I honestly don't get the Fallout 3 hate.

[Black]

No. Counter-question: is Fallout 3 definitely going to be a steaming pile of shit because it's FPP RT?

No.
Counter-question: can FO3 be a good sequel by not sticking to FO's core?

 

[Jidai Geki]

Yes, yes it can. Look at Aliens. Tension all but gone. Slow-burning psychological terror removed and replaced with gung-ho action sequences. Different director with a very different take on making films.

Was Aliens a terrible sequel, despite being completely different from its predecessor in every way apart from including the titular creature? No, it was fantastic. Major stylistic changes can be made to a franchise without burying it.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Given that character creation plays the same role in any game in which it's present (namely, it tends to be at the beginning of the game and thus shapes how you play the rest of the game) I would say that its role is pretty damn important. Key, you might say.

And the fact that you can just choose preset characters and play shows how superfluous it is. It might affect your tactics, but then so does choice of weapons. If you are playing one of the Delta Force, Rainbow Six, or Ghost Recon games you can choose your weapon load out at the start of each mission, this affects how you play. That doesn't make it key to those games. Character creation is important to Fallout mainly because it's been there from the start, not because it's key to RPGs in general.

I've already agreed that an RPG is possible without character creation, but that they tend to be less engaging.

Torment is far more engaging than Morrowind, KotOR 1&2 and Jade Empire. It's the writing that makes an rpg engaging not whether you can decide your age, height or waist measurements. Having said that, Fallout does give you choices in character creation, to remove those would be dumbing the game down.

How do you know there has been any loss of freedom or choice? The things that are really getting people's knickers in a twist, the stuff like drinking water to heal and altered supermutants, have no bearing on the choices you make in the game. The fact that you have a father is not especially limiting, as far as I can see it. It seems to be a simple framing device.

It was a general statement, but pre-defined family connections, pre-defined age, pre-defined destiny. It's limiting, the big revelation about your character in KotOR is restrictive but that's KotOR, different horses for different courses. In Fallout my characters were whoever I wanted them to be, sure they might of been Vault Dwellers but they were just an average joe chosen by the Overseer. That's why Fallout 2 isn't so good, because you are the 'Chosen One'.

Your point being?

Character creation is a mechanic and nothing to do with the setting. Why all this fuss if all you care about is the story and setting?

*Sigh* just because it's First person and real-time doesn't mean it's going to be bad. You're acting like somebody took a shit on your Bible.

No but because it's Fallout and first person and real-time will make it bad, because it's from the makers of mediocre games might make it bad.

No. It means that maybe you should keep an open mind instead of condemning it a year before release.

How about keeping an open mind instead of anticipating it?

Ah well. You can always play Fallouts 1 and 2 over and over again if you're convinced nothing will ever again achieve their majesty.

Making a totally different type of game, is just that, totally different not better. I doubt that there will be many games that better Fallout, Arcanum and Torment are close but let down by their combat. Gaming is getting too mainstream, too commercial to see many games like Fallout these days.

I would hardly say it's wide off the mark because of a few minor stylistic changes. Baggy vault suits and different BoS armour does not mean it is going to shit all over the franchise. The franchise was already shat on by BoS. This can't possibly make things worse.

Different Vault Suits, different PA, different Brotherhood, different Mutants, different treatment of radiation. It all adds up, change the gameplay, change the setting, what do you have left that makes it part of the franchise? Just because FO2 FOT and FOBOS have progressively screwed up doesn't mean that Bethesda can do what ever it wants with FO3. Most of us were looking for FO3 to put things back on track, not derail the franchise even further.

Was Aliens a terrible sequel, despite being completely different from its predecessor in every way apart from including the titular creature? No, it was fantastic. Major stylistic changes can be made to a franchise without burying it.

That's film though, not gaming. Major stylistic changes on top of gameplay changes, well as I've already said what's left that's Fallout?

 

[Black]

Yes, yes it can. Look at Aliens. Tension all but gone. Slow-burning psychological terror removed and replaced with gung-ho action sequences. Different director with a very different take on making films.

