RPGVault Fallout 3 preview

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Jonric of RPGVault has done a preview of Fallout 3.<blockquote>Based on an admittedly initial glimpse, there is every reason for optimism. Although there can be no doubt about the team's ability to craft an outstanding RPG, some observers have wondered how well it could capture the aforementioned distinctive personality. To some extent, this is a valid question since none of the current developers worked on either previous title. The complete answer can't be known yet, but the goal stated by Executive Producer Todd Howard back in 2004 - "a visually stunning and original game... with all the hallmarks of a great RPG: player choice, engaging story, and non-linearity" - certainly seems within reach.
(...)
Indeed, unfounded mumblings to the effect that Fallout 3 would be a post-apocalyptic The Elder Scrolls have arisen within some corners of the RPG player community. Thankfully, this has been confined to fairly infrequent occurrences. The vast majority of us are happy to evaluate the game on its own merits.
(...)
As you might expect, Bethsoft isn't skimping on the eye candy. The locations and characters show exceptional attention to detail, with eye-catching reflections, refractions and lighting effects. As well, a new system for damage textures enables some cool visuals, although the actual destructibility of the environments is limited. It was pointed out that the PC version won't require Vista, although DirectX10 may be necessary. The primary point of view is first-person, which Todd Howard considers more personal. However, the team is also accommodating those who prefer third-person by enabling an over the shoulder angle with rotatable camera.
(...)
Purists may argue that Fallout 3 should retain its turn-based heritage. While we weren't afforded any opportunity for hands-on play, my initial impression is that the new system is fun. If so, it won't be an issue, at least not a major one.
(...)
The critical path, which involves finding your father, will have a fairly linear sequence of key events. The team is aiming for it to take about 20 hours to complete, with optional quests approximately doubling that time. There will be multiple endings, although I don't recall a specific number being mentioned.
(...)
Assuming Fallout 3 ships next autumn, fans of the property will have endured a decade-long wait since the release of its predecessor. It's truly unfortunate that circumstances played out this way, but there's finally light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, and it's looking pretty bright. There's still a lot of work to be done - the team doesn't make small games - but after the three years spent on it so far, the project gives every indication of meeting and perhaps even exceeding the lofty expectations that have arisen among the grognards, And newcomers to the franchise have ample reason to anticipate a different type of RPG experience from The Elder Scrolls, but still a Bethsoft one, and potentially just as rewarding.</blockquote>Link: RPGVault Fallout 3 preview.

Spotted on RPGWatch.
 
Jonric is good people, in my experience. He seems to be addressing us a lot, but I don't know to what purpose.

I'm a bit disappointed by the tone of his preview, but it reads intelligently and knowledgeably, and as such stands as one of the better previews so far.
 
bah!

cue the mutagenic serum death noise...
(it should coincide nicely with my brain leaking out of my ear after reading that mind numbing crap!)


also I think he might have made a mistake:

"The primary point of view is first-person, which Todd Howard considers more personal."

this should have read like this:

"The primary point of view is first-person, which is the only thing that a console tard like Todd Howard will respond to, due to his lack of imagination."


also, in case anyone was confused:

"a fairly linear sequence of key events" = "a game on rails" = "an action/adventure title" = "not a RPG"


I will give him credit for exposing a few actual details.
That's more than we've seen from 90% of the previews so far.

Now, If only those details didn't scream that Fallout 3 is not going to be what anyone but Todd Howard wants..
 
It was pointed out that the PC version won't require Vista, although DirectX10 may be necessary.

Well if it requires Directx 10 then it requires Vista, as DX10 isn't available on any other platform. However, I recall interviews with "The Todd" saying he didn't want to make it Vista-only, so I'm guessing Directx 9 will be the limit.
 
There got to be Vats where these mutant journalists are made. Let's send someone to find it and destroy it.
 
Indeed, unfounded mumblings to the effect that Fallout 3 would be a post-apocalyptic The Elder Scrolls have arisen within some corners of the RPG player community. Thankfully, this has been confined to fairly infrequent occurrences. The vast majority of us are happy to evaluate the game on its own merits.

"Indeed, certain predictions made by some fans that Fallout 3 would implement some of the worst traits of the recent Elder Scrolls games have turned out to be true. Thankfully, none of them will be brought up in our article. The vast majority of us are happy to pay no mind to the unique style and gameplay of Fallout or to the concept that something presented as a sequel can't be evaluated as if it weren't."
 
