I'm willing to bet it's a crap game too (nuclear catapults etc.), not only a crap Fallout, but I really don't care.

So, no. What purpose does waiting have?
I certainly don't intend to waste my money on this piece of crap, although many people it seems are so eager to make Bethesda happy.
Remember, once you bought it, it really doesn't matter anymore if you don't like it.
You've been Bethesdized.

 

[Brother None]

Brian Fargo had nothing to do with Fallouts.

The original creators aren't going to rag on or praise a sequel to their game, much. Why? Because that's bad form in the industry. They didn't even comment on F:BoS, does that mean they liked it?

Instead, read their interviews on NMA and read about the design of Fallout. What you and I think is what you and I think, but the base design is pretty clear.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Anything right now is just speculation, I think. Let's wait 'till the game comes out.

Correct, a lot is speculation but we now already have some evidence with which direction Bethesda is going with Fallout 3, and the fans who 'grew' up with the first two Fallouts simply don't like that 'way'.

Its not that we don't want Fallout to attract new fans, I would recommend the first two games to any gamer who wants to try something different than the games he or she normally plays, and if they are stuck I will help him.

But why should Fallout have to be 'moved' away from what it is?
To attract new fans?
My reasoning, I think a developers primary goal should be to create a sequel that appeals to the existing fan base, then start thinking of how to attract more fans.
Not create a game that is primarily designed for a whole different kind of gamer, and then try to attract the original fan base.

 

[NukaColaClassic]

Anything right now is just speculation, I think. Let's wait 'till the game comes out.

No. No. NO.

Again this bullshit.

Not everything is speculation. We have enough details to tell us this is not a Fallout game. Again, whether it's a good game or not, I don't give a rat's ass. I'm willing to bet it's a crap game too (nuclear catapults etc.), not only a crap Fallout, but I really don't care.

So, no. What purpose does waiting have?
I certainly don't intend to waste my money on this piece of crap, although many people it seems are so eager to make Bethesda happy.
Remember, once you bought it, it really doesn't matter anymore if you don't like it.
You've been Bethesdized.

It's YOUR opinion that this is not a "Fallout game." And yes, I know that's the opinion of most of the people here. But I really don't think previews ever do a game justice. It's not until you're at the control, playing the game, and seeing it for yourself. So I'm going to wait 'till Fallout 3 comes out. And if it turns out to be this "Oblivion with Guns" I'll be here and I'll tell you that you were right. But until then...

 

[NukaColaClassic]

But why should Fallout have to be 'moved' away from what it is?
To attract new fans?
My reasoning, I think a developers primary goal should be to create a sequel that appeals to the existing fan base, then start thinking of how to attract more fans.
Not create a game that is primarily designed for a whole different kind of gamer, and then try to attract the original fan base.

It's a sign of the times. Games have changed. The ways games are being developed are changed. Game companies want money. They want to attract as many people as possible so they can increase their cash reserves. Developers don't owe shit to their fans, because in the end, they're a business. Sure, in an ideal situation, people would get what they wanted, but the bottom line is that the company has to make the game more appealing and more accessible to a larger audience so it can make a profit. And as hardcore and dedicated fans as you guys are, you're a small minority in the scope of gaming. If Bethesda loses you, it really wouldn't hurt the game or the industry in any way.

EDIT: And I do apologize, I've never really introduced myself. I'm NukaCola, I've been a Fallout Fan since 2002 when I stumbled upon the games. Fallout 1 & 2 remain one of my favorite RPG's and among the few games that I can give a perfect 10 to. And as much as I love the first two, I'm welcome to the big change with Fallout 3 (a Fallout 1 & 2 fan that is giving Fallout 3 a chance?! INCONCEIVABLE!!). Keep in mind that after playing 80 hours of Oblivion I realized its huge shortcomings and it made me feel pretty dead inside.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Hello NukaColaClassic,

Yes, but wouldn't it have been easier to create a complete new franchise, lets call it Ground Zero: DC, than take a name with an established background.

Yes, I know Bethesda bought Fallout becomes some of the designers are fans and because the name has some recognition.
But starting off with your own original franchise wouldn't have brought all this 'mess' with it, plus Bethesda might have been able to attract Fallout fans with it as well.

Heck, I admit the graphics Bethesda made look nice (but they simply are not Fallout).
If Ground Zero: DC did well in the reviews I would have definitely checked it out.

 

[NukaColaClassic]

Hello NukaColaClassic,

Yes, but wouldn't it have been easier to create a complete new franchise, lets call it Ground Zero: DC, than take a name with an established background.

