Will Fallout 3 be remembered?

[Trithne]

Patton's got it. What makes people remember a game is 'personality', so to speak. Not sales, certainly. Let's think about the games that even today, if you bring them up, people get all wispy-eyed:

Deus Ex.
System Shock 2.
Planescape Torment.
Fallout & 2.
Diablo & 2.

Each of these games had a personality to them that made them excellent to play, and depth. (Yes, even Diablo). Fallout 3 has none of that. It has a textbook post-apocalyptic world with no character, and more plot holes and immersion breakers than it has functional plot and locations. If it's remembered for anything, it will be for being a terrible Fallout.

 

[Dionysus]

Are you even reading my posts ?
Stop putting words in to my mouth. I do not agree with him. fallout 3 is not relatively THAT succesfull, that it will become THE title of the series.

Marx wasn't talking about relative success. He just said that FO3 will be played by more people and hence remembered by more people. And no one (here) said that FO was a financial failure.

fallout 3, 3 platforms. More mainstream. More mainstream audience, who tend to forget the games they played after the next big thing.

They really don't have this sort of amnesia. The big mainstream games like Pokemon and Final Fantasy are still the most remembered RPGs of the late 90s. Fallout isn't even in the ballpark. FO3 isn't as big as Pokemon or FFVII, but at least it made it to the mainstream audience.

Trust me, I've seen this happen throughout the history of gaming. Personally, I liked Starflight a lot more than the Legend of Zelda in 1987. But I can't deny that LoZ is more remembered than Starflight. Hell, Starflight's dumbed-down spiritual successor (Star Control 2) is more remembered than Starflight. In 10 more years, you'll probably see a similar situation with games like Bioshock and FO3. That's just the way things work. They do stand out among their contemporaries in the mainstream, and they will be remembered by the younger gamers as they grow older.

 

[Patton89]

He said that it outsold Fallouts. He used it to base that it was succesfull. I see no reason to back down.
HE WAS comparing. Read his posts. HE said that you can directly compare.

How does fallout 3 stand out ? please explain.
Because fallout 3 feels like oblivion ?

How will people remember mediocre games, in a time when there is huge offering of other, similar, mediocre games ?
fallout 3 is nothing new. I doesnt have the quality, or the story, to be remebered.

Its lacks all personality,or originality, it feels just bland.
If the sales arent HUGE ,Pokemon HUGE, people wont remember such games. So why not Fable 2 ? Because it will sell more, so it should be remebered.

And how can you say that Final Fantasy or Pokemon can be compared with Fallouts, any of them ? Different target audience.Kid to teens games. Fallouts are for mature gamers, with death, gore, and dark themes.

 

[Dionysus]

He said that it outsold Fallouts. He used it to base that it was succesfull. I see no reason to back down.
HE WAS comparing. Read his posts. HE said that you can directly compare.

You can directly compare them. I can say that Superbowl 42 will be more remembered than Superbowl 2. The fact that there are more people watching American football now is a reason WHY it will be more remembered. The fact that more people are playing FO3 is a reason why it will be more remembered than the first two. Your discussion of its relative placement among its contemporaries is interesting, but it's a separate issue.

How does fallout 3 stand out ? please explain.
Because fallout 3 feels like oblivion ?

How will people remember mediocre games, in a time when there is huge offering of other, similar, mediocre games ?
fallout 3 is nothing new. I doesnt have the quality, or the story, to be remebered.

It already is being recognized as a top game this year. There's really only two notable series of open-world action RPGs, and FO3 bests both of their latest installments. It is possible that it will be remembered as the Perfect Dark to Oblivion's Golden Eye, but even then it will be well remembered.

Also, I think you've tipped your hand a bit here. This period of games won't go down as some sort of dark age of mediocrity. There are plenty of kids out there that are cutting their teeth on these games, and those kids will put them on a pedestal. Don't try to project your own disenfranchised point of view onto the people that support this booming industry.

Its lacks all personality,or originality, it feels just bland.
If the sales arent HUGE ,Pokemon HUGE, people wont remember such games. So why not Fable 2 ? Because it will sell more, so it should be remebered.

Fable 2 certainly will be remembered, but FO3 has a big edge with the critics, and more staying power judging by the traffic at the bigger general gaming sites.

 

[Patton89]

You can directly compare them. I can say that Superbowl 42 will be more remembered than Superbowl 2. The fact that there are more people watching American football now is a reason WHY it will be more remembered. The fact that more people are playing FO3 is a reason why it will be more remembered than the first two. Your discussion of its relative placement among its contemporaries is interesting, but it's a separate issue.