Indeed, unfounded mumblings to the effect that Fallout 3 would be a post-apocalyptic The Elder Scrolls have arisen within some corners of the RPG player community. Thankfully, this has been confined to fairly infrequent occurrences.

First point: It's not unfounded mumblings if the devs and engine are the same as TES.

Second Point: For such "fairly infrequent occurrences" there sure seems to be alot of ink from gaming press downplaying fan reaction... where there's smoke....

Now I'm just waiting for the confirmation that the landscape will be dotted with little caves and fallout shelters inhabiated by leveled creatures with leveled loot that serve no purpose and have no story, but are, of course, nothing like Oblivion.
 
Boy with all these constantly positive previews its really annoying the heck outta me.

Well also I have yet to read any negative preview in my 14 years of gaming exp. They all seem to write positive umm Ass kissing previews.. not to put too fine of a point on it. Prolly to try and get the dev's to send them a beta or a pre-release release of the game for free.

Whats a good example is, Tresspasser, some may remember that gem. Previews were going nuts over it. At least the ones I was exposed to, going to revolutionize FPS and look how that turned out.
 
Why is this preview so full of negativity?

Something tells me that in fact all the people who make those previews are Fallout-haters. They hate Fallout and enjoy seeing it destroyed.
 
Brother None said:
<blockquote>(...)
Indeed, unfounded mumblings to the effect that Fallout 3 would be a post-apocalyptic The Elder Scrolls have arisen within some corners of the RPG player community. Thankfully, this has been confined to fairly infrequent occurrences. The vast majority of us are happy to evaluate the game on its own merits.
(...)</blockquote>

A sequel should never be judged on it's merits alone, it has an owness to improve upon the games it is following. In that regard, while many will wait and see whether it stands alone as a good game, evidence has been presented that suggests that it will be different enough from the original games so as to exclude it from being a truly great sequel. Anyone who has read the majority of the criticism, or even just any one thread, surely must have heard the words "It isn't Fallout". It may indeed prove to be a good game, but it doesn't look like it will be a true and or blue sequel. And on that regard, it must be judged not on it's own merit but on the merit of the truth to it's inheritence.
 
whirlingdervish said:
...
also, in case anyone was confused:

"a fairly linear sequence of key events" = "a game on rails" = "an action/adventure title" = "not a RPG"

I have casually browsed this page for several years, but as you can see, this my first post. In any event, I have seen this brought up a couple times now, and I am not sure if this particular criticism is warranted. As far as I am concerned, Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 both had "a fairly linear sequence of key events". So I don't think it is really fair to bash the game at this point based on that statement.

That being said, I am not saying with any kind of certainty that the game will not be a "game on rails". I also have never played Oblivion or any other Elder Scrolls game, so I no opinion on their work. I have of course played Fallout 1 and 2 and would love it if Fallout 3 lived up to them. I am fairly certain it won't, but I do think Fallout 3 will be entertaining enough for me to play from what I've seen. It is kind of sad that there isn't another game that looks better to look forward to (except maybe Age of Decadence, that game looks pretty sweet).
 
The Elder Scrolls have never been "games on rails". You might get hand held through an inflexible main quest, but calling it a game on rails is a bit of an exaggeration. It definitely does strive for a sandbox style of play, though unfortunately they need to put something in their sandbox other then just dirt.
 
Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 both had "a fairly linear sequence of key events".

yes...and no. While there were some key points in fallout plot that were necessary to complete the game (leaving the vault to find the waterchip, the master plot, etc ) few of them were actually forced onto the player, and there were tons of different ways to deal with them. choice and consequence. and you must consider this:

In Fallout 1 and 2 you didn't had to stand having a father being played by liam neeson showing up throughout the entire game, not caring wether you eat corpses or nuke entire cities (no choice, no consequence, retarded plot forced upon the player).

If you want to blow away your optmism (seeing as you haven't played oblivion) try it out or read a non-commercial review of the game. It will shatter your hopes :?
 
wobble said:
As far as I am concerned, Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 both had "a fairly linear sequence of key events".

No it didn't. It had two points, start at Vault 13 and ending at either Mariposa or the Cathedral. The water chip quest was de facto optional, but you'd normally do it. Even then, it had 3 key events that you could fix at any time, and getting there could happen in any order you wished it to.

I don't think anyone would define that as "a fairly linear sequence of events." If that's linear, then what the hell isn't?
 
Ok, well you guys are technically right, I apologize. In my mind it was Fallout 1: be told to find water chip, find water chip, be told to kill mutants, kill mutants. I forgot that you could technically just kill the mutants and forget about the water chip, but as you said most games would include that (except a speed run kind of deal)

You are also "bugged" by the witch doctor guy in Fallout 2 telling you to hurry up, and honestly I can't recall if the Overseer bugs you or not (I think he does though).

