PC Gamer - Desslock and Dan

[Brother None]

PC Gamer magazine has a featured preview of Fallout 3. The format is a bit different than the other previews, namely a conversation between Desslock and Dan, and rather than rehashing already known information, they discuss their views on the way Fallout 3 is shaping up.

Images removed per PC Gamer's request - Silencer

Thanks Stag.

 

[Vault 69er]

"... but considering the level of immersion in Oblivion, Bethesda's other outstanding RPG, it just might be worth it."

 

[Sander]

I like how every one of these previews goes 'Yeah, the hard-core fans are going to be real pleased with this', while the people who are actually fans hate where this is going.

 

[Brother None]

I like how every one of these previews goes 'Yeah, the hard-core fans are going to be real pleased with this', while the people who are actually fans hate where this is going.

I think it's a matter of perception. As gaming journalists, they're used to spinning every chance into a positive light. I think they've lost touch with the idea of having a standard and sticking to it. In their view, standards should be adapted to reality, not vice versa.

Hence, miscommunication.

 

[Vault 69er]

And anybody who is unhappy is dismissed as a rabid fanatic who wants a carbon copy of Fallout 2 and will never be happy even though Bethesda is really truly doing everything humanly possible to please them because they're fans too! (which is a lie)

 

[Stag]

Nvm, I should read things I upload .

 

[Oblique Strategy]

I like how every one of these previews goes 'Yeah, the hard-core fans are going to be real pleased with this', while the people who are actually fans hate where this is going.

I don't think you can speak for all fans of the series.

I've been playing and replaying Fallout for years, and I like where the franchise is going. Is it 100% ideal? Absolutely not. In fact, I find the nuclear catapult to be an insanely stupid idea that is an example of silly comic book logic that has no place in Fallout 3.

Yet I can't say that I'm filled with an overwhelming sense of anger and loathing towards what I've seen. For me, the idea of what Fallout "is" hasn't grown to be this nebulous, impossible-to-define thing that can only be perceived in the negative (i.e: "THAT'S NOT FALLOUT").

I would have preferred Van Buren, but there are elements to F3 that seem as though they have the potential to be quite enjoyable.

Maybe I'm just not hardcore "enough"?

 

[Sander]

I don't think you can speak for all fans of the series.

I didn't claimt to be speaking for all the fans, but just a quick look around the *only* Fallout fansites in existence shows that the fans in general do not like where this is going whatsoever.

I've been playing and replaying Fallout for years, and I like where the franchise is going. Is it 100% ideal? Absolutely not. In fact, I find the nuclear catapult to be an insanely stupid idea that is an example of silly comic book logic that has no place in Fallout 3.

Yet I can't say that I'm filled with an overwhelming sense of anger and loathing towards what I've seen. For me, the idea of what Fallout "is" hasn't grown to be this nebulous, impossible-to-define thing that can only be perceived in the negative (i.e: "THAT'S NOT FALLOUT").

Yet we've very, very, very clearly defined what Fallout is in the positive sense. The fact that Bethesda chooses to ignore the essential elements of Fallout doesn't mean we've somehow grown Fallout into an undefinable piece.

I would have preferred Van Buren, but there are elements to F3 that seem as though they have the potential to be quite enjoyable.

Maybe I'm just not hardcore "enough"?

It's not about whether or not it would be a fun game, it's about whether or not it would be a good Fallout game.

 

[Oblique Strategy]

I didn't claimt to be speaking for all the fans, but just a quick look around the *only* Fallout fansites in existence shows that the fans in general do not like where this is going whatsoever.

A great majority of Fallout fans I've encountered shy away from the big fan sites as they feel distinctly out-of-place at any of them. Like it or not, they tend to be a monoculture where fans who do not feel hostile towards any future progress in the series are viewed as pariahs.

Yet we've very, very, very clearly defined what Fallout is in the positive sense. The fact that Bethesda chooses to ignore the essential elements of Fallout doesn't mean we've somehow grown Fallout into an undefinable piece.

Even if someone can point out that something in Fallout 3 was in Fallout 1 or 2 you end up with the whole "That wasn't a good part of the game / I don't consider X, Y and Z in Fallout 2 to be canon anyway / Bethesda moved a bolt on that model and now it sucks" endless stream of negative rationalization.

What Fallout is happens to be different for everyone, but I still do not believe that some people are even prepared to consider anything beyond their cherry-picked list of preferred game elements to be Fallout, and even then, any subtle changes or modifications that reflect the fact a decade of computing evolution separates Fallout 2 from Fallout 3 are immediately lambasted.

