IGN Fallout 3: Six Hours of Exploration

[Cimmerian Nights]

Or maybe, just maybe, there are people who just want to play a damn game after work without being so philosophical about gaming?

There aren't enough games like that out already that we need to lobotomize other genres and franchises to pander to them?

 

[Bernard Bumner]

Or maybe, just maybe, there are people who just want to play a damn game after work without being so philosophical about gaming?

Well, fine, but shouldn't those same people also take care to avoid seeking out forum discussions dedicated to examining those ideas?

You have every right to argue that the comment about game-playing kiddies is wrong, but don't damn by innuendo those of us who want to discuss the game in more depth.

If you don't count yourself as one of those being described, then I'd suggest that there is little point in being upset by the comment. The point is that the Bethesda PR has focussed heavily on somewhat inane violence and humour, and provided very little evidence of the wit and sophistication of the previous games being replicated in Fallout 3. It cultivates the notion that this game is very likely to be, at best more casual, and at worst more infantile. The caricature may be unfair, but there seems to be some truth in the idea that Bethesda have deliberately designed a game and publicity campaign targeting the lowest common denominator.

 

[thefalloutfan]

I see where you're getting at, and I don't agree. I still play RPGs (Fallout, Morrowind, Planescape etc) after work, and I haven't played shooters since HL2 (apart from STALKER CS).

EDIT@ Bernard Bumner:I agree that games aren't as deep as before, but that kiddie comment was out of place imo. Not that it's aimed towards me, because it certainly is not, but that's a very generalised comment.

 

[aenemic]

You have every right to argue that the comment about game-playing kiddies is wrong, but don't damn by innuendo those of us who want to discuss the game in more depth.

then don't damn those who are still very interested in gaming, want good games but don't expect the same kind of depth as you do.

 

[thefalloutfan]

I didn't write that (mixed up the quotes man)

 

[aenemic]

oh damn. sorry.

(always preview your posts... always)

 

[Drakehash]

Besheda is just applying their formula for sell games, they just make game that everyone can play, if this mean dumb then down then they do it, see what they do with the elder scroll series...

See what happen with those developers that dedicated to make good games with depth, all are close now.

Accept it people, this world if full of dumb people, and most intelligent people don't play video games...

Besheda make games for those people, the ones with wallets full of money.

Accept the fact this is not a fallout game that everyone know, this is another game, wait its release, read a good review or ask a friend who buy it, if you like what you hear then buy it, but accept the fact this is not a FALLOUT GAME as everyone here remember, just the fact that got no isometric and the game got a fps game play mean that this game is not most people here expect.

By the way, this web page is giving free advertised to the fallout 3 besheda, everyone here discuss every aspect of the game, even the most little aspect is discussed here, this just help the sell number, si el rio suena, es porque piedras trae, its simple you people talk more about it more interest get the people that hate rpg games (the majority of gamers out there).

Even bad publicity is free publicity.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

then don't damn those who are still very interested in gaming, want good games but don't expect the same kind of depth as you do.

Don't throw that charge at me - I did no such thing. I have no absolute standards for depth in computer games. (I have happily spent hours wasting time playing on Wii Sports.)

I have only two complaints with regard to depth in contemporary gaming; firstly, I'm irritated by the general climate developing around the idea that difficulty and intelligence represent elitism and diminished gameplay, and secondly, I have a very specific issue with the dumbing down of the Fallout franchise.

I have no issue with simple, uncomplicated games (which I enjoy). However, I strongly object to the idea that intelligent gaming is a niche pursuit, simply because developers and money-men say it is so. Everybody has the capacity to enjoy being challenged, it is simply that the challenge must be enjoyable and accessible. The primary aim of Bethesda in producing a title worthy of the name Fallout should have been to retain the intelligence of the originals, not to intellectually gut the thing in order to shift as many units as possible.

One simply cannot argue against depth as an essential element of Fallout games, whereas it is very easy to see why the entire spectrum of complexity is essential for the wider market.

