TheGameReviews previews Fallout 3

[shorrtybearr]

far too many comments to quote individually so ill just sum up i suppose

FeelTheRads, fine i dont have time nor care enough to try change your outlook.

TheWesDude, i do agree it is the opposite of the original FO but is that a bad idea? how far could the series carry itself on a game from a past era? change was inevitable, whether its good or bad that waits to be seen. Im not saying its a good game, im not even saying there are lots of things i like, im just saying that people seem to be so blinded by their hatred of the change, ideas they dont like, concept art that doesnt look right and so on that they dont see the positive ideas or concepts that bethesda might come up with.

If my worst enemy created the sistine chapel i would still say its a work of art.

fedaykin, necessary evil was just a phrase that came to mind

Ive no intention of forcing my outlook on you guys, you all have your opinions. I just inquired to their basis. Also i dont want anyone to "ignore" negative ideas but when they cloud your mind so that you no longer see the good ideas it becomes a problem.

Also i have no preconceived ideas from other forums, seriously none.

Sander, so these are people just regurgitating old opinions? whats the point in that?

Also again please could you guys stop over simplifying my arguments to make yours more valid, i disagreed and discussed both assessment and motives because they're both relevant.

Take care guys, SB

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

* gets himself a soda and some snacks while waiting for the reactions *

 

[kyle]

While death was permanent in Fallout, death is definately not permanent in all (non-mmorpg) RPGs. For instance, in Baldurs Gate you could revive your dead team members through magic and in temples. IIRC there was a similar system in Icewind Dale.

ID was pure hack n slash afaik (didn't play just heard so), and with BG its not quite like that. You could not resurrect companions in certain situations ie. when their bodies were destroyed (this didn't happen at lower difficulty levels however) and when you could theres sufficient rationale for that in BG universe. Fallout wasn't all bout divine magic last time i checked so perma death seems like an obvious thing

ps.
and no need for you to exclude mmorpg from rpg, they're not rpg's anyways (at last i haven't seen any so far)

 

[Sander]

TheWesDude, i do agree it is the opposite of the original FO but is that a bad idea? how far could the series carry itself on a game from a past era? change was inevitable, whether its good or bad that waits to be seen.

Right, strike one for trolling.
I'm sick and tired of people coming in, not bothering to read anything that's been written beforehand and rehashing old arguments over and over and over again. To quote yourself: "what's the point".
Here's a hint: we liked Fallout, this is a fansite dedicated to Fallout, hence we would like it if any sequels to Fallout stayed true to the original game. This horseshit about 'the series has to change' is simply that: horseshit.
Bethesda bought a license with a history and a certain type of gameplay. They can decide to ignore that all they want, but if they do, as they do now, we are never going to be happy with that because that's not what we want out of a Fallout game.

There are dozens of first person action-RPGs out there. We could go play any of those if we wanted what they're turning Fallout into.

If my worst enemy created the sistine chapel i would still say its a work of art.

We don't care about Bethesda. Almost no one here cared about Bethesda before they bought the Fallout license, and proceeded to hash out another first person action RPG we do not care about. Bethesda is not our 'enemy'. What they're doing to Fallout is.

Sander, so these are people just regurgitating old opinions? whats the point in that?

What's the point in you rehashing the tired old, rebuffed arguments we hear over and over again?

Also again please could you guys stop over simplifying my arguments to make yours more valid, i disagreed and discussed both assessment and motives because they're both relevant.

No, in fact, motives are irrelevant when assessing an argument.

Also, this:

They are actually game developers ya know! they might just be able to do their job and pull it off.

Is a really stupid argument. The fact they have the money to buy a game license doesn't mean they know what they're doing with it.

 

[fedaykin]

shorrtybearr, you can find the basis in countless posts and debates. Read up. Because you haven't bothered to do that, it seems to you that people are "blinded by their hatred of the change", whereas, in fact, there has been a lot of well-founded criticism of the bad parts, as well as praise of the aspects Bethesda got right. You just assume people are blinded, without getting acquainted with what they have actually said about issues. Again, you'll have to take a look at other posts yourself, it's difficult to summarize everything here.