Was Aliens a terrible sequel, despite being completely different from its predecessor in every way apart from including the titular creature? No, it was fantastic. Major stylistic changes can be made to a franchise without burying it.

Maybe you don't know but Fallout is a computer game, not a film. Try again.

 

[Jidai Geki]

And the fact that you can just choose preset characters and play shows how superfluous it is.

By that rationale, any player choice is superfluous. Let's all go and play Time Crisis because we don't even have to decide where we go in that one, we just point and shoot until it's over. Character creation is important because it liberates the player and gives them more control. It also creates more of an investment in your character's fate because you created him/her.

Torment is far more engaging than Morrowind, KotOR 1&2 and Jade Empire. It's the writing that makes an rpg engaging not whether you can decide your age, height or waist measurements. Having said that, Fallout does give you choices in character creation, to remove those would be dumbing the game down.

You just said that character creation is superfluous, and yet removing it would be dumbing down? Make up your mind.

It was a general statement, but pre-defined family connections, pre-defined age, pre-defined destiny. It's limiting, the big revelation about your character in KotOR is restrictive but that's KotOR, different horses for different courses. In Fallout my characters were whoever I wanted them to be, sure they might of been Vault Dwellers but they were just an average joe chosen by the Overseer. That's why Fallout 2 isn't so good, because you are the 'Chosen One'.

Again you contradict yourself; you don't like having characters limited, yet you claim character creation is altogether unnecessary. What could be more limiting to your character than having no say in who they are?

Character creation is a mechanic and nothing to do with the setting. Why all this fuss if all you care about is the story and setting?

This whole "fuss" about character creation stems from the fact that I said it was a point in favour of Oblivion. If I'm playing an RPG it's nice to be able to create your character, so it would be nice to have it in FO3. I would look very sceptically on it if they left it out.

How about keeping an open mind instead of anticipating it?

I'm not entirely pro-Fallout 3. I have problems with certain aspects of it. But there's nothing wrong with anticipating its release, and anticipation and open-mindedness are not mutually exclusive concepts.

That's film though, not gaming. Major stylistic changes on top of gameplay changes, well as I've already said what's left that's Fallout?

The only "major stylistic change" as far as I can see is the supermutant thing. The setting is still recognisably Fallout.

Maybe you don't know but Fallout is a computer game, not a film. Try again.

Shit, that's where I've been going wrong. Did it not occur to you that that's really not the point? The point is sequels straying from their originals and yet still being good in their own right. Try not to be so dense.

 

[Sander]

Shit, that's where I've been going wrong. Did it not occur to you that that's really not the point? The point is sequels straying from their originals and yet still being good in their own right. Try not to be so dense.

The point is, again, that this a Fallout fansite and we hence care if the game is good in the context of the previous Fallout games.
Here, let me repeat this again: no, we do not care if the game is good an sich when we evaluate it as a game inside the Fallout series.
I wouldn't be happy with a Pro Evolution Soccer 7 that played like Bubble 'n Bobble even though I love both series. It's not about whether it will be a 'good game', it's about whether it will be a good *Fallout* game. You can continue to go in circles around this, but it's not going to get you anywhere here.

 

[quietfanatic]

Again, I love both films. But not everyone does. Even if Bethesda miraculously created a masterpiece with massive changes, that would be of little consolation to fans of the original who sorely miss elements that had been downgraded or discarded, and find the alternative unsatisfying. You will likely enjoy FO3, while I probably won't. Good for you.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Again you contradict yourself; you don't like having characters limited, yet you claim character creation is altogether unnecessary. What could be more limiting to your character than having no say in who they are?

No I didn't contradict myself, I said it's not important to rpgs but it is important to Fallout. Why because it's part of what you expect from a Fallout game. If Fallout had never had character creation it would be a bonus to have it added, an improvement, progression if you like. But to take it away would be dumbing down, same with switching from TB combat to RT&P. None of that makes it important to rpgs in general.

The only "major stylistic change" as far as I can see is the supermutant thing. The setting is still recognisably Fallout.