Again , USEFULLNESS or logic of direct comparing is questionable, as it ONLY tells you this: The game sold this much more or less, than this OLDER game.
It HOWEVER doesnt take into context the amount of gamers, the amount of platforms, or how much the gamers liked the game.
IT doesnt tell you if the game will be remembered. YOU CANNOT claim that you can determine that it will be more remembered.
You can get some MINOR information, but not enough to form a CERTAIN knowledge that it will be remembered. I do not see how relative succes is separete issue, when it is claimed that AMOUNT sold WILL define if game is remembered by more, be it number, or %, because if you claim it is remebered in SHORT time span by NUMERICALLY more, you are stating the obvious. HOWEVER, the long term is what is important. Also, the quality of remembring and experience is not meaningless. If game is mediocre, in most standards, HOW can someone remember it ?
I remember many older,more unique films,or not that succesfull films i have seen yet i cannot remeber half of the current hollywood block busters i saw within last months. Remebering something mediocre is NOT as likely as remembering something that was more "important" (you hated/disliked it, you liked/loved it) or unique.
HOW many people remember Quake 2, even talk about it ? 1997. 11 years ago. 1 million copies.
Also you are ignoring that the target audience is different, and perhaps more "immature", atleast in the light of the design choises made. What do the excessive explosions, way over the top gore , simplified gameplay, and non-existing RPG elements show then, if not that it has been targeted to more "immature" audience then Fallout.

It already is being recognized as a top game this year. There's really only two notable series of open-world action RPGs, and FO3 bests both of their latest installments. It is possible that it will be remembered as the Perfect Dark to Oblivion's Golden Eye, but even then it will be well remembered.

Also, I think you've tipped your hand a bit here. This period of games won't go down as some sort of dark age of mediocrity. There are plenty of kids out there that are cutting their teeth on these games, and those kids will put them on a pedestal. Don't try to project your own disenfranchised point of view onto the people that support this booming industry.

Game of the year, is opinion of CRITICS, people who DO NOT define what people like. And critic make mistakes. Also GoTY shows just the CURRENT offering, not the offering of previous years.

and the quality of remebering is not irrelevant.

And, might i add, if people do not like the game, they will most likely FORGET it, unless the game is awful, or they somehow have a specific reason not to like the game, like it being a bad sequel.

This IS rather mediocre time in games. And i am not that old, yet it is obvious. Most games are mediocre, and have very little originality. So many shooters have WWII, so many have the main character in some HALO esque space marine suit, honestly, can you call this a good season or time in games ? Might not be a worst, but ti sure isnt amazing or even that great or good.

And thanks for calling me jaded because i think that games are boring and somewhat mediocre now-a-days. 4 years off and I WOULD BE A "KID" How long do you think any of those pedestals last ?
And i love gaming, dont try to call me a "un-supporter" because i dont happen to like the mindless games that are published. What, should i just put my "unyeilding faith" to the gaming industry and keep buying even carbage and be happy even when i dislike the game ?

Fable 2 certainly will be remembered, but FO3 has a big edge with the critics, and more staying power judging by the traffic at the bigger general gaming sites.

Critics ? Again, they are just humans. They are not infallible, and their motives for giving high scores are atlest questionable, as if a large magazine gives bad scores, the gaming company might stop giving exclusives and preview to that mag. Also, the reviewers can be pampered by the company, in a press only preview etc. etc.

Or they simply are unable of objective and analytical reviews, and are imcompetent or unwilling to go against the "flow" These so called gaming professionals seem to currently IGNORE faults of a game, and OBJECTIVELY inform about them. This means possible high scores can actually lead to the buyer hating the game, after he buys and becomes disapointed.

WHY would i have to be to ignore my own likings ? Games are more mainstream and simple now, and people who actually want complex, challenging, and rewarding games have to rely on few companies like Paradox, one of the few companies that make grand stragedy games anymore.
Now there is demand for games that are more unique, and have "more" to them, albeit many people will be happy to play simplistic games. Now problem is, this demand is not supplied, and that makes no sense, shouldnt gaming companies be wanting to make more profit ? SO why is this demand not supplied ? Demand exists, and it can keep companies alive and make profits for current ones. Or have the RPG fans disappeared ?
I think it is the fact that the companies assume they can just keep making the same generic mush that many people "enjoy" and sell it to everyone.