One more thing:

change was inevitable, whether its good or bad that waits to be seen

Is the "buy the game before saying anything" argument rearing its ugly head again? Come on, man, haven't you been following the news? Do you mean we can't draw conclusions from information that Bethesda has voluntarily released?

 

[Bagge]

While death was permanent in Fallout, death is definately not permanent in all (non-mmorpg) RPGs. For instance, in Baldurs Gate you could revive your dead team members through magic and in temples. IIRC there was a similar system in Icewind Dale.

ID was pure hack n slash afaik (didn't play just heard so), and with BG its not quite like that. You could not resurrect companions in certain situations ie. when their bodies were destroyed (this didn't happen at lower difficulty levels however) and when you could theres sufficient rationale for that in BG universe. Fallout wasn't all bout divine magic last time i checked so perma death seems like an obvious thing

ps.
and no need for you to exclude mmorpg from rpg, they're not rpg's anyways (at last i haven't seen any so far)

No-one ever claimed Fallout 3 was about divine magic, Kyle. My point is that I can to some degree understand why they point out that death in Fallout is permanent, since (a) most "modern" "rpgs" feature some kind of revival from death, (b) MMORPG's, which - like it or not - is what is mostly assosiated with RPG's these days, feature death as merely a minor nuisance and (c) Some of the most defining RPGs of the late nineties - Fallout excluded - featured revival from death in some form.


Remember how people went crazy when they found out Aeris in Final Fantasy 7 died permanently? People unfamiliar with the Fallout license would not neccesarily take permanent death for granted in the game, and might even think it seems harsh.

 

[Frog]

What is wrong with that...
1. Realism. Burst from an SMG is somewhat fine, from a minigun becomes less believable.

2. More importantly: game mechanics. The point of big guns was always that they had no aiming functionality, which together with APs made for the best way to balance over-powered weapons.

Well, as to realism, it is quite possible to do aimed bursts with some weapons.
The difference between smg and minigun is that smg may have burst option while minigun is full auto.
If you have smaller caliber weapon, easy to grip well, assume good stance and make controlled bursts your fire will be still accurate enough. If you take minigun and start shooting you will have problems holding the thing let alone aiming at something else than silhouette. Should you decide to try and hit the head most of the bullets would fly over it, few possibly scoring a hit and few hitting the upper body. Similar with legs with the difference that most bullets would end up in the ground around them, some hitting legs and few torso.

I think the easiest way to handle the problem of balancing the weapons out would be giving each weapon its own properties determining the accuracy of its burts or automatic fire instead of just general accuracy of the weapon. Then you'd end up with some weapons suitable for it, like assault rifles, some not, like miniguns.

Just my thoughts about it I felt like to share.

 

[shorrtybearr]

sander, trolling? i didnt even know what that was untill i looked it up. I am not "trolling" i am in no way intentionally posting controversial stuff nor am i bating anyone for a response or post anything off-topic for that matter. I think you've got pissed off because you think someone has insulted your views and you’re flexing you administrative muscles.

Being in a position of “power” you should note that i have few posts and have only just recently joined hence my opinions have been formed on what i have seen so far. You cannot seriously expect every newcomer to read thousands of pages of comments just to get up to speed.

I will not address any of your points not because i haven’t got answers but because i don’t like your tone or attitude and i don’t see the point in talking to someone such as yourself.

Fedaykin, i realise i haven’t been around for long and haven’t had the chance to read up on these things but as i have said before i jumped the gun in saying people were anti-bethesda and i said i was wrong.
No i would expect people to draw conclusions from info that has been released and again i said that it’s not the criticising that was what i felt was wrong, it was when it (as it looked to me) seemed to blind people to the positives that were also being released.

I’ll probably stop this argument now anyway because it’ll never end and before you know it someone will get pissed off again and ill be banned.

Frog, i agree, that was what i was getting at.

Take care, SB

 

[Sander]

sander, trolling? i didnt even know what that was untill i looked it up. I am not "trolling" i am in no way intentionally posting controversial stuff nor am i bating anyone for a response or post anything off-topic for that matter. I think you've got pissed off because you think someone has insulted your views and you’re flexing you administrative muscles.

