New Fallout 3 screenshot and Todd Howard speaks
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Mord_Sith
Mildly Dipped
Question is, are they even going to include deathclaws, they haven't even specified it, rather they've only showcased the 'evil and dumb' super mutants versus the benign and knightly order of the foul mouthed Grail, erm I mean Brotherhood of Steel.
After the Master's army was disbanded some oh I dunno about 30 years hence, the mutant army scattered they were in complete disarray and were no longer a threat to human civilization, even if they had hiked for 2-5 years to cross the continent to get to Washington odds are they'd have lost most of their will to fight, like Redding for example, they were starting to interact with humanity and actually defining themselves as an independent but not hostile entity.
'Evil' is in the eyes of the beholder, the super mutants were dumb most of the time, while others who had a decent mind believed that they were kick starting humanity up the evolutionary ladder whether they liked it or not.
Right now we have 'they are bad, shoot the bad, help the good, or blow away the good too, but you have to shoot the bad nonetheless, because they're bad after all'.
Those mutants look like enlarged zombies, not hulking masses of green, plus evolving does not equal ugliness, the forced evolution caused the growths to occur however they still looked facially more or less human, just far larger than a normal human and significantly better equipped to deal with the wasteland biologically.
I don't expect it to be perfect from Beth, radiant AI be damned for all I care I never saw intelligence in the actions of Oblivious, however what I want to know, and these pictures do not give me the sense, that they are going to keep the same storytelling methods. Even if they altered the time line in the past a tad for their story, yes perhaps they're the Chinese version of the FEV warriors, however if they jacked the American brew and made their own, the FEV would have effected them mostly the same, save a few racial differences.
As far as the BoS, they should not have been called that, to be completely honest, they'd have been better off calling them something different, a separate entity from the BoS as there are far too many stipulations and stigmata attached to the BoS from the past games.
From what I see, they're re-making (or trying to) Fallout 1, stapling a 3 on it, and prettying it up, giving a few different moral choices so that it looks as if you actually have an impact on the world.
Bethesdia presents Fallout 1.5, the true story that was supposed to be fallout, but we called it three because the fans from before would call foul, love our game now please, Please, Pretty Please?
After the Master's army was disbanded some oh I dunno about 30 years hence, the mutant army scattered they were in complete disarray and were no longer a threat to human civilization, even if they had hiked for 2-5 years to cross the continent to get to Washington odds are they'd have lost most of their will to fight, like Redding for example, they were starting to interact with humanity and actually defining themselves as an independent but not hostile entity.
'Evil' is in the eyes of the beholder, the super mutants were dumb most of the time, while others who had a decent mind believed that they were kick starting humanity up the evolutionary ladder whether they liked it or not.
Right now we have 'they are bad, shoot the bad, help the good, or blow away the good too, but you have to shoot the bad nonetheless, because they're bad after all'.
Those mutants look like enlarged zombies, not hulking masses of green, plus evolving does not equal ugliness, the forced evolution caused the growths to occur however they still looked facially more or less human, just far larger than a normal human and significantly better equipped to deal with the wasteland biologically.
I don't expect it to be perfect from Beth, radiant AI be damned for all I care I never saw intelligence in the actions of Oblivious, however what I want to know, and these pictures do not give me the sense, that they are going to keep the same storytelling methods. Even if they altered the time line in the past a tad for their story, yes perhaps they're the Chinese version of the FEV warriors, however if they jacked the American brew and made their own, the FEV would have effected them mostly the same, save a few racial differences.
As far as the BoS, they should not have been called that, to be completely honest, they'd have been better off calling them something different, a separate entity from the BoS as there are far too many stipulations and stigmata attached to the BoS from the past games.
From what I see, they're re-making (or trying to) Fallout 1, stapling a 3 on it, and prettying it up, giving a few different moral choices so that it looks as if you actually have an impact on the world.
Bethesdia presents Fallout 1.5, the true story that was supposed to be fallout, but we called it three because the fans from before would call foul, love our game now please, Please, Pretty Please?
Moving Target
Mildly Dipped
Cheech the cat said:
Not really. A jab at Todd Howard would've been a cheap shot.
