PC Gamer UK scans

I don't understand why people criticize the emphasis on over the top violence in Fallout. It was one of the key features since GURPS: Fallout.
 
It wouldn't be Fallout without extreme gore
Click to expand...
However, it looks like it 'can' be Fallout without killable kids and whores :roll:
It's like eating tomatoes and imaging you're eating whole pizza.

...you'll realise that this is not just a first-person shooter
Click to expand...
Because it's also third person shooter!


People haven't visibly mutated, but society has
Click to expand...
I think he means that people are more stupid- you know, this whole Megaton thing.
 
To me, emphasizing the violence is not seeing the forest for the trees. Some people talk about Fallout as if it were Hostel - a movie you go see mainly because you get off on gore. That bugs the shit out of me.

I'm not saying Fallout 3, or any Fallout game, shouldn't be harsh and violent. But over-emphasizing it is retarded. Fallout did have a violence toggle (and a profanity filter as well).
 
Meh, the gory death animations were a biggish part of FO's atmosphere, and made combat satisfying imo. However, in the grand scheme of things, gore should be near the bottom of the list of priorities. They should be showing screen-shots of dialogue trees, not heads exploding, at this stage. The gore was the cherry on top, important but not what you buy it for.

I also suspect (despite Todd's obsession) the death animations in FO1/2 will still be superior (doing people melting, chunks of flesh coming off, etc, is very time consuming to do in 3D). More likely we will just see limbs/heads explode stupidly, like in UT2K4.
 
Forhekset said:
I'm not saying Fallout 3, or any Fallout game, shouldn't be harsh and violent. But over-emphasizing it is retarded. Fallout did have a violence toggle (and a profanity filter as well).
Click to expand...
Did anyone use it? The violence toggle and profanity filter is good for sissies. Also, Tim Cain himself said that GURPS: Fallout would make John Woo proud.
The main difference that from the beginning he said that GURPS: Fallout will be a recreation of GURPS on computer, not some stupid shooter or next gen ARPG.
 
I don't like the over emphasis on violence because there was another man who did exactly that, and thought violence was the sole defining feature of Fallout.
His name was Chuck Cuevas.
 
Notice that their main selling point isn't violence. Their main selling point is innowashun, "deep roleplaying" and SHINYtm.
 
Sorrow said:
Notice that their main selling point isn't violence. Their main selling point is innowashun, "deep roleplaying" and SHINYtm.
Click to expand...
Otherwise they'd be under Senat's pressure. Also, many EU countries would cut the violence to a degree (Germany for sure, affecting Austria with it as well), maybe even stopping it from being published. This is just a speculation, but endorsing violence is a bad bad thing in these parts of the global village.
 
Though we do have Todd "Violence is funny!" Howard and Pete "killing people then seeing a smiling cartoon character in your menu screen is the true humour of Fallout!" Hines.
 
Nim82 said:
Meh, the gory death animations were a biggish part of FO's atmosphere, and made combat satisfying imo. However, in the grand scheme of things, gore should be near the bottom of the list of priorities. They should be showing screen-shots of dialogue trees, not heads exploding, at this stage. The gore was the cherry on top, important but not what you buy it for.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I like melting baddies into a pile of goo with a plasma rifle just as much as anyone. I also like critical eye shots and verbose, often-hilarious combat text. As I said, it's the overemphasis on gore that bothers me. It's a FPS! It's got headshots! Must be a Fallout game! Uh, no.

Sorrow said:
Forhekset said:
I'm not saying Fallout 3, or any Fallout game, shouldn't be harsh and violent. But over-emphasizing it is retarded. Fallout did have a violence toggle (and a profanity filter as well).
Click to expand...
Did anyone use it? The violence toggle and profanity filter is good for sissies. Also, Tim Cain himself said that GURPS: Fallout would make John Woo proud.
The main difference that from the beginning he said that GURPS: Fallout will be a recreation of GURPS on computer, not some stupid shooter or next gen ARPG.
Click to expand...
I didn't use the violence slider myself, other than making sure it was set at max. On most of my playthroughs I picked the "Bloody Mess" trait to make sure I always saw the most violent death animations.

However, showcasing exploding heads in your preview and saying stupid shit like "It wouldn't be Fallout without extreme gore" is retarded and makes you look like you know fuckall about the franchise. If you feel like violence is Fallout's defining feature, more power to you I suppose. There are plenty of other ultra-violent games you could be playing instead, with less storyline, deep gameplay and character development to get in the way of that oh-so-sweet extreme gore.

The point you seem to be missing is that I said overemphasis of the violence is what's stupid, not the violence itself.
 
I think the most disturbing thing about the whole "overemphasized violence BS" is that it completely detracts from the incredible possibilities that Fallout introduced into RPG gaming.

I was much more impressed with the ability the game gave us to beat it without ever killing anyone, than I was with the funny death animations.

Making Fallout 3 into a mostly realtime shooter with occasionaly pausing to feel turnbased, has completely crippled it's ability to portray one of the most impressive parts of the Fallout franchise:

The concept of the good natured character.


What kind of replayability is this game going to have, if it's just a neverending shootout with a bunch of mutants on a platform that's designed to not be good for twitch play?

I can go play Quake 2 if I want to kill mutant beasties all day long in first person, and it will actually be more entertaining than the gimped FPS that Fallout 3 is going to be, because I can speedjump and circlestrafe around shit and actually do all the cool things that an FPS game should have, like rocketjumping..

Flashy graphics don't impress me in the least, and they wont make up for the failure to give us the option to play a character without great gun skills and actually beat the game.