 

[Dionysus]

I do not see how relative succes is separete issue, when it is claimed that AMOUNT sold WILL define if game is remembered by more, be it number, or %, because if you claim it is remebered in SHORT time span by NUMERICALLY more, you are stating the obvious. HOWEVER, the long term is what is important. Also, the quality of remembring and experience is not meaningless. If game is mediocre, in most standards, HOW can someone remember it ?

I see what you are saying, but it’s not mediocre in most standards. It’s getting GotY awards. It’s still at the top of the “most popular” lists at IGN and Gamespot two months after release. That just doesn’t happen to most games. Right now it’s popular and it’s showing staying power that its peers (e.g., Fable 2) don’t possess. You can play the solipsist’s role and say that no one really knows what will happen, but in that case, you might as well not participate in a topic like this.

And let me make it clear that I’m talking North America, because that might be part of our disagreement. I don’t have an opinion on whether it will be remembered in the CIS territories or anything like that.

WHY would i have to be to ignore my own likings ? Games are more mainstream and simple now, and people who actually want complex, challenging, and rewarding games have to rely on few companies like Paradox, one of the few companies that make grand stragedy games anymore.

I think you are losing focus on the topic here and elsewhere. It doesn’t matter if you like the game. It doesn’t matter if it’s immature. It doesn’t matter if a small publisher like Bethesda somehow managed to out-bribe Sony and Microsoft in order to procure GotY awards. It doesn’t even matter if you personally forget about the game in two months (although we both know that isn’t going to happen). We are discussing whether a broader group of people will remember the game. It actually helps if you ignore your own likings. In this context, it is interesting to talk about awards, sales, internet traffic, and other factors that might signal or influence the extent to which the game will be remembered. It’s much less interesting to simply say “me no likey” over and over again. Trust me, I never liked Pac-Man, but it turns out that a ton of people remember that game.

 

[Patton89]

Fallout 3 is mediocre. In FPS standards. In RPG standards. Doesnt really excell in neither, and i play FPS games and RPGs
I havent said that no one can tell if it will be remebered, but it IS bit too early AND UNBASED to claim it will be MORE remembered than Fallout, a game that is still remembered after 11 years, and has been re-released in GoG.
Quake 2 ? I am not seeing it being remembered:" Reception
Quake II was extremely well-received, by reviewers and gamers alike. It was called "The Best Game Ever" by PC Gamer, and went on to sell over one million copies. Quake II was the most popular online game for all of 1998"
How is it possible, if it sold that much, and was so popular ?
Short term popularity does not=long term remembering.
It has been out only for few months. Next big thing will mop it out,more so if it is something good and really great.

Game HAS to have something UNIQUE in it, that sets it apart from other games of the time. fallout 3 is just mediocre, there is very little that would make it unique.

Lets see..gameplay..not really unique, oblivion like.And isnt taht good FPS, is unbalanced.
Story...badly written, with a horrible ending.
Graphics...nothing outstanding when compared to other games of its time.
IT doesnt excell in any area. It is mediocre game. Not awful. Not great. Mediocre, perhaps good if you like easy games.

Why would i have to ignore my own experiences, and obsevations.
GoTY doesnt mean the game wil be remembered, critical acclaim also doesnt mean THAT much.


Pac-man is bad example, as it was made in a lot earlier era of gaming. 1980. And it was unique.

And i am not claiming, nor have i ever claimed it seriously, that they have BRIBED the reviewers, but i am saying that reviewers arent being impartial or objective,when they should be. They too hyped the game, and now what ? They ignore its bugs, ignore its faults, even calling mainstory and ending great. Surely they can be effected by the others giving high scores etc. And it could be a issue of using too high numbers, and not using the lower ones, as i have seen i some cases.
And i did steer bit out of the subject.

N-America doesnt alone define if the game is really succesfull or remebered. EU is important too, as well as other industrialized nations and areas.

 

[Dionysus]

Fallout 3 is mediocre. In FPS standards. In RPG standards. Doesnt really excell in neither, and i play FPS games and RPGs

Again, "me no likey" isn't an interesting or relevant comment here.

I havent said that no one can tell if it will be remebered, but it IS bit too early AND UNBASED to claim it will be MORE remembered than Fallout, a game that is still remembered after 11 years, and has been re-released in GoG.

Seriously? Lionheart is on GOG. You use very strange criteria to determine whether a game is well remembered.