My point, summed up too briefly apparently, was that changing it to real time (even real time with pause) changes the game A LOT. No more APs, the Agility score becomes much less useful, no more use for the Perks that bring up your initiative, and essentially the game turns into an FPS with the Fallout name.
Which wouldn't be a problem, but for the fact that it's not considered a spin-off (as with FO: Tactics) but a true sequel. And add onto that particular issue the fact that Beth's PR department has been saying non-stop since the last major preview "Get over it Fallout fans, TB is a relic and Black Isle would've put in RT and first-person perspective if they'd had the technology" and.... perhaps you can understand why we're a bit...miffed around here.
So...yeah. I dunno... "BoS as Paladins of the Wastes" seems like a pretty well ruined "good" part of the Fallout universe. So do the orcish "eeeeeevil" supermutants, even leaving the Behemoth aside.
I was being sarcastic, I agree with you. What I dont get is your sig.
Yeah the mutants look way too umh. Grotesque. Everything looks way too grotesque. Edit: I think BS looked at fallout and thought the graphics was made to appear as dog vomit intentionally and now they're replicating that aspect.
Or maybe that's their impression of how a Brahmin's stomach would look like. You know, that's another reason they should've kept it isometric.
Or maybe they just hate us.
/edit
Supermutants are supposed to look bodybuilders on steroids not like, dare I say, some ogre from Oblivion. Or beefed up zombie (that one hits the nail on the head.)
I dont want to turn this into a monologue, so yeah.
That said, the ghouls are going to be useless. I'm sure the agility stat will be fine, the intelligent stat will be done son. DONE!!11
Yeah the mutants look way too umh. Grotesque. Everything looks way too grotesque. Edit: I think BS looked at fallout and thought the graphics was made to appear as dog vomit intentionally and now they're replicating that aspect.
Or maybe that's their impression of how a Brahmin's stomach would look like. You know, that's another reason they should've kept it isometric.
Or maybe they just hate us.
/edit
Supermutants are supposed to look bodybuilders on steroids not like, dare I say, some ogre from Oblivion. Or beefed up zombie (that one hits the nail on the head.)
I dont want to turn this into a monologue, so yeah.
That said, the ghouls are going to be useless. I'm sure the agility stat will be fine, the intelligent stat will be done son. DONE!!11
Jiggly McNerdington
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Just a quick comment on mutants attacking people and feral ghouls, it's possible that instead of assimilating into post apocalyptic society, the mutants shown in the demo decided that being raiders would be their best option. They're not the sharpest lightbulbs in the barrel generally, they're extra strong and durable and (IIRC) highly resistant to radiation, so if normal humans can be lead to "Hey, why don't I just kill people for their stuff?" I would imagine super mutants would have an easier time choosing to do that. Especially if they're persecuted when trying to integrate with normal communities. Admittedly you can talk to most raiders in the other Fallouts, but if they're a "Random encounter" group (Which they aren't random at all since it's a staged demo to show what the game's looking like at the moment) they would likely just attack on sight instead of doing the old your GP or your HP line.
Then for feral ghouls, there were feral ghouls at Necropolis. There could theoretically be another vault or two that didn't seal properly like Vault-12, intentionally or not. Or maybe an overseer went nuts and opened a vault early when he wasn't supposed to, or maybe the vault dwellers went stir-crazy and killed/forced the overseer into opening the vault. Could definitely just be a case of "Hey look! GHOULS! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!" but I think there are plenty of ways they could have 'em there that wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
Then for feral ghouls, there were feral ghouls at Necropolis. There could theoretically be another vault or two that didn't seal properly like Vault-12, intentionally or not. Or maybe an overseer went nuts and opened a vault early when he wasn't supposed to, or maybe the vault dwellers went stir-crazy and killed/forced the overseer into opening the vault. Could definitely just be a case of "Hey look! GHOULS! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!" but I think there are plenty of ways they could have 'em there that wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
If I remember correctly, weren't most of the upper ghouls under the control of Set, who was actually not feral, just a dick.
Second, why do we have to give excuses for why this condradicts Fallout or that contridicts Fallout? This happened with Fallout BOS and where are the apologists now? There shouldn't really be contradictions in the first place.
Third, why can't Beth just offer a free roaming camera with multiple points of view? This way Bethesda can do their "re-invention, bringing the series into the future, immershun, etc, etc" without turning the game into some kind of deus ex clone.