 

[Ixyroth]

Mainstream games basically play themselves these days. Most 4 year olds could play and complete Mass Effect without too much difficulty. The Witcher's combat was a joke as well.

STALKER CS was decently challenging (on master), but that's the exception.

If there's no challenge mentally, twitch, or otherwise, what's the point? Games in their ideal form should help you improve your skills/thinking/strategy/adaptability, not dull them. That's what TV is for.

 

[PiCroft]

Which sounds extremely patronizing, and slightly incredible.

Still, accepting your premise that this is a pragmatic choice made on the basis that their target audience is unable to cope with the minor frustration of having to expend time to discover boundaries, it would suggest that the intellectual bankruptcy of the game is complete. This must, then, be a game for ritalin-munching half-wits who have been cursed with the twin misfortunes of both ADHD and near-terminal idiocy.

hahahaha

This is exactly the kind of nose-in-the-air bullshit some fans of the original XCOM took when discussing the Aftermath/Aftershock/Afterlight series of games: branding the hybrid RTS/TBS a tool to satisfy the stupid, hyperactive kiddie crowd.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

hahahaha

This is exactly the kind of nose-in-the-air bullshit some fans of the original XCOM took when discussing the Aftermath/Aftershock/Afterlight series of games: branding the hybrid RTS/TBS a tool to satisfy the stupid, hyperactive kiddie crowd.

It really isn't so funny...

That assessment was predicated on acceptance of the apologist's explanation that invisible walls might have been implemented on behalf of those unable to cope with anything as subtle as visible walls.

Note: I do not think that this is the case, as I clearly explained.

 

[PiCroft]

It really isn't so funny...

That assessment was predicated on acceptance of the apologist's explanation that invisible walls might have been implemented on behalf of those unable to cope with anything as subtle as visible walls.

Note: I do not think that this is the case, as I clearly explained.

You (and others) are arguing that Fallout 3 is going to be dumbed down in comparison to the previous games.

In comparison to what, games that had toilet humour, over-the-top violence, tongue-in-cheek dialogue and the ability to do drugs and pimp hos?

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

You (and others) are arguing that Fallout 3 is going to be dumbed down in comparison to the previous games.

Can you honestly say it's not? Fallout 3 is following almost every hand-holding trends from current games, from quest compass to level scaling to self-resetting aggressive NPCs to big flashy signs telling you which items are a crime to mess with to letting you grind karma to a point that morality becomes almost as meaningless as it was in Oblivion. So far, only the Vita Chambers from Bioshock are missing.

In comparison to what, games that had toilet humour, over-the-top violence, tongue-in-cheek dialogue and the ability to do drugs and pimp hos?

First off, many of these elements aren't inherently immature; there's no problem with over-the-top violence, only the way in which it is implemented - and Fallout 3 easily beats both the originals in its childishness. Secondly, the rest are exclusive to Fallout 2 and criticised all the time by regulars, so no point in acting like people think it's perfect.

And third, you realize "dumbing down" usually means with regards to gameplay mechanics and their complexity, right? If one were to make an incredibly deep game about , say, Duke Nukem, not many people would use the term, even if they disliked the stupid factor.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

You (and others) are arguing that Fallout 3 is going to be dumbed down in comparison to the previous games.

Which is almost exactly not what you accused me of in your last post.

In comparison to what, games that had toilet humour, over-the-top violence, tongue-in-cheek dialogue and the ability to do drugs and pimp hos?

Was that all they had?

The dumbing down has nothing to do with what they've left in - clearly not. The dumbing down, in this case, comes via the careful pruning out of content other than those things you've listed. Additionally, context and implementation is critical.

Moral ambiguity has apparently been replaced by the kind of binary, infantile distinctions between good and evil that would embarrass George Lucas.

Carefully crafted lore and mythos has seemingly been superseded by utterly sincere cliche and underdeveloped rehashing.

Sequential, coherent, continuous development has been abandoned in favour of recycling and cooption of elements for purely branding purposes.