And strike 2 for trolling. Or being an asstard. You choose.

Here's a hint: you jumped in here, proclaimed that we were all being negative for the sake of it and then proceeded to continue to rehash tired old bullshit arguments like:
"i do agree it is the opposite of the original FO but is that a bad idea? how far could the series carry itself on a game from a past era?"

If it isn't trolling, it's close enough.

Being in a position of “power” you should note that i have few posts and have only just recently joined hence my opinions have been formed on what i have seen so far. You cannot seriously expect every newcomer to read thousands of pages of comments just to get up to speed.

No, but I can expect every newcomer to at least familiarise themselves with the environs before spouting off nonsense about things he obviously didn't read. See also your horseshit comments about everyone being negative without examining the evidence. It is a very simple form of courtesy to at least read something of the argument before throwing yourself in.

 

[gc051360]

Read, and get informed about the opposition's viewpoints? No. Of course not.

Why do that when you can generalize, and make assumptions, and use a condescending attitude?

 

[Bodybag]

Read, and get informed about the opposition's viewpoints? No. Of course not.

Why do that when you can generalize, and make assumptions, and use a condescending attitude?

Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but those are all things I've happened to notice while brushing up on the "opposition's" viewpoints. It's hardly unique to any particular faction.

Also - while it's kind of cute to see people repeatedly refer to differences of opinion as "pre-refuted" or "already rebuffed" it's probably less effective then actually explaining or clarifying their position. Then again, this theory makes the (admittedly large) assumption that they care about other's opinions enough to bother, and knowing my luck that notion is prerefuted as well.

On the subject of aimed bursts - I think aiming a SMG is perfectly kosher, as long as VATS penalizes the accuracy accordingly. And I know we're just talking about game balance here, but if you think it's unrealistic to be able to aim a minigun accurately I suggest you stay away from youtube, because you just might lose your shit. Tracers, dude. And that's even before you factor in that the extra strength from PA would let you hold it more steadily, not to mention that in the year 2277 or whatever there's probably some sort of gyroscopic stabilizer for the damn things.

 

[Ad Astra]

you just have to look at Ad Astra sweeping statement a few comments up to see what im getting at.

Please, I've been lurking around NMA, the Bethsoft forums and voraciously eating up Fallout 3 news since before you could pick up an Xbox 360 controller. I've read every Fallout 3 preview, I've played though every Bethsoft RPG, even the pseudo-RPG dreck that is Oblivion, and I've developed a damn fine understanding of the current philosophy of Todd Howard and company. You are in absolutely no position to make any intelligent comments on my statements, "sweeping" or not.

 

[shorrtybearr]

Please, I've been lurking around NMA, the Bethsoft forums and voraciously eating up Fallout 3 news since before you could pick up an Xbox 360 controller. I've read every Fallout 3 preview, I've played though every Bethsoft RPG, even the pseudo-RPG dreck that is Oblivion, and I've developed a damn fine understanding of the current philosophy of Todd Howard and company. You are in absolutely no position to make any intelligent comments on my statements, "sweeping" or not.

uh huh ok, enjoy

On the subject of aimed bursts - I think aiming a SMG is perfectly kosher, as long as VATS penalizes the accuracy accordingly. And I know we're just talking about game balance here, but if you think it's unrealistic to be able to aim a minigun accurately I suggest you stay away from youtube, because you just might lose your shit. Tracers, dude. And that's even before you factor in that the extra strength from PA would let you hold it more steadily, not to mention that in the year 2277 or whatever there's probably some sort of gyroscopic stabilizer for the damn things.

Agreed, i think they could easly implement it aslong as they penalize the hit %. Im not sure how the spray effect from something like burst would work though, maybe have some sort of seperate unseen hit % for the "spray effect".
for example say you aimed at the torso with a minigun and a 55% hit chance maybe all other targets in the line of fire (including all other apendages) could have some sort of hidden %

Take care guys, SB

 

[Section8]

TheWesDude, i do agree it is the opposite of the original FO but is that a bad idea?

For a Fallout sequel? Yes. Commonly people don't go out of their way to get the opposite of what they want.

how far could the series carry itself on a game from a past era?