It's not about whether or not it would be a fun game, it's about whether or not it would be a good Fallout game.

Three Fallout fans, six opinions.

 

[ivpiter]

After an extensive demo, PC Gamer’s resident Fallout Geeks, Dan Stapleton discuss what they’ve just witnessed including their highest hops and deepest concerns for the upcoming game:

On VATS v. Turn-Based:
<blockquote>
Desslock:
The VATS combat system looks great and retains the feel of the original Fallout Games.

Dan:
Even though I’ve long considered myself in the “if it’s not turnbased it’s not Fallout camp,” I think Beth has come up with a fantastic compromise.
What makes me all warm and tingly is that they’ve kept location based shooting…

Dan: I'm very sad that they pared down the list of target-able areas to arms, legs, head and torso, and weapon, excluding the groin. How am I supposed to punch people in the junk now?


</blockquote>

Thanks to Brother None for pointing out what I missed


On Adult Content:
<blockquote>
Desslock: “They don’t seem to be shying away… The inhabitantants of the wastes are suitably profane and un-PC”

Dan: “…one of the things I appricated most about the original games… …if I wanted to I could kill anyone at any time…”
</blockquote>

Okay so other then a homage to the original games and a brief reference to the profanity and un-PC qualities of the NPC’s no mention of concern about adult content: I guess child killing, prostitution, sex… in general were not part of the game for these self-proclaimed fallout geeks, as no mention is made of adult content beyond the gore and the gutter language.

Okay so Adult content is all roses and peaches… so how about… moral ambiguity and choice.

<blockquote>
Desslock: …you have to make real choices…

Dan: …and yet your choices are not black and white … They’ve delibritly added a third path for neutral players…
</blockquote>

Well good to know the blow up a city or turn in the guy that wants to blow up the city isn’t balck and white… how’s that work again?
Anyways choice and moral ambiguity seem all warm and gooey… so do we have any deep concerns at all?

<blockquote>

Dan: My biggest concern is that society will have advanced too far… I’d hate to lose the sense of gradual advancement.
Desslock: I may have the opposite concern, that the world may feel too small

Dan: (Rebutting Desslock’s possible concern) I think it’s a good thing they are cutting back…
</blockquote>

And finally… from Dan self-proclaimed Fallout Geek whose deepest concern is “society will have advanced too far” says…

The biggest danger I think, is the heads of thousands of fallout players around the world will go nuclear when they see how well Fallout 3 is shaping up.

Thanks Dan, but I believe your assessment of the fans reaction to Bethsoft’s Fallout effort is directly proportional to how far you’ve shoved your head into Todd’s oozing buttocks.

Oh and I noticed Desslock thought Harold will make a return… that is as good as a press release for me, I wonder who told him?

Edit for typo's / grammer / removed incorrect info.

 

[Brother None]

Wow, no mention of the missing groin and eye shots

<blockquote>Dan: I'm very sad that they pared down the list of target-able areas to arms, legs, head and torso, and weapon, excluding the groin. How am I supposed to punch people in the junk now?</blockquote>First page

 

[ivpiter]

Wow, no mention of the missing groin and eye shots

<blockquote>Dan: I'm very sad that they pared down the list of target-able areas to arms, legs, head and torso, and weapon, excluding the groin. How am I supposed to punch people in the junk now?</blockquote>First page

Thanks for that,added to the actual post above, hope I didn't overlook any other info.

 

[zioburosky13]

The only good part of the entire article:

"FALLOUTL:BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL
A console-only atrocity that slapped the Fallout license onto an embarrassing third-person shooter. Let us speak of it no more"

Ironically, isn't the default view angle and gameplay style of Fallout 3 is third-person too?

 

[Brother None]

No, the default angle of Fallout 3 is first person. Because that's more immersive.

 

[Sander]

A great majority of Fallout fans I've encountered shy away from the big fan sites as they feel distinctly out-of-place at any of them. Like it or not, they tend to be a monoculture where fans who do not feel hostile towards any future progress in the series are viewed as pariahs.

And your point being what, exactly?
If there was a big movement of hardcore fans who *do* like the new direction, don't you think there'd actually be a Fallout fansite that does support Fallout 3?
I say we trust the site that has thousands of unique visitors per day, as opposed to a limited survey conducted by one of those visitors amongst people who don't visit said site.

Even if someone can point out that something in Fallout 3 was in Fallout 1 or 2 you end up with the whole "That wasn't a good part of the game / I don't consider X, Y and Z in Fallout 2 to be canon anyway / Bethesda moved a bolt on that model and now it sucks" endless stream of negative rationalization.