Quake 2 ? I am not seeing it being remembered:" Reception
Quake II was extremely well-received, by reviewers and gamers alike. It was called "The Best Game Ever" by PC Gamer, and went on to sell over one million copies. Quake II was the most popular online game for all of 1998"

This is an interesting point. First, I would say that people do remember Quake 2. We certainly do. Second, Quake 2 might be overshadowed because it is in a very competitive genre. There were a ton of shooters on the market. There was a bigger FPS on the N64 that year, and Half-Life came out the following year.

FO3 is in a much less competitive genre, from a developer that essentially owns that genre. Beth is currently the only notable developer of open-world ARPGs. There are other ARPGs, but they generally don't have the big open world design. And saying that FO3 is the same as TES is sort of like saying that FO1 is the same as Ultima. You've got a point, but it's clear that FO3 stands apart from the TES series when it comes to setting and specific game mechanics.

Game HAS to have something UNIQUE in it, that sets it apart from other games of the time. fallout 3 is just mediocre, there is very little that would make it unique.

You are totally wrong about this. I wish you were right, but you are completely wrong. The most well remembered games are generally very well-done examples of existing prototypes. There are exceptions, but the first guy to market rarely gets it right. And that's true in fields other than gaming.

Why would i have to ignore my own experiences, and obsevations.

Because other people have different thoughts, beliefs, and mental states than you. We are discussing the cognition of a broader population in this topic, and it's really strange that you keep coming back to your own personal opinions about the quality of the game. It is completely irrelevant. Seriously, it's not related to this issue at all.

N-America doesnt alone define if the game is really succesfull or remebered. EU is important too, as well as other industrialized nations and areas.

I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. I'm just stating the limits of my expertise on the subject. As far as I can tell, it looks like it will be remembered in NA. And I would say that a game could be well remembered even if it is only popular in NA (or any large market). Dragon Quest is certainly remembered, but it isn't really a big deal outside of Japan.

 

[Trithne]

GotY doesn't really equal rememberance. In fact, GotY is pretty silly to quote for anything, because my GotY isn't going to be your GotY, and that goes for different magazines, etc too. According to gamespot, the 2000 console GotY (back then, GS had PC and console games separate) was Chrono Cross. Chrono Cross sucked. And everyone remembers Chrono Trigger over it.

GotY is just "we liked this game more than others"

 

[Patton89]

What you are posting are just opinions. So, why do you complain about me posting mine ?

And note, the combat is easy, its not fun. There is no element of tactics, VATS removes that.AI is sub-par. its mediocre FPS.
RPG elements are shallow, and badly done. In RPG standards, the writing was bad, and inconsistant. Limited meaningfull choices and consequences,CHARACTER stats and skills being secondary to PLAYER skills. I can play the game with int 1 and char 1 without any real consequnces, except losing some skill points. And thanks to the generous way skill points are given,and the way skills are used,means you can become jack-of-trades.

What would make it NOT mediocre ? Post YOUR opinions.

Because a game sells much, doesnt mean it will be remembered.YOU disagree. It YOUR opinion.
Tell me, WHY would fallout 3 be remembered, after 11 years.

You read a chart,that says this game sold this much, and you THINK it means a game will be remembered,instead of a game that sold more at the same time. That IS YOUR opinion.
Not a fact.

And A-RPG genre wont be bethesdas playfield for long, not atleast 5 years in the future. There is already some competition.

GoTY means nothing, or atleast not much.

So only americans have computers and PS3s and Xbox 360 ?
So i can claim that a game is remembered, if it is remembered in this region. Thats fair right ? You have to take into account the entire western ares, EU, Australia, New Zealand and N-A etc. before you can really claim the game is remembered, atleast when it was targeted to that audience.

I can post here as long as moderators think it is not against forums rules, and not offtopic.

 

[Dionysus]

GotY doesn't really equal rememberance. In fact, GotY is pretty silly to quote for anything, because my GotY isn't going to be your GotY, and that goes for different magazines, etc too. According to gamespot, the 2000 console GotY (back then, GS had PC and console games separate) was Chrono Cross. Chrono Cross sucked. And everyone remembers Chrono Trigger over it.

GotY is just "we liked this game more than others"

I think the multiple GotY awards are relevant for two reasons. First as you noted, it shows that the editorial boards find the game to be exceptional compared to the other current games (i.e., they don't think it's mediocre). Second, they give the game attention and prestige (albeit only short term for now). The more eyeballs the game gets now, the better the chance that it will be remembered and praised in the future. You aren't going to remember a game if you never hear about it. It doesn't matter how good it is.