Second, why do we have to give excuses for why this condradicts Fallout or that contridicts Fallout? This happened with Fallout BOS and where are the apologists now? There shouldn't really be contradictions in the first place.
Third, why can't Beth just offer a free roaming camera with multiple points of view? This way Bethesda can do their "re-invention, bringing the series into the future, immershun, etc, etc" without turning the game into some kind of deus ex clone.
Mord_Sith
Mildly Dipped
True I just gave them a slight out option, however as I said, from what I have seen there has been nothing to show me that the game, if nothing else is going to be pretty... pretty damn annoying, but aside from that it sounds like it's geared towards the quake 3 arena level of explosions, 'more boom fer yer bloom(ers)' rather than competent game-play.
The hardest moral question you will come across will probably be between 'knight in shining armor kissing babies and curing plague victims with your touch' versus 'snidely whiplash's kid, even if the world didn't take a dump on you, you're gonna take a dump on them'
Nothing that most PvP gamers haven't already made the choice of and not cared either way, judging by the mentality there's no shades of grey, for example there's no karmic hit for detonating nuclear explosions in cars or hand-held weapons, although it does effect the environment for some 25-35 years after the battle's been finished.
That was the one thing I liked about fallout, no matter how bad things were, (usually) nukes were considered something to never touch, as they had been used to destroy the world that was, they were seen more as a device of evil rather than a tool of man (save by the enclave).
Now everything is detonating, by the end of the game you're gonna see the world overshadowed in nuclear winter by that fatman hand cannon.
*sigh* I'm gonna stop now before I get even more depressed.
The hardest moral question you will come across will probably be between 'knight in shining armor kissing babies and curing plague victims with your touch' versus 'snidely whiplash's kid, even if the world didn't take a dump on you, you're gonna take a dump on them'
Nothing that most PvP gamers haven't already made the choice of and not cared either way, judging by the mentality there's no shades of grey, for example there's no karmic hit for detonating nuclear explosions in cars or hand-held weapons, although it does effect the environment for some 25-35 years after the battle's been finished.
That was the one thing I liked about fallout, no matter how bad things were, (usually) nukes were considered something to never touch, as they had been used to destroy the world that was, they were seen more as a device of evil rather than a tool of man (save by the enclave).
Now everything is detonating, by the end of the game you're gonna see the world overshadowed in nuclear winter by that fatman hand cannon.
*sigh* I'm gonna stop now before I get even more depressed.
Bernard Bumner
Still Mildly Glowing
DarkCorp said:
Well, it isn't necessarily a matter of contradiction, because you can't consider the Bible to be completely comprehensive for the purposes of creating sequels. Omission from established continuity shouldn't preclude events, especially given the transcontinental relocaction.
Handled with a certain amount of intelligence and quality story telling, there is no reason why Supermutants and The Brotherhood shouldn't reappear. There are plausible biological mechanisms for reactivating the FEV, for instance. However, I fear that it is possibly beyond Bethesda, especially given their apparent lack of subtlety, and they may well simply ride roughshod over continuity and neglect narrative depth. (Hence their white hat/black hat approach to good v evil, so far.)
DarkCorp said:
Well, they claim to be offering multiple viewpoints, but of course, one of those has to be the primary perspective (and they've already said that it won't really be possible to conduct combat in third-person). The choice to adopt first-person necessarily dictates and restricts many other design directions. A choice had to be made, or else you end up with compromises to the point that no view works well.
A good choice would have been - as many have suggested - to use first-person for exploration, and third person (turn-based) for combat. Presumably, Bethesda decided to stick to what they knew, or perhaps that the switch in perspective would be too jarring and disrupt the player's immersion in the world (maybe true for people who lack the imagination to invest in a character if they can see the back of its head).