One of the most original character development systems in roleplaying has been diluted via the poor implementation of combat, Perks, and Traits, all in the name of simplification and immersion.

Meaningless and stylistically inconsistent player bonuses have been introduced, which add nothing to the game, other than notional replay value. Gotta catch 'em all...

The notion of consequence looks to have been reduced to the simplest causes and effects, often without permanence, and therefore little gravity.

Dumbing down probably starts to describe those things.

 

[whirlingdervish]

You (and others) are arguing that Fallout 3 is going to be dumbed down in comparison to the previous games.

In comparison to what, games that had toilet humour, over-the-top violence, tongue-in-cheek dialogue and the ability to do drugs and pimp hos?

here's a question for you:

have you ever played them, or did you just read the selling points off of the back of the box from Fallout 2 and assume that they describe the entire content of both of the Fallout RPG games?


You could pimp one NPC in fallout 2, who happened to be the worthless wife/husband you accidentally get wed to.

You can do drugs in almost every game out there including super mario bros.

Neither had over the top violence compared to a gib filled FPS game.

Tongue-in-cheek dialogue is actually much less stupid than talking point style oblivionesque chat dialogues like "rumors.." and it didn't account for any noticeable amount of the total dialogue in Fallout.

toilet humor didn't feature heavily in either game.

The dumbing down has nothing to do with any of this crap you mentioned.

It has to do with the handholding that invisible walls and quest compasses and fast travel amount to.

It has to do with the amount of times the word FUCK is used when it doesn't really fit the setting all that well based on the previous titles and when another word would actually sound better but not sell as many copies to acne covered teen gamers.

the dumbing down has to do with the complete and total lack of meaningful consequences to your player character's actions in what is supposed to be a deep RPG with questions of morality and consequence at every corner.

another area where it is being dumbed down would be how the gameplay is changing from what was essentially an overhead tactical view with a cursor and turnbased combat so you could control every aspect of it, to a really crappy psuedoFPS/3PP system that looks like a ripoff from resident evil 4 mixed with max payne and shoehorned into oblivions second rate engine.

did you happen to miss all of this in the "previews"?


edit: ROFL I've been beaten to the punch.

 

[PiCroft]

Can you honestly say it's not?

I don't see how anything you listed is a 'dumbing down'. In some cases I can see it would make the game easier, but I don't believe that automatically makes a game 'dumbed down'. Lots of older games had hand-holding in one form or another.

From what I've read of the Karma system, it doesn't strike me as being significantly different from Fallouts system. In fact I don't remember every really noticing Karma in Fallout except when I became a Slaver once.

And third, you realize "dumbing down" usually means with regards to gameplay mechanics and their complexity, right? If one were to make an incredibly deep game about , say, Duke Nukem, not many people would use the term, even if they disliked the stupid factor.

I don't see how the gameplay mechincs of Fallout or Fallout 2 were 'deep'. Arcanum was a lot deeper than Fallout in a lot of different ways and I played Arcanum before I heard of Fallout. I enjoyed both (by that I mean all three) games.

Which is almost exactly not what you accused me of in your last post.

I accused you of holding your nose high because the new edition of your favorite vintage game doesn't live up to your expectations which are entirely based on the older game.

Not every sequel will live up to the previous ones, but that doesn't mean the game will necessarily be awful. The way many here are going on, the game will be an unmitigated disaster and they haven't even played it yet.

Was that all they had?

The dumbing down has nothing to do with what they've left in - clearly not. The dumbing down, in this case, comes via the careful pruning out of content other than those things you've listed. Additionally, context and implementation is critical.

Then let's take a look:

Moral ambiguity has apparently been replaced by the kind of binary, infantile distinctions between good and evil that would embarrass George Lucas.

Fallout 2 had a karma based on killing monsters and doing nice things. Accompanied by Reputation which was town-specific. Not exactly KOTOR.

