Polygamia editorializes on Fallout 3

[unangbangkay]

I disagree with the point that it shouldn't be called Fallout 3, treated only as a spinoff. It's certainly quite different from its predecessors but being different isn't really some kind of restriction on it being a sequel. It may not deal directly with the events of the first two, but to me Fallout was more about the world than your presence in it.

The gameplay has obviously changed, for better or worse, but I'll be satisfied if it can nail Fallout's "feel", namely the experience of your being in a dangerous, irradiated, almost alien (both culturally and physically) wasteland, surviving by your wits, ammo, and rad-away.

What attracts me to Fallout is its setting. Not just in that it's a change from swords-and-sorcery, but that simply by being in it you're encouraged, even compelled to find out more about it. The question one should constantly ask in a Fallout game is "What happened here?".

Both Oblivion and Fallout are more similar at the base level than one might admit. They're both basically nonlinear, leaving you to your own devices, with little more than a hint on where you should go first (Vault 15 for Fallout, Weynon Priory in Oblivion). That's really what mattered, as opposed to being turn-based or isometric.

And that's where I worry. Based on everything that's been said so far, I'm still not certain that Bethesda has been able to make me ask "What happened here?". Granted, what we've seen so far is systemic gameplay, VATS, graphics et al. We haven't seen much in the way of quests or dialog. There's a fine chance that we may get something great once we see it in full.

Bethesda's proven that they're good at creating a dense world. The TES world is one of the densest around. But again, neither Oblivion nor Morrowind made you really want to find out. Sure, you could read the books that were all over the shelves, but finding out more always (for me) seemed to take a conscious effort. "I'll collect all 4 volumes of this series", I'd say as I walked into the book store. But then I'd get bored and go back to throwing fireballs at self-conjured skeletons to build my Destruction magic skill.

That's always where I've felt Bethesda's failed. They pack in ALL THAT STUFF, but you're never really given an impetus to find out about it other than to make the most of your game. It doesn't come naturally to see what's on the other side of the hill, "just because".

If they can fix that, and also their dynamic difficulty system (that crap RUINED Oblivion), I think Fallout 3 can truly be great.

Apologies for the wall of text. Long story short, I like the way Fallout is written and I've read too much of the wiki and bibles.

 

[Brother None]

The flip side of that coin is one of those companies is still in business and the other isn't.

The flip side of that is that when it went out of business, all Interplay was producing were console RPGFPSs, namely BGA and F:BoS.

Fallout doesn't even remotely have anything to do with Interplay's eventual demise. In fact, Interplay treated Fallout exactly as you say investors would like to see it treated, hacked into cheap console ports.

I disagree with the point that it shouldn't be called Fallout 3, treated only as a spinoff.

Why?

A spinoff is generally seen as a game in the same setting but with different mechanics. Like Tactics is a tactical spin-off of Fallout.

So how exactly does Fallout 3 not qualify?

Both Oblivion and Fallout are more similar at the base level than one might admit. They're both basically nonlinear, leaving you to your own devices, with little more than a hint on where you should go first (Vault 15 for Fallout, Weynon Priory in Oblivion). That's really what mattered, as opposed to being turn-based or isometric.

Actually, that's too superficial. Oblivion was about freedom in a consequence-free world, just wandering about. Fallout was about the freedom to do what you want and then live with the consequences. The former is a consequence of being an "easy" RPG (for lack of a better term), the latter is a consequence of being a p&p adaptation. The difference between the two is enormous.

 

[unangbangkay]

I disagree with the point that it shouldn't be called Fallout 3, treated only as a spinoff.

Why?

A spinoff is generally seen as a game in the same setting but with different mechanics. Like Tactics is a tactical spin-off of Fallout.

So how exactly does Fallout 3 not qualify?

I suppose the same reason why I think Neverwinter Nights 2 is a sequel. About the only real similarities it had with the original were that they took place in a similar geographical location (the Sword Coast). Different technology, different rules (DnD 3.5 vs. DnD 3), different characters, different plot, different timeline, different developers.

Actually, that's too superficial. Oblivion was about freedom in a consequence-free world, just wandering about. Fallout was about the freedom to do what you want and then live with the consequences. The former is a consequence of being an "easy" RPG (for lack of a better term), the latter is a consequence of being a p&p adaptation. The difference between the two is enormous.

True enough, I suppose. Consequential actions really were lacking in Oblivion, now that I think about it.

 

[Brother None]

I suppose the same reason why I think Neverwinter Nights 2 is a sequel. About the only real similarities it had with the original were that they took place in a similar geographical location (the Sword Coast). Different technology, different rules (DnD 3.5 vs. DnD 3), different characters, different plot, different timeline, different developers.

The BioWare-Obsidian sequels are in each case kind of different from standards, but they don't actually tread outside my definition. As I said:

Sequel: same basic mechanics, same basic setting
Spin-off: different basic mechanics, same basic setting

"Following the same story" has never been much of a requirement for gaming sequels. The limitations of having multiple endings often takes care of that.