"Past era"? Do you honestly believe that all the people who loved Fallout ten years ago are now dead and gone? Past era, my arse. There's more demand for a Fallout-like game now than ever before. Are you likewise aware that Fallout went against the trends of its own "era"? The defining points of games circa late 1997 were - real-time, 3D-accelerated, and multiplayer. Those are the three big things that nearly everyone was pushing toward. Quake was the biggest thing that had just come and gone, and Half-Life was on the horizon. In RPG terms, Diablo was the big thing, and Baldur's Gate was looming.

Fallout wasn't the product of any "era". It was something that bucked the trends and defied "conventional wisdom" to give us something that would stand head and shoulders above any "era" of gaming.

Now what is Fallout 3? A shabby-looking Mass Effect clone set in a Fallout theme park. What's exceptional about that? When you talk about product(s) of an "era", I don't think you should look any further than a game that shamelessly chases every trend it can find and lacks any kind of soul or balls.

change was inevitable, whether its good or bad that waits to be seen.

Care to explain this inevitability to us? Obviously it was inevitable that Bethesda would chase trends and aim for the lowest common denominator, but let's ignore that for the time being. As for the "wait and see" approach, there was a time when we did. And now, there's a steady trickle of information about the game, and unfortunately, most of it is met with reasoned criticism or skepticism. There are kneejerk reactions too, but they're in the minority. Take a look at the analysis and logic that accompanies the negativity.

Im not saying its a good game, im not even saying there are lots of things i like, im just saying that people seem to be so blinded by their hatred of the change,

There's very little in the way of "blind hatred" here, and especially not of "change" per se...

ideas they dont like, concept art that doesnt look right and so on that they dont see the positive ideas or concepts that bethesda might come up with.

It's simple really. There are so many ideas we don't like, concepts that looks wrong and so on, that positive ideas and concepts are just vastly outnumbered. We're not blind to them, there just aren't many to comment on.

If my worst enemy created the sistine chapel i would still say its a work of art.

...and if my best friend took a steaming dump, I would still say its a steaming dump. The fact of the matter here is that the dislike of Bethesda stems directly from their treatment of Fallout and their design/development philosophies.

Bethesda are not our worst enemy who just happen to be creating works of art, they're a developer who makes games we don't like. There's a two-fold knock-on effect attached to this - first of all, we see the reasons why Bethesda make games we don't like and resent them for it, and second of all, they're turning Fallout, a game we all like into something we don't.

 

[Moving Target]

*flicks on lighter for Section8*

Dude, that was beautiful. Seriously. Not kidding.

 

[shorrtybearr]

section8,appreciate the time you took to write it up and there are some good arguments that i would continue to debate but im not gonna reply to any of it. If i did it would be seen as "trolling" and another trigger happy admin will ban me for it. I dunno i dont care at this point, im tired and i want to sleep so if i get banned for typing any of this crap then what the hell i get banned.

Take care, SB

 

[Bad_Karma]

change was inevitable, whether its good or bad that waits to be seen.

Care to explain this inevitability to us? Obviously it was inevitable that Bethesda would chase trends and aim for the lowest common denominator, but let's ignore that for the time being. As for the "wait and see" approach, there was a time when we did. And now, there's a steady trickle of information about the game, and unfortunately, most of it is met with reasoned criticism or skepticism. There are kneejerk reactions too, but they're in the minority. Take a look at the analysis and logic that accompanies the negativity.

Are you serious about this? Change is inevitable in a sequel that is made 10 years after it's predecessor.
Not only in the graphic department but also in gameplay, the real problem is, that Bethesda isn't going an 'evolutional' way (looking what worked and what wasn't working and then changing and adding things), but an Revoltionay (in the bad sense) way, by destroying all that was before and wanting 'to reinvent the wheel'.
So change was invevitable, but not the change Bethesda done
And i fully agree on the part that people have the right to be negativ about F3.