Carefully crafted lore and mythos has seemingly been superseded by utterly sincere cliche and underdeveloped rehashing.

Examples that don't amount to your personal opinion of what amounts to "carefully crafted lore"?

Sequential, coherent, continuous development has been abandoned in favour of recycling and cooption of elements for purely branding purposes.

Meaningless.

One of the most original character development systems in roleplaying has been diluted via the poor implementation of combat, Perks, and Traits, all in the name of simplification and immersion.

Your opinion. I thought Fallout's character development system was pretty silly compared to Arcanums. I still like both.

Meaningless and stylistically inconsistent player bonuses have been introduced, which add nothing to the game, other than notional replay value. Gotta catch 'em all...

Fallout 2 had similar "awards" as well, depending on what you did. If the Xbox Live awards were removed and replaced with the old system where you, and you alone saw you acheivements like in Fallout 2, would this greivance disappear?

The notion of consequence looks to have been reduced to the simplest causes and effects, often without permanence, and therefore little gravity.

I don't know what this means, except that if it means there is no parallel for the Slaver choice in Fallout 2 then big deal.

Dumbing down probably starts to describe those things.

You listed vague bullshit and personal opinion on what makes the game dumb.

 

[Brother None]

I don't see how anything you listed is a 'dumbing down'. In some cases I can see it would make the game easier, but I don't believe that automatically makes a game 'dumbed down'. Lots of older games had hand-holding in one form or another.

Hand-holding is pretty much the definition of dumbing down. "Lots of old games had it" isn't really relevant to that point, it is mentally more challenging to figure out your own path than to have the path plotted out for you. Hand-holding is simplifying the game for the player, which is dumbing down.

I also think you might've read over Seymour's post too quick if you don't see how his points imply dumbing down. You don't think removing the negative side of traits and drugs and thus making both the character system and drugs streamlined into purely positive rather than a positive-negative choice is dumbing down? You don't thing hacking down the notion of consequence is dumbing down? You don't think removing moral ambiguity for three paths of good-neutral-evil is dumbing down?

I don't see how the gameplay mechincs of Fallout or Fallout 2 were 'deep'.

That doesn't address the point he made: it's not about how deep the original mechanics were, it's about how the new game makes said mechanics more shallow.

 

[PiCroft]

here's a question for you:

have you ever played them, or did you just read the selling points off of the back of the box from Fallout 2 and assume that they describe the entire content of both of the Fallout RPG games?

Played - and liked - both, thanks for trying to poison the well.

It has to do with the handholding that invisible walls and quest compasses and fast travel amount to.

Invisible walls being hand-holding escapes me. I don't see how it holds anyone's hand any more than having a STALKER-esque waist-high farm fence to stop you going over that ridge over yonder.

Fast travel was actually quite a good idea to me, as something that pissed me off during the days when I was studying was that when I was trying to squeeze in a few hours of Morrowind between studying, I would find a large chunk of that time was taken up with just running. That being said, when I finally got Oblivion, it didn't stop me running around to explore when I wanted to.

I agree Quest Compass might be 'dumbing it down' assuming I couldn't turn it off.

It has to do with the amount of times the word FUCK is used when it doesn't really fit the setting all that well based on the previous titles and when another word would actually sound better but not sell as many copies to acne covered teen gamers.

Unless every other word is fuck, like in Kane and Lynch, I don't really care about strong language. I also am not aware that Fallout 3 has any more swearing than other games of its type.

the dumbing down has to do with the complete and total lack of meaningful consequences to your player character's actions in what is supposed to be a deep RPG with questions of morality and consequence at every corner.

I'm not sure what kind of meaningful consequences you are looking for - in the previous games there were elements of that nature, but I only became aware of them as the game progressed and as I expereinced them. I can't argue this point without first experiencing them.

another area where it is being dumbed down would be how the gameplay is changing from what was essentially an overhead tactical view with a cursor and turnbased combat so you could control every aspect of it, to a really crappy psuedoFPS/3PP system that looks like a ripoff from resident evil 4 mixed with max payne and shoehorned into oblivions second rate engine.