Supermutants, baggy drawers, vault gangers, fatboys, ineffectual radiation and low rent atomic bombs, crusading brotherhood paladins. What will the ghouls and deathclaws look like?

Shit, that's where I've been going wrong. Did it not occur to you that that's really not the point? The point is sequels straying from their originals and yet still being good in their own right. Try not to be so dense.

But that's film, this is gaming totally different mediums. There are loads of Star Wars games, but are they all sequels to each other? Nope they are different franchises under the same umbrella.

 

[TheWesDude]

Fallout 3 being FPP+RTwP does not mean that its going to be a bad game.

what does mean its going to be a bad game is bethesda is making it, and that its not going to be sequel true to fallout 1/2 while having the name in it.

 

[GhostWhoTalks]

I think the point is that what matters ultimately is: Is it a good gaming experience.


I think things like Perspective, how one interacts with combat, and 2d versus 3d do less to establish the feel of a game, than the atmosphere, the story elements, and the characters in the game.


Now it stands to reason that the changes will make it a poor Fallout sequel, but I don't think that necessarily means it will be a poor Fallout-style game.



And I don't think VATS is truly phase-based; I'm not that naive. What I will say is that the way things are shaping up its closer to phase-based than real time. Queue up actions and then let action go in cinematic progression sounds a lot like what phase-based is. Sure the loss of item use, quick actions, and the like detract from it being a true "phase-based" combat system (and this is something I have brought up on their blog hoping that they will change it), but that doesn't mean that one can't use it to strategize (which is a core element of phase-based and turn-based combat, not real time combat). And yes, I do realize that it is closer to the Baldur's Gate combat system than anything (I happened to like the BG series, though not as much as Fallout).

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I think the point is that what matters ultimately is: Is it a good gaming experience.

This is a Fan site remember, the most important thing is if it's a good Fallout game or not. If it is then that ought to imply it's a good gaming experience.

I think things like Perspective, how one interacts with combat, and 2d versus 3d do less to establish the feel of a game, than the atmosphere, the story elements, and the characters in the game.

As has been said before many times it's a game, gameplay i.e. perspective and combat are the meat and bones of the thing. Setting and story are just the blood that brings it to life. Just because I like Star Wars doesn't mean I want to play every Star Wars game that comes out. The X-Wing and Tie Fighter series are not for me.

Now it stands to reason that the changes will make it a poor Fallout sequel, but I don't think that necessarily means it will be a poor Fallout-style game.

What is Fallout style though?

And I don't think VATS is truly phase-based; I'm not that naive. What I will say is that the way things are shaping up its closer to phase-based than real time. Queue up actions and then let action go in cinematic progression sounds a lot like what phase-based is.

VATS is a glorified aiming system, well that's what Todd Howard described it as. You go into aiming mode, the camera zooms in and you select your target and an area on their body, then watch in a slow mo cinematic experience as the bullet flies towards them and they collapse clutching their groin... Oh sorry that's Stranglehold. Well you can see my mistake, there's not a lot of difference since they both require points to make an aimed shot, the real difference is in Stranglehold the game doesn't pause and you take each shot at a time. Does the fact you can que up several shots in VATS really sound like phased based combat? If so phased based sounds even more terrible than I thought.

 

[Jidai Geki]

The point is, again, that this a Fallout fansite and we hence care if the game is good in the context of the previous Fallout games.

My point was that Aliens took the franchise in a whole new direction whilst being faithful to the original. It's conceivable that FO3 will also pull this off.

But to take it away would be dumbing down, same with switching from TB combat to RT&P.

I wouldn't necessarily say that switching to FPP/RT equates to "dumbing down". It doesn't require any more intelligence to play a TB game than it does to play a RT. Yes, some people wouldn't have the patience to play a TB game, but that doesn't make them stupid.

Supermutants, baggy drawers, vault gangers, fatboys, ineffectual radiation and low rent atomic bombs, crusading brotherhood paladins. What will the ghouls and deathclaws look like?

