NMA Op-ed: Fallout 3 PAX Impressions
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Szeder said:
(emphasis mine)
Really? Do you not think that had they called it Fallout X (Where X is some sort of subtitle indicating the game is a spin off and not a sequel) that it would cause PR trouble?
Firstly, the game previews from the industry wouldn't have been "Sequel to great yet cultish CRPG of the 90's", it would have been "Spin off from great CRPG of the 90's, just like Tactics and Brotherhood Of Steel".
More importantly, while many of us here would be much more satisfied if we weren't being told this thing was a sequel, there'd be others who'd be adopting the line of "Well Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel sucked Great Big Giant Donkey Balls, so surely another Fallout spin off will do likewise". Such comparisons may not be as far away from the mainstream eye as this site either.
Now, to the unitiated (By which I mean people who've no experience of Fallout and Fallout 2), Fallout 3 is a faithful sequel and not a spin off like those other games. This is a somewhat less favourable perception than "It's a spin off, like those other sucky games, but this time we're assured it won't suck by the people who assured us that Brotherhood Of Steel wouldn't suck". Plus, sequels are usually more succesful than spin offs.
Cow
First time out of the vault
Zeld said:
I liked the nihilistic themes. Everyone in the Fallout universe is trying to forget that they live in a shit hole and make a living for themselves but whenever something can go wrong it does (and every "morally right" action usually backfires). Everything you do in Fallout ends up failing; you're banished from your home, a totalitarian government takes over half the wasteland, you save a city of ghouls only to watch it get overrun by mutants... there's little point to anything and I loved that feeling.
Fallout 3's characters are just too established in their world. Humanity advances quickly (and 200+ years after the apocalypse is a pretty long time) but there's no overarching theme in the game. Yeah you can blow up a town and become evil or good but that rotten hopeless feeling I got from the first two games isn't there and it's replaced by this gritty machismo that reminds me too much of modern day America.
Maybe Fallout 3's theme is just that. The cycle of history. It's been proven that the government is getting in the way of scientific research regarding the planet's environment and fossil fuels. In Fallout 3, nuclear weapons seem to be regarded as a common every day thing when they should be downright feared. Ghouls and mutants are a feared minority and white supremacists want to cleanse the world of the post-war "filth." Once again, history repeats itself.
Those people seem to not care what it's called or really anything about the game other than that it should only be 'fun'. They'd never heard of any Fallout game (spin-off of not) before Fallout 3 was announced. That seems to be the crowd on which Bethesda is really banking the success of this game. To make a naming concession for actual fans of the series is not going to hurt it.sarfa said:
To avoid the spin-off stigma, they could just call it a 'new series' and you can bet that the others you mention would follow right along, reassured that it's "not a spin-off, but a new, different, next-gen Fallout series that isn't like the old ones". Fans would be fine with it, anyone else wouldn't care. Those who are going to buy it are going to regardless of what it's called now.
But I guess Bethesda wouldn't get the dick-waving satisfaction if they didn't call it a sequel.
Grey_Ghost said:
I'm not trying to e-knight for Beth here, but really? You feel insulted because they picked up a dead franchise and had the audacity to put a number at the end of it rather than a colon?
Of the many reasons you have to not buy the game you choose the title? Hell, for $10 I'll cross out the 3 and write in "Fallout: Raped My Nostalgia" and send it to you.
E: And I think this is the best preview yet. I'm glad someone finally had the balls to play the game without constantly reminding themselves that it fails at being a time machine to 10 years ago.
Roffler said:
Of course.
It being called Fallout 3 means this is the new genre of Fallout 3, the new legacy. It means Fallout as a pen and paper emulating franchise is dead, and Fallout as an FPSRPG franchise is born.
If Tactics had been called Fallout 3 instead of Tactics (and had been more successful), we could have seen a continuing series of sequels, Fallout 4, 5, all tactical games, and never have an RPG sequel again. Same thing. Call a spin-off a spin-off, else you're abandoning the franchise's legacy.
Roffler said:
Uh...what previewers constantly remind themselves that it fails at being a time machine to 10 years ago, exactly? You're not making much sense there, buddy.