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
You're making a whole mess out of it. There's a difference between what is to be expected, what is plausible, what is possible and what is a remote possibility. Even though supermos and brodosteel being in the east coast thirty years after the second fallout is a remote possibility (canon wise, I mean), it's not to be expetable, not even plausible. This kind of issue is what makes great stories great. A story can be plausible and coherent (like FOE's?) but not be great. Why? Because it's great. And the Brodosteel we knew being in the east coast with completely different ideologies and behaviors is not great at all. Moreso, supermos being orcs is just hugh...Bernard Bumner said:
All things said, Gears of War for the win... Collectible cod tags goes for bubble heads (and achievments), big baddy mindless mutants? Check. Bloom and hyped graphics? Yay! Gore? Sure thing. Yup, Gears of War FTW. Xbox 360? ahah
Bernard Bumner
Still Mildly Glowing
Morbus said:
Well, be fair; it isn't me, it is Bethesda who are making the mess with their approach. I've always said that, had it been me, I would have taken the opportunity of the relocation to develop a completely new mythology.
My point is that there are ways of dealing with Supermutants and The Brotherhood which are continuous with the series - even if somewhat tenuous and contrived - but that I think Bethesda is unlikely to achieve even that. I think that they lack the sense of lore and mythology to accomplish even plausibility.
Morbus said:
I agree.
Playing with continuity takes great skill, but can be done (rarely, and I should add that I speak mainly from the perspective of a comic book fan, where people often play fast and loose with mythology to point of destroying a series).
So far, Betehsda seem to have taken a very lazy approach to design, by including elements of the first games simply as a shortcut to making a notional sequel, which of course misses the point entirely. However, having taken the rather suspect decision to include familiar characters and factions, they can still implement those things well or badly.
Morbus said:
If you're going to re-engineer a product so that it has to compete in an already rather bloated sector of the marketplace, then you need to ensure that it is very, very good. Bethesda's baby could very well be utterly redundant before it is even birthed. Which is what you end up with if you cannot understand the difference between a sequel and a rather bland, superficial rehash. (They may alienate a pretty solid fanbase, whilst also failing to capture that new market they covert.)
Wasn't fatman the bomb that took out hiroshima?
Edit: Cause if it is, I find that offensive.
So looking at this "into the genre blender" inverview it appears
...
"Todd"
...
.... is confusing cRPG's (like Fallout) with JRPG's (like Final Fantasy with the minigames n da pudding pops.)
I dont really want to quote this out of context "If you're like me, your tastes are very eclectic, and you simply skim the reviews for the games with the best scores. Is it an action game, strategy game, puzzle RPG, or a sports game? I dont really care, I just want to know if it's awesome."
Edit: Cause if it is, I find that offensive.
So looking at this "into the genre blender" inverview it appears
...
"Todd"
...
.... is confusing cRPG's (like Fallout) with JRPG's (like Final Fantasy with the minigames n da pudding pops.)
I dont really want to quote this out of context "If you're like me, your tastes are very eclectic, and you simply skim the reviews for the games with the best scores. Is it an action game, strategy game, puzzle RPG, or a sports game? I dont really care, I just want to know if it's awesome."
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Which is exactly what happened with FOPOS, and what I pray that happens with FOPOS2 aka FOE.Bernard Bumner said:
It was. And, just IMO, you finding it offensive doesn't mean the offense was intender NOR that it must be revoked... Just saying. Everything is possibly offensive to everyone...Cheech the cat said:
Cheech the cat said:
Yes.
It's offensive, that's doesn't mean it's insensitive by definition.
Consider yourself fortunate. I loathe First Person Shooters. With the passion of a thousand burning suns I loathe them. If I'd never played either Fallout once or had ever even seen them, I'd still loathe first person shooters.eLZhi said:
Look, I'm getting close to 40 now, I'm part of the first generation of home gamers. I cannot play these things like a 12 year old. I don't have their reflexes, they don't have my patience or analytical skills. It'd be one thing if there were a glut of games devoted to me and none to them, but does the market really need "Doom Part CCCLXXVII?"
I am incapable of playing these things (FPS) longer than long enough to keep my nephews amused when they visit (they do happen to think it's cool they've found an adult who plays video games). What Bethesda should or shouldn't have done in order to make the most money is a discussion that doesn't interest me. What interests me is that they switched my favorite game to a format I despise.
Why shouldn't I be unhappy?
fallout ranger
Vault Dweller
Whats wrong with FPS? I like both, but it's like oil and water, they just don't mix. F3 will be a good, fun game...it just won't be real Fallout.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I don't say. Whether or not you are exaggerating is your own business... At least in this case. IMHO...Cheech the cat said:
Also, what's with everyone wanting to mix everything they like? Do you like cheeseburgers? Do you like intercourse? Try mixing both and see what happens... Genre crossing...