Most of which can be explained quite legitimately by the fact that this is set in and around Washington DC, as opposed to the west coast. I completely agree with the supermutants issue and the Fatman, but baggy vault suits simply aren't that big a deal to me.

But that's film, this is gaming totally different mediums. There are loads of Star Wars games, but are they all sequels to each other? Nope they are different franchises under the same umbrella.

Much like Black, you missed my point completely. The medium is irrelevant; the point is that a sequel took a completely different tack with a different director and different writers, and yet it still managed to be faithful to the core ideals of the original. Why, then, is it not possible that a franchise game developed by a new developer will deliver, and maintain franchise integrity?

 

[quietfanatic]

I wouldn't go as far as saying Aliens was faithful to the core ideas of the original, even if it is an excellent film in its own right.

The analogy is weakened by the change in medium and context, but importantly, we know who the developer is for FO3, and it isn't encouraging. Neither is much of the evidence we have seen. Of course a new developer could deliver, but it doesn't look like Bethesda is pulling it off. Believing that they will change their spots in spite of everything is wishful thinking, if not blind optimism.

Most of which can be explained quite legitimately by the fact that this is set in and around Washington DC, as opposed to the west coast. I completely agree with the supermutants issue and the Fatman, but baggy vault suits simply aren't that big a deal to me.

The changed jumpsuit is far less worrying than the treatment of say, Megaton, the Brotherhood and radiation, but why do you seem to look for excuses for bad decisions? Do you not agree that they are negative elements?

 

[Jidai Geki]

I don't see a huge problem with Megaton. If anything it fits in nicely with the dark irony of the originals; these people are worshipping something that is responsible for reducing their world and their existence to shit.

The Brotherhood and radiation thing; time will tell. I don't think they're necessarily negative elements at the moment.

 

[aronsearle]

My point was that Aliens took the franchise in a whole new direction whilst being faithful to the original. It's conceivable that FO3 will also pull this off.

But thats the issue isnt it, can beth pull it off.

From the utter blandness of their previos games, i dont see how.

Why is it so bad to judge them based upon their actions, rather than their words?

 

[Jidai Geki]

It's not at all bad to do that, but it's a matter of personal perspective. I thought both Oblivion and Morrowind were good games, and so I don't expect FO3 to be a train wreck.

 

[quietfanatic]

But probably not for us and not as a Fallout sequel. I wouldn't say that FO3 will be a total train wreck, but likely still very disappointing, as we have high standards. I should make clear that my expectations are lower than they might be for some other developers, but I doubt that even they will be met.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Much like Black, you missed my point completely.

Your point was irrelevant, it is a different medium! What makes a good film sequel doesn't necessarily apply to games. But just remember it wasn't billed as Alien 2 but Aliens.

Why, then, is it not possible that a franchise game developed by a new developer will deliver, and maintain franchise integrity?

There is no reason another team can't produce a faithful sequel but that team is not Bethesda, not with their track record and from what they've shown so far. You might think that baggy vault suits are trivial, and on their own they are, and you might be able to write fan fics to explain away all the other inconsistencies. But taken together, with the fact that you do have to come up with explanations surely says something to you about how faithful it is.

It's very telling that virtually everything shown so far has been off.

 

[Western]

Interesting thread, as for my own thoughts.

1. I don't 'hate' Fallout 3, however I had the pleasure of playing games like Oblivion and Pirates of the Carribean. So as soon as I heard Bethesda was making this game (only a few months ago), I grew indifferent, I know what they bring to the table and it's nothing I really enjoy.

Relatively bland and empty worlds, very average dialogue, average voice acting, just average writing all round, for plots, etc.

2. I'm not as hung up on the idea of turn based combat as some other people (implementing a more polished Arcanum or Fallout tactics style combat system with both turn based and real time with auto-pause is my favourite solution), Oblivion style FPS doesn't necessarily equal a better RPG.

I was hoping for 3D, similar view to Fallout 1 & 2. If I want an FPS I'll get Bioshock, Oblivion does and Fallout 3 may, lack the strong writing elements, making immersion visual... eye candy doesn't age as well as good writing. The tactical and character development (from a combat perspective, e.g, co-ordinating group battles, implementing GURPS) give the game a little bit more of a cerebral element, and a little less, itchy trigger finger element.