And who is E?
Xenophile
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Roffler said:
congratulations.. you just saved me a post.. took the words right out of my mouth.
sarfa said:
You cannot be serious on that. PR problems? In our consumer society people will buy what firms have them believe to be cool. Do you think that it would break the hearts of those console nerds if this game was called Fallout North America or any other name?
There is something you seem to misunderstand in marketing. If a game is advertised professionally, it can be given any name. Once the road-roller of commercials starts it is only about how well you present your software.
I do think that Bethesda could have gone down a different path. Do you think that a sequel to this beloved title does not deserve an engine of its own? A great solution would have been that Bethesda released this game with a name Fallout XXXX and then after they cashed loads of money from it, they could have used that money to create a worthy sequel with its own engine etc.....
If they do not even bother to develop a new engine for such a legendary title and they go looking for excuses like "well we think it is more personal this way" (which are obviously lies) then Bethesda should not be developing Fallout 3 at all, Pr problems or not.
You conveniently skipped the most important part of Grey_Ghost's post, that is:Roffler said:
The main problem I have with Fallout 3 isn't "3" in the title but long list of idiocies, Bethesda's constant lying and treating their potential clients like idiots. But what REALLY irritates me the most is thatGrey_Ghost said:
Beelzebud said:
thanks
Thank You Cow and Plissken for the honest reviews.
Even though its not a Direct sequel to Fallout 1 and 2, everything I have seen so far dose point in it being a sequel and not a spin off. At least to the way I see it. The "World" is still Fallout. All the familiar Groups, Meds, the Pipboy, Vaults....I guess thats why I was willing to buy and play it from the get go. I will be playing in the World of Fallout just not in the same way that I played in the same world during Fallout 1 and 2.
Thank You Cow and Plissken for the honest reviews.
Even though its not a Direct sequel to Fallout 1 and 2, everything I have seen so far dose point in it being a sequel and not a spin off. At least to the way I see it. The "World" is still Fallout. All the familiar Groups, Meds, the Pipboy, Vaults....I guess thats why I was willing to buy and play it from the get go. I will be playing in the World of Fallout just not in the same way that I played in the same world during Fallout 1 and 2.
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
No, because I have no attraction to it is the reason I won't buy it.
Because it's called Fallout 3 is the reason I despise it.
Not very smart, eh? Saved you a post, but you wasted one on thanking him. Not good business.
reticulate
First time out of the vault
It's always great to see some insight from people who aren't paid-up members of the game journalist community. A good read.
thefalloutfan
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Yes, t'was a good read. How I thought about the game anyway.
Looks to be a good, decent enjoyable game; but not that much of a fallout game.
Looks to be a good, decent enjoyable game; but not that much of a fallout game.
beverageleverage
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Re: thanks
That is EXACTLY what a spinoff is, same world with different gameplay. If "The 'World'" wasn't there it wouldn't be anything.Aero said:
And Fallout 1/2 was best described as "computer role playing game, with pen and paper emulation combat, set in a post-apo, retro 50's universe (aka "Fallout Universe")".
And please tell me...why this is called Fallout 3?
Good read. Says everything that I was mostly affraid to hear.
I'm not going to spend my money on this one. If I want to play a Fallout-like game, I would rather spend my money on STALKER:Clear Sky, not on Beth's Fallout 3rd spin-off.
almost.dust
First time out of the vault
Thanks for sharing your impressions with us!
Alas, it was a much more helpful and enlightening view than some of the reviews.
On the aforementioned context of "consistent to historical precedent" (and not censorship):
In FO 1 & 2 you could lower the amount of gore you saw onscreen, can anyone who has actually played it tell us if they saw any option settings for less gore (other than not taking the "bloody mess" perk)?
Thanks!
Alas, it was a much more helpful and enlightening view than some of the reviews.
On the aforementioned context of "consistent to historical precedent" (and not censorship):
In FO 1 & 2 you could lower the amount of gore you saw onscreen, can anyone who has actually played it tell us if they saw any option settings for less gore (other than not taking the "bloody mess" perk)?
Thanks!