So by my - commonly-used - definition, NWN2 is a sequel as its mechanics and setting are basically unchanged. Fallout 3 changes the basic mechanics, too much.

 

[Black]

I disagree with the point that it shouldn't be called Fallout 3, treated only as a spinoff. It's certainly quite different from its predecessors but being different isn't really some kind of restriction on it being a sequel.

Having the same core/heart/soul should be that restriction.

 

[unangbangkay]

Having the same core/heart/soul should be that restriction.

I suppose, but for me that doesn't really lie in the mechanics. If it "feels" Fallout, it's Fallout.

Fallout 3 changes the basic mechanics, too much.

Perhaps, but I still don't know how skills, SPECIAL et al affect gameplay, so I can't judge if the basic mechanics have changed "too much" or not.

 

[whirlingdervish]

Ignorance of how the game works, based on the information that is currently available. doesn't make your counter-argument to his statement true.

it just means that you need to do your homework before you make judgements or post dissenting opinions.

read the news section of the site and you'll know as much as anyone here about the game, other than BN and Suaside who actually SAW THE GAME IN PERSON as presented by Pete Hines.

 

[Brother None]

Perhaps, but I still don't know how skills, SPECIAL et al affect gameplay, so I can't judge if the basic mechanics have changed "too much" or not.

Depends on your angle. For most people, changing from iso-TB to FPRT would be a big enough change, but if your priority is one stats and interaction, consider the following:

- Traits are out
- Perks are now one-per-level
- Weapon skills mostly influence amount of damage done, aiming in realtime is not significantly impacted by it
- A number of skills are out or fused together
- The SPECIALs appear to be somewhat gimped

There's more, but I admit the details on dialogue and skills are somewhat scarce.

 

[Ausir]

Also the dialogues don't depend on your INT, and so dumb dialogues are out.

 

[UniversalWolf]

If anyone did Fallout 3 in the same exact style of the first two it wouldn't be nearly as profitable as Bethesda's is going to be. And who's going to spend millions of dollars on the Fallout license without the intention to profit off of it as much as possible?

1) Just because Bethesda can't do it doesn't mean no one can.

2) The argument that a faithful Fallout sequel wouldn't be profitable is no excuse for making an unfaithful one.

 

[TheWesDude]

EDIT:
just for you idiots out there, isometric was the LAST view-perspective to be "invented" out there. to be considered using the "latest" technology it would have to be turn-based and isometric.

Third person over the shulder is actually newer. Isometric perspective dates back to Q*bert and Zaxxon in 1982. At the absolute latest, one could argue knight lore in 1984.

nope... isometric was first used in 1986, those games were not isometric but rather 3/4 or 2/3 view.

nice try though.

What attracts me to Fallout is its setting.

Both Oblivion and Fallout are more similar at the base level than one might admit

That's really what mattered, as opposed to being turn-based or isometric.

thats fine if thats what attracts you, but that is not the point of fallout.

the point of fallout was to be a return to the feeling that P&P RPGs had lost. they had become FPP/CC RT games relying less on charecter skill and more on player skill.

what does bethesda do? FPP RT games that depend more on player skill rather than charecter skill.

you were saying ?

I suppose, but for me that doesn't really lie in the mechanics. If it "feels" Fallout, it's Fallout.

then you miss the goal of fallout. bethesda "rpgs" are the anti-thesis of what fallout stood for.

 

[ookami]

2) The argument that a faithful Fallout sequel wouldn't be profitable is no excuse for making an unfaithful one.

It doesn't even seem to be the 'risk' that it wouldn't be profitable, but that oh-so-unthinkable possibility that it won't be hugely ungodly profitable if they don't pander to the lowest casual gamer denominator.

 

[sarfa]

EDIT:
just for you idiots out there, isometric was the LAST view-perspective to be "invented" out there. to be considered using the "latest" technology it would have to be turn-based and isometric.

Third person over the shulder is actually newer. Isometric perspective dates back to Q*bert and Zaxxon in 1982. At the absolute latest, one could argue knight lore in 1984.

nope... isometric was first used in 1986, those games were not isometric but rather 3/4 or 2/3 view.

nice try though.

Well, if we're splitting hairs between 3/4 and true isometric, then you should keep in mind that Fallout 1 & 2 were not isometric, but rather, trimetric. Similar, but not actually the same thing. In fact, as 3/4 view is simply a method of portraying the game world in an isometric fashion, while trimetric's angles are all wrong for being isometric. However, isometric view is now a catch all term which includes the 3/4, 2/3 and trimetric view.

Either way, to go the 'reductio ad absurdum' route, over the shoulder third person was invented afterwards, and so you saying Isometric was "the last perspective to be 'invented' out there" was completly untrue.

 

[Flamescreen]

But when they go to the extent of judging another great game like Diablo for not following their footsteps, it just pisses me off.