3. Imo, the key to a good RPG isn't view, or character creation, it's dialogue, characters, choices/character developement, plot, and the personality/life of the setting... like a great book (...nice voice acting doesn't hurt either).

Probably why I haven't really enjoyed a lot of Bethesdas' games, though on the upside it'd be difficult for them to destroy the personality of Fallouts' post Apocalyptic visuals. Even though they're destroying the setting and dumbing it down a hell of a lot (Brotherhood of Steel now crusading Paladins, all super mutants hostiles, I'm sure there are more things that those in the loop can point out).

4. Last point, I'm looking forward to Wasteland 2 and I hope it gets off the ground, it's more likely to feel like a continuation of the Fallout series than what Bethesda is producing. Fallout 3 seems more like 'spin off' than 'evolution'... like a cross between BOS and Tactics, made using Oblivions' engine.

Probably won't be a bad game, just not the RPG a lot of people were hoping for, that said a post apocalyptic Oblivion style game isn't a bad spin off (hell I think Oblivion is mind numbing, but plenty of people like it with a bit of modding or even as is, be the same for this game... plus Fallout has a more interesting setting).

 

[welsh]

Yes, yes it can. Look at Aliens. Tension all but gone. Slow-burning psychological terror removed and replaced with gung-ho action sequences. Different director with a very different take on making films.

Was Aliens a terrible sequel, despite being completely different from its predecessor in every way apart from including the titular creature? No, it was fantastic. Major stylistic changes can be made to a franchise without burying it.

The difference between a film sequel and a game sequel was mentioned- but its also an issue of fan support.

Hmmm- you choose Aliens as the sequel to Alien, but don't include Alien 3 (which I liked) the less impressive Alien 4, and then there was Alien vs Predator.

Of all the elements of this franchise- which has lasted the longest and is the most respected- Probably Alien and Aliens.

Alien vs Predator- stupid for some, fun for others. But was it memorable?

The test of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 is not if these games were commerical successes, but their longevity- the appreciation of these games as being "great games" despite their age, their importance to the genre and the loyality they capture from the fans.

Personally, I don't doubt that Bethesda could make a good post-apoc game. They could even make a good fallout game. But they are not doing it with what they offer as Fallout 3. I doubt that their Fallout 3 will have the resonance that you find with Fallout 1 or Fallout 2. Rather they have gone with alterations- much like Fallout Tactics and FOBOS (and look how they turned out).

Why? Because they have botched up the background, mechanics and elements. They are beating a franchise to death while not even trying to be "true" to it.

Their argument that another fallout game similar to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 would not be commercially successful might be true. But a great game need not be commerically successful, but it does have to connect with fans or create fans.

Bethesda's project is to create a new fan base. This possibility was alluded to in Kharn's discussion of franchise in Little Gems of Hate. They don't care about disappointing old fans if they think they can generate enough new fans with the new game.

That's a strange if hegemonic approach to marketing. Basically they hope to absorb most of the fans who are willing to give the game a chance and acquire new fans who were fans of Oblivion and other Bethesda games. The old timers, who have a strong sense of commitment to the franchise, they can safely jettison for being too marginal to matter. That's us.

And what will they create- a fun post-apocalyptic game that has some fallout elements tossed in for color. Will it be memorable, resilient over time? Will it continue to attract new players long after the game is no longer being produced? Will it generate years of buzz among the fans? Maybe, but probably not. Why? Consider how many games that have been popular hits resonate for very long.

Perhaps the analogy is more like classic rock vs top 40. Led Zep hasn't made a record in years, but I am willing to bet that most people who listen to rock can connect to the Immigrant Song more than they can connect to what was top 40 last year.

Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 are tried and true. Fallout 3? Bethesda might make a hit, but a classic hit like Fallout 1 and Fallout 2? Doubt it.

ANd 10 years from now, I am willing to bet people will still be playing Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 will be a footnote.