SeanMike on Fallout 3 as a sequel

Let me start this comment a little differently, then. (I promise there is a point - see if you can find it ;) ).

Batman Begins was a great movie. It took the Batman lore very seriously and treated the backstory in the Batman universe with respect. It also made a fresh start with the series much like the movie Batman (1989) did.
It explains Batman's dilemma and how he became the (bat)man he did. Superman Returns not so much. I know he is called Kal-El on Krypton, and that -el in hebrew is a prefix for angels (or even gods?). I just thought the writers overdid this in Superman Returns. But I would be really ready to :violent: someone if the movie had been called Superman V (as I think there already is Superman IV??).

Superman Returns changed much of the story and background in the Superman lore e.g. Lois is no longer the hard-working smart N.Y. bad-mouthing reporter, she is supposed to be, but is now a MOM. And she and superman do have a kid together :wall: I mean, what's up with that. Didn't the 'new adventures of Lois & Clark' tell us, the audience, that Lois&Clark couldn't get any children at all, because of some biological problems with Kal-El's (Clark's) sperm?? (or something similar??).

The writers of Superman Returns made as many alterations to the Superman Canon as Bethsoft are doing in Fallout 3. And as such Fallout 3 shouldn't be called Fallout 3, as it really isn't a sequel, it is a game in its own right. [Just like the games in the TES universe isn't called Arena 1, 2, 3, and 4...].

I still protest, both here, and on the BGSF boards, about the the things I find breaking the lore and the verisimilitude of things (in the Fallout universe). I don't like that at 19 your character just decided to get up and leave the Vault 101, why isn't it the Overseer who throws you out. I don't like the toiletdrinking, nor do I like the idea that 'supermutants are truing to conquer the world'. I don't like the exploding cars as cars powered by fusion cells shouldn't really explode?, nor do I like the idea of the BoS being just another type of Rangers in the Wasteland, trying to get the supermutants. I'm still some :-? about the VATS combat, but it seems more and more clear to me that it is, and probably will be, closer to FPS/CTB combat than (real) rpg combat. I mean, you can pause & aim in Gears of War, too, right? And why do all the supermutants, or at least the one from the screenshots, look like something out of LOTR, they look like Uruk-Hais, to me.

I'm sure the game will be pretty good, I just don't think (anymore) that it will have the original Fallout feel. And that's why I would be content with Bethesda making a game called say: Fallout: East Cost Story, or something similar. This also ties in with what Pete Hines said in the Sponge interview that they 'are trying to make a worthy successor to the first two games'. Why them oh why then :wall: call the game Fallout 3 :wall: when it apparently is a succesor, inspired by the original games, and not a (true) sequel...
 
vilify us as a bunch of rabid lunatics and definitely not a viable consumerbase
Click to expand...

on the topic of this i was wondering if i was the only one to feel actively insulted by beth's treatment of those that like FO1/2. while less so about the "viable consumerbase" (from my viewpoint of a mere lowly potential player i must admit that i have neither the stats nor research to side either way as well as being more interested in whether i will enjoy the game rather than in how much it will expand a company's coffers) the idea that i am somehow backward and must be forced to "get with the times" because i like the gameplay in FO1/2 somewhat grates.

i find myself in a position that with the sheer level of deviation from the originals coupled with beth's seemingly contemptful view of potential players (by this i mean all potential players not just the established Fallout fanbase as their little project seems squarely aimed at the gaming media with players almost as an afterthought) i would find it difficult not to judge their "Fallout 3" harshly.

am i a rabid lunatic?
 
hmmm... yeah i really should do something about my grammar, if for nothing else than to be understood :oops:
 
I'm still buying it. As much as I hate it.

I hate it as a Fallout fan, because of what I think it should be.

But as a gamer in whole, I'm going to give it a shot. I'm going to give them a shot and pretend I never played Fallout before. Plus theres not much comming out that remotely hits my interest.
Bioshock, Company of Heroes' 2 sorta. and Fallout 3. Thats like all there is PC gaming wise that hits my interest anymore.

My Finicial-self is happy though, I went and looked at brand new trucks today /drool/.
My Gamer-self, weeps, incessently.
 
Bernard Bumner said:
I'm not buying it on principle.
Click to expand...

So, even if it turns out to be a good, if not actually spectacular, game you've already decided you're not going to buy it? It sounds a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face, to me.

I've given up on the idea that it is going to be a brilliantly worthy sequel, but if - on its own merits - it is a decent enough piece of entertainment, with enough fidelity and spirit to justify the Fallout sobriquet (as opposed to just being called "Fallout"), then I will buy it.

I don't see why a numeral should stand in the way of me enjoying a game. (Which isn't to say that I don't agree that it would be better to drop the 3.)
Click to expand...

I can already tell, this is not going to be a game I will be interested in. I hated Oblivion, and fallout 3 seems to just be more of oblivion with nukes.

I am lucky to have a decent job, and I can pretty much buy what I want when I want it. But no, I am sorry I will no longer support companies who promote the overall downfall of the gaming hobby for the benefit of the frat boys and leet console kiddies.

At this point Bethesda's fallout 3 could be the second fucking coming of Christ and I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.
 
Ironically, after thinking about it I've come to the conclusion that I wouldn't buy this game even if it was TES V: Post Nuclear, or if I had never known about original Fallouts. Why?

Because the combat system doesn't appeal to me at all. It's either a shooter or it isn't. It can't be both.
 