Yes, I know Bethesda bought Fallout becomes some of the designers are fans and because the name has some recognition.
But starting off with your own original franchise wouldn't have brought all this 'mess' with it, plus Bethesda might have been able to attract Fallout fans with it as well.

Heck, I admit the graphics Bethesda made look nice (but they simply are not Fallout).
If Ground Zero: DC did well in the reviews I would have definitely checked it out.

"Simply are not Fallout." Not to sound like an ass, but what are you, an omniscient entity that decides what's Fallout and what's not?

Where is it written that Fallout has to be everything that the first two are? If any other game were to stay the same for three straight iterations it would get trashed for being more of the same (See: Castlevania, Street Fighter, Mega Man). Sure the nostalgia would be great but without change, the series you all love so very much could end up being stale and redundant.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

NukaColaClassic, why do you keep making my words so as if they are some kind of attack on you?

I listen to your opinion and reasons and I give my own and try to back them in a good way, and I stay polite during it.

Okay, I am not the definite source on Fallout, my opinion doesn't matter anymore than anyone elses.
But the people that made Fallout made, did so according to a design which most of the later games followed, improving and tweaking it as they worked on these games.

I am simply bringing these up, I am not inventing them myself.

 

[NukaColaClassic]

I apologize, I didn't want to make it seem like I'm being a giant asshole.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

I apologize, I didn't want to make it seem like I'm being a giant asshole.

No offense taken
And I am not disliking you for simply having a different opinion

 

[Kukident]

Hello NukaColaClassic,

Yes, but wouldn't it have been easier to create a complete new franchise, lets call it Ground Zero: DC, than take a name with an established background.

Yes, I know Bethesda bought Fallout becomes some of the designers are fans and because the name has some recognition.
But starting off with your own original franchise wouldn't have brought all this 'mess' with it, plus Bethesda might have been able to attract Fallout fans with it as well.

Heck, I admit the graphics Bethesda made look nice (but they simply are not Fallout).
If Ground Zero: DC did well in the reviews I would have definitely checked it out.

"Simply are not Fallout." What are you, an omniscient entity that decides what's Fallout and what's not?

as described above by our favourite nun, his opinion is his opinion and yours is yours but what Fallout makes Fallout be Fallout is a more complicated thing involving many things for example the 50's style, the great amosphere, the wonderful graphics, the "feeling", the choices which had concequences that couldn't be changed (i don't mean choices like "olol, i nuked megaton, now i cant make teh questz0rs there anymore to raize my XXXXpPPp"), the possibility to totally go your own way in both creating your character, evolving it and making choices, the little funny stuffs in it like the nuka cola, the great story, the good dialogues, the nearly unique humour, and not to forget the turn based fighting which was in my opinion a good choice and which let you do some tactics in the fights.

and this is only a part of the things that make "Fallout"

and btw. i dont think Bethesda will include many of those things into Fallout 3, and if then those will be put into the game probably in a very "industrial" way, just to say "it haz this featur3" and probably list it on the back of the gamepackage...
they make this game for the mainstream
the mainstream doesn't care for a deep game which is outstandingly innovative and unique (i don't refer to fallout here, fallout was in some ways innovative, but not outstandingly), they want nice graphics and effects and it has to be easy to understand and quick to get in so those people don't feel stupid in the few time they play

bethesda puts so much money in marketing and buying magazine writers that this game just has to be targeted onto the mainstream...

 

[NukaColaClassic]

Anyway I'm going to hit the hay now, I'll check up on more comments tomorrow, hopefully there will be lots.

 

[Placid]

There are several things that "decide what Fallout is", from the design documents, articles and interviews with the creators, Fallout 1 & 2, etc.

To use an analogy.. if you are for example a fan of Star Trek, wouldnt you be able to recognise the world (universe in this case), and point out something if its wrong (subtly or glaringly so) ?

But hey.. i just bought the Star Trek IP, and for my next movie, i'll be introducing lightsabres and the Schwartz (and more orcish looking Klingons), because its innovative...its progress.... its a "sign of the times"... and if you happen to disagree and perhaps even become vocal about it, i certainly hope you get some deadly illness and die (last part is roughly paraphrasing Gamespy).

Maybe not the best analogy, but hopefully you'll get my point

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Has 'Raunch' or 'Rauch' been vocal lately?

 

[NukaColaClassic]

and btw. i dont think Bethesda will include many of those things into Fallout 3,

Well,

50's style? Well they've got those licensed music tracks, they've got the Inkspots. They have Vault Boy and the 50's-esque billboards. The teaser alone made me sure that Bethesda can pull off the 50's vibe in the game.