Sounds like your opinion. There were folks who forever bitched about the hybrid turn-based/realtime system in Aftermath etc and how it was a shitty rip off and attempt to dumb down the proud XCOM lineage.

I just thought it was an interesting new take.

Hand-holding is pretty much the definition of dumbing down. "Lots of old games had it" isn't really relevant to that point, it is mentally more challenging to figure out your own path than to have the path plotted out for you. Hand-holding is simplifying the game for the player, which is dumbing down.

I concede this point: hand-holding is probably a good definition of dumbing down.

I also think you might've read over Seymour's post too quick if you don't see how his points imply dumbing down. You don't think removing the negative side of traits and drugs and thus making both the character system and drugs streamlined into purely positive rather than a positive-negative choice is dumbing down?

Not really. Not any more than I see future FPSs that don't use STALKERs method of having bandages and first aid kits seperate for bleeding and healing respectively. I thought having negative side-effects of drugs was a pretty decent idea, but removing it isn't a deal-breaker for me and isn't exactly high on my list of "what I want in an RPG".

You don't thing hacking down the notion of consequence is dumbing down? You don't think removing moral ambiguity for three paths of good-neutral-evil is dumbing down?

I honestly am at a loss as to what Fallout 1 and 2 had that amounted to moral ambiguity that Fallout 3 absolutely will not have. As I said before, I found those fascinating elements, such as the friendly and sentient Deathclaws that you could kill off if you wanted, as a process of playing through the game. I can't judge this point until I play through Fallout 3 and see for myself.

That doesn't address the point he made: it's not about how deep the original mechanics were, it's about how the new game makes said mechanics more shallow.

And I disagree that the new game mechanics are more shallow. The only point presented to me so far I agree on is the Quest Compass and with the caveat that it is obligatory.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

I accused you of holding your nose high because the new edition of your favorite vintage game doesn't live up to your expectations which are entirely based on the older game.

And chose to sneer at that, illustrating it with a quote which almost exactly didn't represent the broader point I was making.

You appear not to have understood the difference between two different arguments.

If A is true therefore B, is not the same as A is true therefore B. I stated that I was allowing a premise that I didn't actually accept as correct.

Furthermore, I won't be told by anybody that I have no right to expect a great sequel to one of my favourite games. Actually, I can see no good argument that basing my expectations of a new game on its direct predecessor is in any way wrong.

It is the function of a sequel is it not; to please, not disappoint.

Not every sequel will live up to the previous ones, but that doesn't mean the game will necessarily be awful.

And, had you bothered to look at my previous posts then you would already know that, as recently as yesterday, I suggested that the game will probably be a reasonable distraction. However, it seems that it won't be a particularly good sequel.

The way many here are going on, the game will be an unmitigated disaster and they haven't even played it yet.

People are forming judgements based on the information Bethesda chooses to release.

Fallout 2 had a karma based on killing monsters and doing nice things. Accompanied by Reputation which was town-specific. Not exactly KOTOR.

It also had meaningful and persistent consequences to non-binary moral choices. So no, not KOTOR; a game I enjoy, but nonetheless, very much a game of White hat/Black hat. Seemingly not Fallout 3 if the Megaton scenario is the best illustration of morality Bethesda has to show.

Karma also seems very important to Bethesda, but every example we've seen so far suggests a KOTOR lightside/darkside dynamic.

To be fair, I suppose that Bethesda have discussed good, bad, but also neutral as the cardinal points on their moral compass (even though they appear actually to be good, bad, and apathetic in the implementation). At best, trinary morality - not exactly the shades of grey we were promised.

Examples that don't amount to your personal opinion of what amounts to "carefully crafted lore"?

So, you want my opinion, unless it is opinion?

The carefully crafted lore and mythos is very obviously illustrated by the attention to building believable detail into the universe; see the Fallout Bible.