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
Because the combat system doesn't appeal to me at all. It's either a shooter or it isn't. It can't be both.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a dumb move to implement V.A.T.S. It's not like they're pleasing us, so why didn't they just go all out FPS? I mean, they DID base combat in Fallout3 off of Halo and Call of Duty.
I'm sure people are going to get pissed when their direct aim at an orc's face ends up hitting him in the torso. I don't want stats affecting how well I can aim. I want my twitches to affect how well I can aim.

I hope the game tanks because of V.A.T.S. Aww, fuck Bethesda. There, I said it. I feel better.

Edit: Wow... Bethesda's forums are getting worse:
Compare two ultimas that are 10 years apart and tell me they are the same.
Click to expand...

If everyone is so pissed with how they are making the game, why not go to NMA and get them to make there own "true" sequel to the game...
Click to expand...

If you are certain that Bethesda is lying, you should take them to court and sue them for false advertising.
Click to expand...

Slap a descendant into Fallout 3 and it's about as much of a sequal as Fallout2.
Click to expand...

Fallout3 will have the enclave, the wasteland of america, Brotherhood.. etc etc.. it is clearly the next Fallout game.
Click to expand...

All of these from 1/2 of a page.

Here's what Gstaff(Bethesda) had to say about the name changing:
This is the game our guys want to make, so it's called Fallout 3, simple as that.
Click to expand...

Edit x2: Haha, I didn't even think about this. This should definately hurt, at least a little bit:

Gatt9 said:
There's a distinct cost to alienating your existing fans, Bethseda's now running that risk. If everyone's too busy with Halo3, Fable 2, Mass Effect, Half Life Episode 2, Crysis, Dragon Empires, etc, it's going to hurt them *really* bad.
Click to expand...

There are a shit ton of already hyped games coming out at about the same time. I hope funds run low for anyone wanting to buy Fallout3.
 
Are the rules really that hard to read?

No warez talk. The next guy who goes "just download it or hints at it" will get a strike.
 
About the name issue:

I'm sure somebody thought about it already, but how many people do you think we could gather if we wanted to make a petition to have Bethesda change the name?
Now, they probably would not listen, but you know, if we make a reasonable enough case, like suggesting to call it Fallout: DC or something, and get enough peope to sign, it would be a heck of a lot better.


As for buying the game, I might buy it if it's good. Eventually. Meaning when I'm done buying/playing all the other games on my to-do list. I don't have much time to play games already, so it will be years, and I won't be in a hurry since it's not my type of game anymore.
 
Fallout: Vault 101

Though the mere fact that they are using the Fallout IP instead of a new one of their own, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
 
If it's good as an FPS then I might buy it. But the way things are going, it looks like it's going to be a "hybrid" of FPS and RPG that gets neither part right.
 
aries369 said:
Didn't the 'new adventures of Lois & Clark' tell us, the audience, that Lois&Clark couldn't get any children at all, because of some biological problems with Kal-El's (Clark's) sperm?? (or something similar??).
Click to expand...

I don't think the writers of that show bothered with the Superman lore at all, and anything that happened on that thing could be dismissed. Like Smallville.
 
Brother None said:
The wording is a little extreme, but Sorrow is right. By taking one of the bastions of an alternative method of roleplaying design and putting it under the fold of their own, Bethesda-style design, Bethesda is effectively making a big step towards the death of Fallout-like cRPGs.

Plus they seem to have an active campaign to:
a. present Fallout as "dead" and themselves as the "saviours"
b. vilify us as a bunch of rabid lunatics and definitely not a viable consumerbase
c. make all of Fallout's core design tenets seem "dead." And they are "dead," but only if Bethesda kills them
Click to expand...

One developer cannot kill off an entire genre. I'm much more pissed off by the general neglect of deep roleplaying, given that it was one of the major foundations of home computer gaming.

Whatever Bethesda is doing, I'm betting it is because of a misguided righteousness, rather than any perverse plot to kill off some particular type of gaming. If anybody is to blame for the mess surrounding the hype, then it is probably games journalists for allowing Bethesda to develop an ethos that their games have to be presented as a quantum leap in design, rather than being part of the contimuum of games development. They seem to sincerely believe that their actions represent progress, and none of the press seems to have seen fit to contradict that; they're neophiliacs, but seem to lack any ability to discriminate genuine innovation.

There are defintitely two issues here, one being the actual direction the game is taking, and the other being one of presentation. (Of course, they both feed each other.) I am currently having trouble telling what is presentation, and what is actual game design; early previewshave the potential to be misleading to the point of uselessness, but can be dead on.

We all know that what goes around comes around, and I'm pretty sure that the world will turn again in favour of the best kind of RPGs. I stated a long time ago that my realistic hope was that we'd get a decent game which preserved enough of the Fallout myth that it didn't kill the series. I still carry that hope, even though the tone of the demo and the hype has dented it somewhat.

We already know that bad games don't necessarily kill a series, not least of all, after BOS, we know that the Fallout universe can stand up to a shit game.

Still, I have that hope of something good, and it isn't going to go away unless the final product turns out otherwise.
 
Well, as far as I understood it... Bethesda bought the rights from Interplay to make a Fallout 3, 4 and 5. They were not buying the license to make a game called Fallout: whatever, but rather, a sequel to the franchise.

Sticking within these limits, I'm sure they won't stray from the "Fallout 3" name.
 
aaah your right. it's been a while since I looked into the legalities but I remembered at one point IP had not sold all the rights. Maybe I should lay off the rotgut...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top