I mean, how can they consider it a ROLE PLAYING GAME, if you only have one role to play, and that role is just killing everything that moves in first person with headshots?
 
I think that they are going for the teenage "It's got to have gore and gut's otherwise it's not a game" crowd you know the type the ones who spell as many words as they can with numbers (L33T).

OK, I know that tech and game tastes have evolved over the last 10 years but it is another not to listen to a established fan base especially when they are so vocal and bloody minded as we fallout fans are. I mean come on toilet water for healing? small nuclear weapons that you can use to smite your enemies in a flash and bang that would irradiate you and your companions?

Come on at least try in FOT the nuke near the end you had to run for that little bunker (a Stupid idea any bunker that close to the blast would have been destroyed anyway) what they need to do is some basic research on the subjects at hand and then possibly they could make a fallout game that the current fans would run out and buy on the day or release.

Oh and to clear things up I am getting a copy of F3 the day it comes out but only so I can say I have a copy of every Fallout.
 
Forhekset said:
It wouldn't be Fallout without extreme gore...
Click to expand...

Wait a minute; you can't just go quote mining in an article and then claim that it shows some sort of bias or lack of understanding.

1) It is true - and we'd be the first to complain if the violence was santized.
2) There is plenty of other stuff in the article that isn't about gore and violence.

Why bother misrepresenting the tone of the article, when there is so much more substance to actually get your teeth into?

Black said:
However, it looks like it 'can' be Fallout without killable kids...
Click to expand...

I'm from the UK, and I have to tell you that I didn't even realise that there was children in Fallout until I found the graphics patch. It didn't detract from the game one bit for me (although I did patch them back in).

Any games company faces great pressure to produce a game that isn't going to be mauled by the various age-restrictions around the world. In the UK and US, the censors have started to take a much harder line on depictions of violence against innocents, as it were. I find the censor's approach patronizing and morally offensive, but it is a reality of games production in the present climate of moralistic fear and loathing.
 
I'm from the UK, and I have to tell you that I didn't even realise that there was children in Fallout until I found the graphics patch. It didn't detract from the game one bit for me (although I did patch them back in).
Click to expand...
I live in Europe, too. And I always installed children patch. And you're looking at the wrong side- Fallout 1 and 2 had children, you just had to install small fix. And now, with FO3, no matter what patch you'll install kids won't be killable.

Any games company faces great pressure to produce a game that isn't going to be mauled by the various age-restrictions around the world. In the UK and US
Click to expand...
Spare me this. I'm glad that IP and BI back then didn't think like you, because we wouldn't have Fallout as we know it today...
If Tim Cain thought back then like bethesda 'thinks' now- priority- make money, and no extreme violence 'cos they'll ban Fallout in other countries- we'd have something totally different...
Let's face it, BI and IP had balls to make something that dark, with slavers, killable kids, whores, drugs etc.
It doesn't look like bethesda has balls to pull out something original.
 
I agree with you, Black. The main problem is that developers are playing safe. Also, they get no support from gamers.
 
Black said:
I live in Europe, too. And I always installed children patch. And you're looking at the wrong side- Fallout 1 and 2 had children, you just had to install small fix. And now, with FO3, no matter what patch you'll install kids won't be killable.
Click to expand...

Surely someone will be able to fix it?

Spare me this. I'm glad that IP and BI back then didn't think like you, because we wouldn't have Fallout as we know it today...
If Tim Cain thought back then like bethesda 'thinks' now- priority- make money, and no extreme violence 'cos they'll ban Fallout in other countries- we'd have something totally different...
Let's face it, BI and IP had balls to make something that dark, with slavers, killable kids, whores, drugs etc.
It doesn't look like bethesda has balls to pull out something original.
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of balls, it is a matter of reality. The world was a different place when Fallout was released; the so-called moral majority weren't allowed to dictate common sense to censors, but unfortunately society as a whole is now hypersensitive in the wake of Columbine, etc, and the censors lack the balls to resist it. Censorship has become a matter of politics, certainly in the UK.

In Britain, for instance, Manhunt 2 was denied certification by the BBFC, thus making it illegal to import or sell the game in the UK; it has been totally banned. The game was given an Adults Only rating by the ESRB in the US, and would therefore not be carried by a majority of mainstream suppliers. The release has therefore been suspended (although the BBFC said that "casual sadism" is inherent to the game, and could not see how content could be cut, in order that it gain certification in the UK).

Now, who gives a shit about Manhunt 2 per se? Not me, but this kind of shameful censorship must have an influence on games developers, especially if their development budget stretches into the many millions of dollars. It is easy to take a simplistic view of these things when your job and money aren't on the line, but commercial producers have to be pragmatic when it comes to tangling with the law.

Compromise purely for the sake of commercialism is an obviously bad thing, but compromise if that is what is required simply to get your product to the public is simply a bitter reality.

(Or: Don't fucking blame me for the fact that the BBFC are a bunch of dicks who want to treat us like infants...)
 
Surely someone will be able to fix it?
Click to expand...
Depends how moddable FO3 will be.
It isn't a matter of balls, it is a matter of reality.
Click to expand...
But balls are also a matter of reality :D
Besides, I thought there were kids (and you were able to kill them) in Deus Ex 2?

But yeah, I think ESRB etc are organizations of old, bored people who know nothing about games, sex is forbidden for them and they're everywhere to protect 'our' children... Why won't they just retire?
 
There are two ways to defeat communists. Stoping supporting developers that yield to communists and supporting developers that stand against communists.

The only way to defeat the communists is to protest against communist infiltration of our culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top