In any case, I was thinking of each game as basically having 3 key events that were linear (1 being the beginning and 1 being the end). Now I suppose that this is not true and I may have even played the games with skipping the middle part way back upon a time. I also feel that even if I had to get the chip it would still be a superb game. Arcanum I believe had the same kind of deal, though my memory on that one is pretty bad.

You asked what I thought would not constitute a "fairly linear sequence of key events"... what I would imagine that as is basically a game with no main plot (I guess like the Sims? not sure as I haven't played that either). Of course this would also mean that the game couldn't really have an 'end' either. I also don't think such a game would be fun (it is possible but most companies would probably fail).

Anyway, maybe I am being too optimistic about the comment. I have heard that in Oblivion you can deviate a lot from the main plot, and in Fallout you can do the same, so when they say Fallout 3 has a "fairly linear sequence of key events" I suppose I just imagined those key events to be rare. If it is something like 10+ "key events" that you have to follow each time you play the game, that will definately be annoying.
 
wobble said:
If it is something like 10+ "key events" that you have to follow each time you play the game, that will definately be annoying.

Indeed, there's reason for worrying there.

EDIT: Also, whirling dervish, you wrote that

""a fairly linear sequence of key events" = "a game on rails" = "an action/adventure title" = "not a RPG" "


Just have to point out that linearity doesn't make a RPG less of a RPG. Makes it less of a Fallout game? Yes, definitely.
 
Now, I played Fallout 2 when it first came out, and I recently played Fallout 1 and am playing through Fallout 2 again (as well as Arcanum... wonder where that two-headed cow came from...) They're great games.

That said, and I don't mean this insultingly, a lot of you guys on here have a real knack for reading what someone else writes and seeing something else entirely. Maybe you guys should apply for jobs in Washington?
 
quetzilla said:
That said, and I don't mean this insultingly, a lot of you guys on here have a real knack for reading what someone else writes and seeing something else entirely. Maybe you guys should apply for jobs in Washington?

We jsut try to get through all the commercial licking ass bull shit and get to the bottom of each article. And having about 20+ previews out there, we already have a very good idea on what the game is like. We don't see something different, its just comparing it to the other previews.

NukaColaClassic said:
EDIT: Also, whirling dervish, you wrote that

""a fairly linear sequence of key events" = "a game on rails" = "an action/adventure title" = "not a RPG" "


Just have to point out that linearity doesn't make a RPG less of a RPG. Makes it less of a Fallout game? Yes, definitely.

Hes right, because there are not many RPG that are non-linear, many in a sense of comparing one to the other. Especially not in the console world. I've started playing Septerra Core today again, game is rather linear but whatever... it fits me at the moment as I don't really want to strain my brain for creative thinking :P
 
Two things concern me. Lesser of the conerns: stuff lying about in barrels. A pretty lame gaming device.
Second - this megaton thing seems quite clear cut good and evil. Really, really bad for fallout. I want moral justification for doing either of the options, or something else entirely. A straight good or evil choice - blow up the town, or turn the guy in to the authorities - is the opposite of Fallout.
 
Brother None said:
but it reads intelligently and knowledgeably, and as such stands as one of the better previews so far.

I'm sorry, but no. Not really. In fact I'd say it's one of the worst (if not the worst) previews thus far.

Although there can be no doubt about the team's ability to craft an outstanding RPG, some observers have wondered how well it could capture the aforementioned distinctive personality.

Uh-huh. Bethesda makes grrreat RPGs. :roll:


Indeed, unfounded mumblings to the effect that Fallout 3 would be a post-apocalyptic The Elder Scrolls have arisen within some corners of the RPG player community. Thankfully, this has been confined to fairly infrequent occurrences.

I can't even count in how many ways this statement is wrong.


As you might expect, Bethsoft isn't skimping on the eye candy. The locations and characters show exceptional attention to detail, with eye-catching reflections, refractions and lighting effects. As well, a new system for damage textures enables some cool visuals, although the actual destructibility of the environments is limited.

Bloom is immershun!

It was pointed out that the PC version won't require Vista, although DirectX10 may be necessary.

This here is incredibly uninformed. There is no DX10 without Vista.

The primary point of view is first-person, which Todd Howard considers more personal.

And he should know, right?

I'll just stop here. I know you think he's good people but this preview is just pathetic.
 
Back
Top