LEAVE MY GMAES ALONE!!!1
I don't have a problem with folks who like them, I don't.fallout ranger said:
1) "Real-time" RPG is a fiction. As much as they like to pretend otherwise, you can't "play a role" in real time without a script. The way I would react to some anonymous enemy ambushing me, and the way a guy who has spent the last three years surviving in a PA waste would react are simply different. TB takes the initial reaction out of the equation, and returns it to a scenario where the skills and abilities of the principles involved affect the outcome, not my own lousy reaction time.
2) Stand up. Move about three feet to the left. Now did you have to slowly twitch your muscles so that you only move those three feet? Did you only move about a foot at first? Did you accidentally move too far and go seven feet? No, you pretty much nailed it on the first try with little difficulty. The reality is that video game interfaces are currently nowhere even remotely close to replicating human movement, and yet all these FPS games pretend that they are. The end result is that because you're trying to replicate the complexity of real time human movement with an analog stick (and can't), to make a usable game out of it makes it necessary to dumb down other elements to compensate. Again, TB solves this. If you want to move three feet and crouch behind cover, you use your turn to move three feet and crouch behind cover.
3) Video games have always bumped up against the practical limits of what you can do with the available technology. The graphical and interface demands of FPS games unfortunately mean that the available resources that could be spent on other things, have to spent there. Leaving you with a "Post-Apocalyptic Battle Sim plus Google Earth" as opposed to an actual "Post-Apocalyptic World."
4) It's just my personal tastes. I grew up playing turned based RPGs on pencil and paper, and really grew to love old TB PC games like Wasteland, Ultima III and IV, the Wizardry series, etc. When Doom and Duke Nuke 'Em came along, they left me very meh. It looked nice, but I couldn't do nearly as much. Kill, kill and kill some more. There isn't a gun in the entire video game universe that gave me as much pleasure as trying to deal with Myron. Again that's my tastes, but if I'm going to advocate, I should advocate on my own behalf.
Hey you got cocaine in my heroin.
You got heroin in my cocaine!!1
Let's see how this turns out.
I understand that anything can potentially offend anyone, as well as potentially provoke any other emotion. I just think, for one thing, it's a tradgedy. It was also a catalyst that lead to more tradgedies.
And in the context of the game it has no relavence whatsoever. It's like you might as well name it Chernobyl. Also there is the America! Fuck yeah! aspect. And that's the way I see it.
What does IMO and IMHO mean?
You got heroin in my cocaine!!1
Let's see how this turns out.
I understand that anything can potentially offend anyone, as well as potentially provoke any other emotion. I just think, for one thing, it's a tradgedy. It was also a catalyst that lead to more tradgedies.
And in the context of the game it has no relavence whatsoever. It's like you might as well name it Chernobyl. Also there is the America! Fuck yeah! aspect. And that's the way I see it.
What does IMO and IMHO mean?
Jiggly McNerdington
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
But those go together well!Morbus said:
And FO3 could certainly turn out shitty, and I've heard some pretty good arguments against FPS RPGs (I think it was a guy on here, saying that they should be playable by his 70 year old grandma, IE they require more thinking and less twitching/coordination), but that said if you like/can stand FPS games, Bloodlines sold me pretty well on an FPS being able to be a good RPG as well.
'course, it was made by Troika and Bethesda had nothing to do with it, I'm just saying it's possible for shooter-heavy games to be good RPGs. But if you don't like FPS at all or can't play them, then it rather sucks. Then again, if by some miracle FO3 actually manages to be a good RPG if you ignore the combat, it'll probably have a difficulty slider widget like Oblivion, so you can tone it down to the point where you take down super mutants with a flint-sharpened pointed stick. Also not really optimal, but if it has a good story you prooooooobably would be able to get through the game and see it.
Edit: Oh yeah, and having a weapon called the fatman is a bit insensitive, but considering the Fallout series has let you shoot kids in the groin with a shotgun and sell your spouse to slavers I'm not too worried about it. Not even sure if that's what it's called in the game, or if that's just the nickname the developers gave it.