For every 1 good thing we get 2 bad things (at least in my eyes):
Fallout will stay true to the atmosphere - Changed perspective and gameplay.
Good 'Character Clothes'-Artwork - Bad Robots, Mutants...
They set the world on fire - Tons of other 50's music (okay, that might be more or less neutral ), orchestral background music (more or less confirmed).
Stats Influenced conversation with NPC's - non-Intelligence dependant (as far as i remember it's still so right?), in the choosing-menu you only get shown parts of your answer.
You can have 'party-members' - only 1 human, and a fuckin' dogmeat copy. I mean a really great party with 2 persons... even in dictatorships with prohibition of assembly that wouldn't count as an assembly.... (3 persons would... what a fuck ) ).
And it goes on and on and on.

So yeah, some people would counts some things more positive but then again we are judging the things against each other we see, it's not as if we said at some point 'Everything i will see from now on will be stupid bullshit' - But when we judge the things and we think "That's crap", why shouldn't we say it?
I mean Bethesda isn't paying me anything for not speaking my mind, if they would, i might change that...

-hope my english wasn't to bad this time

 

[epiphany]

I am flickering my little lighter in the blackness of this pages for you, shorrtybearr. Good night to you.

 

[aronsearle]

Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but those are all things I've happened to notice while brushing up on the "opposition's" viewpoints. It's hardly unique to any particular Internet Forum.

Corrected :p

Also - while it's kind of cute to see people repeatedly refer to differences of opinion as "pre-refuted" or "already rebuffed" it's probably less effective then actually explaining or clarifying their position. Then again, this theory makes the (admittedly large) assumption that they care about other's opinions enough to bother

Its pretty much a daily thing that some newbie will come on here and start spouting of the same “change” argument, can you really blame anyone for just getting abit sick of it?

Though it’s not normally the admins that throw such a hissy fit.

If i did it would be seen as "trolling" and another trigger happy admin will ban me for it.

No one is gonna ban you for having an opinion, but you’re gonna get roasted for coming on here and starting of the same arguments that have been refuted time and time again, and are based on false assumptions about this fallout community.

There is changing game play elements.

And there is changing the game play style, which is what beth are doing.

You’re just another person coming on here and arguing “change is necessary” and it’s a “10 year old game”, without actually explaining or defending why its change for the better or why it being 10 years old is even relevant. How is going from turn based to real time change for the better (insert chess argument here), its not, because one isn’t better than the other, they are different.

Please stop with this 10 year old crap, unless you can actual explain why it matters. Most of the current AAA titles all rip off 10 year or older game mechanics, do they ever get criticism for it, no, and nor should they.

Here's a hint: we liked Fallout, this is a fansite dedicated to Fallout, hence we would like it if any sequels to Fallout stayed true to the original game. This horseshit about 'the series has to change' is simply that: horseshit.

You know this is argument is only going to happen more and more as the release date looms closer, and more beth fans find the forums.

So unless you sticky something, expect MOAR.

Also, you’re being a prick.

 

[Brother None]

Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but those are all things I've happened to notice while brushing up on the "opposition's" viewpoints. It's hardly unique to any particular faction.

Also - while it's kind of cute to see people repeatedly refer to differences of opinion as "pre-refuted" or "already rebuffed" it's probably less effective then actually explaining or clarifying their position. Then again, this theory makes the (admittedly large) assumption that they care about other's opinions enough to bother, and knowing my luck that notion is prerefuted as well.

Well, you know me, I'm very PR-oriented and like to see more open discussion and understanding of NMA from people who disagree with us.

But even I draw the line at the logic that when someone comes in - spouting clichés and ascribing opinions to us without bothering to read up - it becomes our job to educate said person. I'm not politically aligned myself, but say I were a social democrat, I would gladly speak and discuss with my counterparts of other parties on points of policy. But if someone walks into one of my party's meetings and starts of a "discussion" by saying "You are all communists, don't you realise communism is totally dead?", he'd be pretty damned well evicted for not bothering to learn social democracy and communism are not the same thing prior to commenting.

In other words - yes I (and others here) will gladly discuss points with anyone who disagrees with us. But prior to the discussion it is that person's responsibility to at least be aware of the basics of the discussions - that's just grounds-down netiquette. Once familiarized, it is our job to also make an effort - in that case to understand that person's points. I admit that later part can be failing in a community where one opinion represents such a dominance - like here - but we do try.