Eh, don't worry about it too much. Bethesda will sell a ton of copies of Fallout 3, but... I'd bet anything that Diablo 3 will sell far more copies over time.

Blizzard knows how to make games with legs. While Fallout 3's numbers will be impressive early on, I think it will have a much steeper decline in sales over time. Diablo 3 will keep going and going.

And you know what? When the next Oblivion game will be out, they will prolly burry FO3 as a non-good game, with loads of elements that were useless or not what they should and send directives to gaming sites and magazines to write reports in accordance to that, as I suppose they do now.

Cause it would have sold as much as they think it will and thus become a burden to their next project sales. Making their games easily outdated, short lived and without true heart. Great salesmen but extremely poor game-makers.

That's why they will always eat dust of companies like Blizzard that at least make their games dedicated and with all the fans in mind. I sure hope they have the fate of other gaming companies that had similar practices and are now no more, though momentarily they become cash flow titans.

 

[welsh]

Ahh.. the old "its about making money, damn it." argument. If it makes money it has to be good!

Kind of the shallow thinking that justifies bastardizing art for dollars that we've seen again and again.

unangbangkay- you're being a Bethesda apologetic and you don't have to.

This is not like Fallout 1 or 2- clearly. Not in engine, not in form, not in visual effect, not view, not in humor, location, history, its use of the canon, not in its use of time. The further you move away from core elements, the more it becomes spin-off and the less its sequel. I am not saying that this wouldn't be a good post-apoc game, but its not a fallout sequel and probably not much better than we got with FOBOS. At least the FOBOS folks knew better than to call it Fallout 3.

So why did Bethesda call it Fallout 3? Because they want to control the idea of Fallout, to remake the concept of what a Fallout game is by calling it a sequel and changing virtually everthing but the windowdressing.

 

[Anani Masu]

As I said:

Sequel: same basic mechanics, same basic setting
Spin-off: different basic mechanics, same basic setting

What about the Panzer Dragoon games?

1. Was a rail shooter
2. Was a rail shooter
3. Was a JRPG
4. Was a rail shooter

Is Panzer Dragoon Saga not a sequel to the first two games?
Is Panzer Dragoon Orta not a sequel to Saga?

They all have one storyline and most people rank the RPG as the best of the series. This isn't really scientific but heres some interesting google searches.

"panzer dragoon saga"+"sequel" 7,580 results
"panzer dragoon saga"+"spinoff" 257 results

 

[pkt-zer0]

What about the Panzer Dragoon games?

1. Was a rail shooter
2. Was a rail shooter
3. Was a JRPG
4. Was a rail shooter

If by "3" you mean "Azel: Panzer Dragoon RPG", then it's a spinoff, much like "Fallout: Tactics" or "Final Fantasy Tactics". Shock horror.

 

[Anani Masu]

Except my point is that most people don't consider it a spinoff. They consider it the sequel to Panzer Dragoon (Panzer Dragoon Zwei is a prequel to the first game) and the only spinoff is Panzer Dragoon Mini.

 

[aries369]

Based on the previews for Fallout 3 I'd say that this game tries to do the same as Mass Effect did; tell a compelling story, have rpg-element, stats and such + have shooter combat. Of course, you can always use VATS but to me that's just another take on Bioware's Realtime w/pause option in combat. And why do every freaking?? combat animation have to be in slow motion??
I excuse for the icon but If that's the case I'm shocked, stunned and awed. (and that's no irony either...) Even since Max Payne used the slow-mo bullet time, all games seem to have it. Even Dragon Age: Origens seem to have it now...

Even though I'm cautiosly optimistic about Fallout 3, I do think the article pretty much nailed it when it suggested that F3 should not be labeled Fallout 3, but rather have another name. I have suggested: Fallout (3)- The East Coast Story. Then Bethesda could have done pretty much what they wanted - for all I care. I'm still convinced that Fallout 3 could turn out to a good game, not just a good Fallout game.

It seems, though, as if Bethesda as least in part are getting the environment right in Fallout 3. Much of the dialogue being dependent on your skill level seems OK to me, too. But there's just something, something I quite can't out my finger on about this game, Fallout 3, that doesn't spell F-a-l-l-o-u-t to me. It's more of an intuive thing really, but is also has to do with some of the design choices Bethesda made regarding Fallout 3.

The Fatman and exploding cars being some of them, of course, but also, as we know it now, making supermutants like orcs or zombies + making ghouls (probably) pretty much radiated enemies.
[I know there's probably going to be some ghouls that aren't this way...] The Brotherhood of Steel+The enclave on the East Coast??
I know they've tried to find a justification for this is Elder Lyon's tale, but I do think Bethesda does not quite get it.

The retro art deco buildings are one of the things I would miss much in Fallout 3. Hey, I like 1940's architecture...

 

[Eyenixon]

Polygamia sounds like a disease.