The great atmosphere. The previews have been saying how leaving the Vault and entering the wasteland in Fallout 3 is an exhilarating transition.

The wonderful graphics. I think Bethesda has it nailed down. I like the graphics of Fallout 3.

We can't get the "feeling" until we actually play Fallout 3, so that one's up in the air.

he choices which had concequences that couldn't be changed (i don't mean choices like "olol, i nuked megaton, now i cant make teh questz0rs there anymore to raize my XXXXpPPp")

I found the Megaton consequence to be incredible. I don't recall Fallout 1 & 2 ever having the option of obliterating an entire town via an atom bomb. And why do you mock the whole Megaton aspect? Obviously the developers aren't going to tell you every single consequence in the preview. They can't spoil the game like that.

the possibility to totally go your own way in both creating your character, evolving it and making choices

The developers have been talking about the replay value of Fallout 3 and the different ways a player can approach situations. I don't think there's anything to be afraid of there.

I saw Nuka Cola in the teaser. As for story, sure, the "go out and find your father" seems rather cliche, but so did "save your Vault" and "save your tribe." The good dialogue we still really haven't seen due to the limited amount of screenshots we've got, but I did read about the Sheriff of Megaton threatening you and such, and the choice for your character to call him a "dick." That all sounds rather interesting. And yes, turn-based tactics were great, but what makes you think there will be no tactic involved in Fallout 3? I really don't think this is going to be the "run n' gun" game many of you have been talking about. Complain about V.A.T.S. all you want, but there's tactics involved in its system. And when fighting in realtime, there's tactics in trying to find cover, quickly deciding what you should do to get rid of the enemy.

I dunno, I'm not as worried as some of you are..

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Hello NukaColaClassic

I found the Megaton consequence to be incredible. I don't recall Fallout 1 & 2 ever having the option of obliterating an entire town via an atom bomb. And why do you mock the whole Megaton aspect? Obviously the developers aren't going to tell you every single consequence in the preview. They can't spoil the game like that.

I think it is the context which make people here worry.
From what I understand the motivation for detonating the bomb is because some land developers want to clear Megaton so that they can build something new on it.

People will immediately say "But the area is now radioactive, why the hell would someone want to build something on a place were just hours or days ago a nuclear bomb exploded."

Atomic weapons were to be so feared that not even desperate people would try to detonate one.
Now perhaps it feels more like detonating atomic bombs for the sake of it.

Rather I think people would have liked to have seen something more subtle regarding clearing out the town of Megaton without resorting to detonating atomic bombs.
You know, get rid of the sheriff and get some raiders to make life so miserable for the inhabitants that they leave on their own and more such examples.


Truth be told, we have no real idea yet why this guy wanted the bomb to be detonated.
Perhaps his town sees Megaton as a potential rival, perhaps this is someone with a very strong anti nuclear weapon sentiment

I am going to leave judgement open on this one until we know more.

 

[pnutz]

Graphics are nice, yes. Certainly good looking. But they've altered some things in a way that seems lazy, not imaginative. The Vault suits are now shirts and slacks, instead of retro-futuristic body-fitting jumpsuits. The mutants look like something out of Doom 3. Things look blasted and desolate, but not so much retro-futuristic besides the car and a couple of billboards.

I thought the Ink Spots were an incredibly boring choice, particularly their choice of a song that the original developers found too on the nose. They had a chance to explore different pre- and post-war music to find something sufficiently somatic, but the just fell back whatever Fallout 1 used. Also the theme music, if that's what's playing in the trailer, sucks. It's the score to a fucking Bruckheimer PA movie. I await the 20-song tracklist with bated breath.

 

[Kukident]

and btw. i dont think Bethesda will include many of those things into Fallout 3,

Well,

50's style? Well they've got those licensed music tracks, they've got the Inkspots. They have Vault Boy and the 50's-esque billboards. The teaser alone made me sure that Bethesda can pull off the 50's vibe in the game.

licensing music tracks ain't all,.. as you might now such music tracks were just played in intros.. the background music during Fo1 and 2 was great though,.. it played a great part in making a great atmosphere

however, aside from the intro i couldn't see anything 50s style in that game.. not even Fallout-style, the "mutants" look like resident evil monsters mixed with orcs, that's just totally wrong!

also the graphic style was TOTALLY different from that one we had in the both original fallouts; they were post-apocalyptic (and that's what i like) but not fallout-y (which annoys me as it calls itself "FALLOUT 3")

The great atmosphere. The previews have been saying how leaving the Vault and entering the wasteland in Fallout 3 is an exhilarating transition.

i think they possibly can make the atmosphere good

i was just listing things that made fallout good, and one of them was the fallout-atmosphere

The wonderful graphics. I think Bethesda has it nailed down. I like the graphics of Fallout 3.