That Bethesda is changing those details, or the ethic underlying those details, seems beyond doubt given their handling of the Brotherhood of Steel, for instance.

Meaningless.

Because you say so? Not likely! Your inability to understand what I meant doesn't equate to lack of meaning.

They have taken elements, removed them from the original established context, and transplanted them into a new locale - the Brotherhood, Supermutants, Jet, and so on. In many cases this doesn't make any sense, given their role and background in the original Fallout games. These things simply act as branding, rather than retaining their original currency.

Much better would have been to create new stories, factions, and characters within the Fallout universe, thereby avoiding any conflict with canon.

Your opinion. I thought Fallout's character development system was pretty silly compared to Arcanums. I still like both.

Yes, mine. And others'. Fallout has consistently been voted into critics' and fans' top games lists, and very often SPECIAL is singled out for praise.

What, exactly, did you find silly about it?

Fallout 2 had similar "awards" as well, depending on what you did. If the Xbox Live awards were removed and replaced with the old system where you, and you alone saw you acheivements like in Fallout 2, would this greivance disappear?

Bobbleheads, cash for fingers, and post-apocalyptic bachelor pads were more what I had in mind...

I don't know what this means, except that if it means there is no parallel for the Slaver choice in Fallout 2 then big deal.

Well, not big deal, actually. However, what I was thinking of is the ability to commit mass murder without significant gameplay consequences.

You listed vague bullshit and personal opinion on what makes the game dumb.

No, I listed broad, general points; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That you choose to dismiss my points as bullshit seems unhelpful and contrarian. Equally, the idea that anybody has anything to contribute here - including yourself - other than personal opinion is simply bizarre.

Dumb is a value judgment, of course it is. However, it is a judgement I have formed on the basis of information released by Bethesda.

So far, you have offered little except argumentation and naysaying. If you want to engage with points or opinions, then feel free to offer counterpoints. It makes it all much more interesting.

 

[whirlingdervish]

another area where it is being dumbed down would be how the gameplay is changing from what was essentially an overhead tactical view with a cursor and turnbased combat so you could control every aspect of it, to a really crappy psuedoFPS/3PP system that looks like a ripoff from resident evil 4 mixed with max payne and shoehorned into oblivions second rate engine.

Sounds like your opinion. There were folks who forever bitched about the hybrid turn-based/realtime system in Aftermath etc and how it was a shitty rip off and attempt to dumb down the proud XCOM lineage.

I just thought it was an interesting new take.

Since Aftermath wasn't even the first attempt to dumb down the combat in an Xcom game by adding realtime, and it wasn't even really a part of the franchise at all, I'll respond under the assumption that you're actually talking about Xcom Apocalypse.

in that game a half assed hybrid realtime/turnbased system DID render the game easier than either of the 2 predecessors and it essentially broke the franchise because it led to more changes that ended up with a string of spinoffs instead of games that actually followed the established gameplay of the originals.

One could argue that the hybrid realtime system of Apocalypse is what started the downhill motion of the entire franchise until it was eventually sold to fucking HASBRO and the travesty that is called xcom enforcer was released while the next real Xcom strategy game died an untimely death.

it's not an interesting NEW take, it's a way to shoehorn easy shit into a game that it didn't need (so people who dont like turnbased will buy a copy) when it had a very effective turnbased combat system that was balanced and effective and loved by a multitude of video game players for being the way it was: complex and detail oriented.

by shoehorning that unbalanced realtime system onto XCOM they managed to break the turnbased system that already worked, because they had to make concessions with the weapon damages and such that led to both styles of combat being crappy compared to that of XCOM and TFTD.

This led to the entire game being a flop when compared to the reception of the first two.


BTW, when you imply that Fallout had things in it that were actually only in the sequel (which we have repeatedly mentioned as not being 100% Fallout gospel) expect to have people jump down your neck for either being uninformed or intentionally skewing the facts.

If you entire argument hinges on such a false statement, people will definitely wonder if you've ever even played the games yourself.