What Fallout is happens to be different for everyone, but I still do not believe that some people are even prepared to consider anything beyond their cherry-picked list of preferred game elements to be Fallout, and even then, any subtle changes or modifications that reflect the fact a decade of computing evolution separates Fallout 2 from Fallout 3 are immediately lambasted.

Oh goodie, yet again that bullshit argument. Go read up.
I don't give a shit what part of Fallout you preferred or didn't prefer, it's very very simple to *objectively* define Fallout's core design. And Bethesda very obviously is not sticking to it.

 

[Tora]

The only good part of the entire article:

"FALLOUT:BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL
A console-only atrocity that slapped the Fallout license onto an embarrassing third-person shooter. Let us speak of it no more"

Ironically, isn't the default view angle and gameplay style of Fallout 3 is third-person too?

No, the default angle of Fallout 3 is first person. Because that's more immersive.

"FALLOUT: BETHESDA EDITION
A console-oriented atrocity that slapped the Fallout license onto an embarrassing first-person shooter. Let us speak of it no more"

Fixed

 

[Paladin Solo]

A great majority of Fallout fans I've encountered shy away from the big fan sites as they feel distinctly out-of-place at any of them. Like it or not, they tend to be a monoculture where fans who do not feel hostile towards any future progress in the series are viewed as pariahs.

1. Proof please
2. A fan is someone who is, by definition, wholeheartedly devoted to said subject, and greatly enthusiastic about said subject. Therefore, if these "fans" you speak of are glad with the drastic changes that have taken place for the franchise, then by default, they prefer Bethesda's butchering of the franchise to Black Isle's original version, hence, they are not a fan of Black Isle's Fallout, but Bethesda's Fallout 3. Therefore, it is understandable why they avoid the Fallout fansites, and prefer to be Bethesda's lap-dog or are simply just enthusiastic about their corrupted version of Fallout to the original. Sure, you can be a fan of the post-apocalyptic setting, but that doesn't mean you're a fan of Fallout.
3. Preference is a key-factor. Most fans of the originals tend to despise Bethesda's rape of the franchise, hence the large backlash amongst the fan community. But not every fan likes or hates the same thing.
4.

Their definition of "big Fallout fan" is likely "yeah, I played that once years ago and really loved it"

5. What Sander said.

Generally, fans of the original who despise Bethesda don't frequent their forums, just likes fans of Bethesda don't frequent the Fallout fansites, trolling aside. Generally.

Even if someone can point out that something in Fallout 3 was in Fallout 1 or 2 you end up with the whole "That wasn't a good part of the game / I don't consider X, Y and Z in Fallout 2 to be canon anyway / Bethesda moved a bolt on that model and now it sucks" endless stream of negative rationalization.

Interesting irrational conclusion you have come to. For one, we know for a fact that Fallout and Fallout 2 are canon, yet Bethesda doesn't give a fuck, so your argument not only fails at providing any concrete evidence of most fans saying "such and such wasn't canon anyways, blah blah blah", but also helps to yet even further reveal Bethesda's hypocritical, mischievous, corporate, criminal attitude.

What Fallout is happens to be different for everyone, but I still do not believe that some people are even prepared to consider anything beyond their cherry-picked list of preferred game elements to be Fallout, and even then, any subtle changes or modifications that reflect the fact a decade of computing evolution separates Fallout 2 from Fallout 3 are immediately lambasted.

Other than graphics updates and "OMG RAI HYPE" what evolution are you refering to other than say, the ability to make a larger game (note: larger as in bigger, more area, not "FPS OMGZOINKS RAI" bullshit)?

Three Fallout fans, six opinions.

One Bethesda fan, one spoon-fed opinion.

 

[ManiO]

Anyone else notice on the fourth page, in the "crash course" in Fallout history, under the FO:TicTac screenshot.

Bethesda doesn't count Tactics as Fallout Canon, but it's story follows the eastward expansion of the Brotherhood of Steel...

Hmm, if the eastward expansion of BoS isn't canon, then what would that make FO3's story? Not canon at least.

 

[Morbus]

Even if someone can point out that something in Fallout 3 was in Fallout 1 or 2 you end up with the whole "That wasn't a good part of the game / I don't consider X, Y and Z in Fallout 2 to be canon anyway / Bethesda moved a bolt on that model and now it sucks" endless stream of negative rationalization.

Look, it's core design points ok? It's not a bolt, it's about Fallout's core design aspects.

 

[ManiO]

Also, has there been any mention of critical failures? With homemade weapons one would expect some (i.e. more frequent) backfiring, accidental explosions etc.