I don't

principially they are "good", means better than the average, and totally fit into a post apocalyptic game and look therefore fine, BUT, and here is the but, this is FALLOUT, and as i said already, the graphics should be done in the style of Fallout 1 and 2 if they make a game called Fallout THREE, and not in the style of _any_ post-apocalyptic game or something they just made up

they really should have called it differently

We can't get the "feeling" until we actually play Fallout 3, so that one's up in the air.

sure, the feeling also has to do much with the credibility of the game and how much heart they put into it and also it's a lot about the atmosphere

but i think they just can't cope with the feeling the good old fallouts have given us... unless they totally focus on making a great game and not something just for the mainstream

he choices which had concequences that couldn't be changed (i don't mean choices like "olol, i nuked megaton, now i cant make teh questz0rs there anymore to raize my XXXXpPPp")

I found the Megaton consequence to be incredible. I don't recall Fallout 1 & 2 ever having the option of obliterating an entire town via an atom bomb.

Fallout 1 and 2 submitted the notion of nuclear devastation being something bad and not being reproduced

so why the heck put it in..?

the possibility to totally go your own way in both creating your character, evolving it and making choices

The developers have been talking about the replay value of Fallout 3 and the different ways a player can approach situations. I don't think there's anything to be afraid of there.

They have been "talking" about it.. and they also said you can't finish the game without shooting (like in Fallout you had the choice to just let you words "fight" for you), this is one thing you can't do anymore, which is okay, but somehow it gives me the feeling that they won't really care about the other stuff as well, that it will be just about shooting and nuking cities...

I saw Nuka Cola in the teaser.

good that you saw it!

As for story, sure, the "go out and find your father" seems rather cliche, but so did "save your Vault" and "save your tribe."

never heard "save your Vault" before, but okay.. also i didn't see "save your tribe" in any post-apocalyptic game.. but .. okay...

The good dialogue we still really haven't seen due to the limited amount of screenshots we've got, but I did read about the Sheriff of Megaton threatening you and such, and the choice for your character to call him a "dick."

I hope the sentence will be a bit longer than just "Dick!"

That all sounds rather interesting.

Yes, calling people "dick" sounds indeed interesting (no offence, just making fun all the time )

And yes, turn-based tactics were great, but what makes you think there will be no tactic involved in Fallout 3? I really don't think this is going to be the "run n' gun" game many of you have been talking about. Complain about V.A.T.S. all you want, but there's tactics involved in its system.

please explain this more broadly

And when fighting in realtime, there's tactics in trying to find cover, quickly deciding what you should do to get rid of the enemy.

this doesn't apply to most FPS games...
in the "slower" FPS games (like tactic shooters, which i btw. like a lot) it's of course about taking cover and getting to good positions and aiming and crouching and all that stuff.. but the most FPS are faster so that you don't have time to get cover or can't do sniping or aiming specifically at all.. mostly you jump around so it's harder to hit you and stuff.
Of course it was said that Fallout 3 will partly be a kind of "slow FPS" or something like that... or that it would be good for FPS gamers looking for a slower paced game like that, i think that was what one of the writers wrote,yes.
well, the latter statement would mean that those FPS gamers formerly played faster first person shooters as they would find in Fallout 3 a slower paced Shooter, slower paced probably because you don't shoot all the time but talk and stuff, which would then again mean that the fighting parts could be pretty quick so they would please those FPS gamers and not those who play tactical first person shooting games...

probably i am just caring to much about it

but however, i think when a giant orc... errr... super mutant from the east coast will come to get you in melee, you will probably not think about hiding next to a box and shooting him until he got so close he can tear you in parts
you will probably more likely go backwards and shoot at him while that...
and also pauses in which you aim for a body part (not the grain or the eyes) don't get more tactics involved, because that's not what "tactics" are...


well

just my sight of the things


and dont care if something sounded offending to you, it surely wasn't meant like that, i m just very sarcastic and stuff...

 

[Sander]

NukaCola, go do some reading before you come bursting in here with your 'englightening' speech about how it's all relative and we can't decide what's Fallout and what isn't but Bethesda somehow *can*.