What you are posting are just opinions. So, why do you complain about me posting mine ?

I'm posting my opinion about whether the game will be remembered, and I'm trying to back that opinion up with facts. I'm not talking about whether I like the game because it isn't relevant to this discussion. The idea here is that we can be more sophisticated than simply posting "me likey" or "me no likey." Otherwise, the forum could just have one topic: "Fallout 3 - Yay or Nay."

You read a chart,that says this game sold this much, and you THINK it means a game will be remembered,instead of a game that sold more at the same time. That IS YOUR opinion.
Not a fact.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here, but I'm not just judging by sales.

And A-RPG genre wont be bethesdas playfield for long, not atleast 5 years in the future. There is already some competition.

Do you have any specific titles in mind? I don't see much competition now or in the near future. I can understand that you don't like what Bethesda does, but I don't know of anyone that's doing it better.

So only americans have computers and PS3s and Xbox 360 ?
So i can claim that a game is remembered, if it is remembered in this region. Thats fair right ? You have to take into account the entire western ares, EU, Australia, New Zealand and N-A etc. before you can really claim the game is remembered, atleast when it was targeted to that audience.

I don't think so. I can certainly say that Dragon Quest is remembered in Japan, and that simply is what it is. It doesn't have to be a big hit in Timbuktu.

 

[Public]

Do you have any specific titles in mind? I don't see much competition now or in the near future. I can understand that you don't like what Bethesda does, but I don't know of anyone that's doing it better.

The Witcher...

 

[Patton89]

I'm posting my opinion about whether the game will be remembered, and I'm trying to back that opinion up with facts. I'm not talking about whether I like the game because it isn't relevant to this discussion. The idea here is that we can be more sophisticated than simply posting "me likey" or "me no likey." Otherwise, the forum could just have one topic: "Fallout 3 - Yay or Nay."

And what do you think i am basing mines on ?
Honestly, there have been many games that sold well, were a critical success, and were even liked by the players, and still they were forgotten.
This is why i am saying, that you cant logically claim, that this game will be certainly remembered.
Most games that are remembered after long time did something very well, or they started something, or they were unique or they sold insanely much.
Critical success helps, but it will not alone with sales determine if this game will be remembered.

Fallout 3 has ? Sold better than everything ? no. Is unique ? no.
Does things very well ? no. Started something ? no.
Simply, there are very few reasons this game will be remembered in the long term.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here, but I'm not just judging by sales.

I was pointing that you arent basing your opinions on PURE facts.
They are opinions, and opinions are not concreate. Mine arent.
Nones are, what we are posting here are just opinions.

Do you have any specific titles in mind? I don't see much competition now or in the near future. I can understand that you don't like what Bethesda does, but I don't know of anyone that's doing it better.

Witcher, the new version. Even morrowind was better done. Skills mattered. You could play the game differently. Mass Effect, while not better, is also a game to not to be ignored. Fable 2, again, is not better, but in terms of sales, it is competition.

I don't think so. I can certainly say that Dragon Quest is remembered in Japan, and that simply is what it is. It doesn't have to be a big hit in Timbuktu.

When you make a game, that IS obviously targeted for westen audience, you have to take into account its success in the target area. Game companies & publishers do not ship units for fun. Eu is not Timbuktu. 500 million people live inside EU. Wealthy area. USA has smaller population.

 

[Dionysus]

And what do you think i am basing mines on ?

To a great extent, you seem to be basing your opinion on your own qualitative judgment of the game. You can say it's mediocre, but that doesn't jive with the fact that it is getting GotY awards or heavy traffic on big general gaming sites. Clearly, there's a larger population that sees it as a standout title.

Honestly, there have been many games that sold well, were a critical success, and were even liked by the players, and still they were forgotten.

Maybe, but I'm certain that there are more forgotten games that didn't sell well, weren't a critical success, and weren't even liked by the players. I'm not saying that I have a crystal ball. I'm just using some simple logic here.

Fallout 3 has ? Sold better than everything ? no. Is unique ? no.
Does things very well ? no. Started something ? no.
Simply, there are very few reasons this game will be remembered in the long term.

It doesn't have to sell better than everything, but it certainly helps that it is a high profile game and it is selling well. People can't remember something that they never encode. It doesn't have to start something or be unique. There are tons of memorable games that work well within the confines of preexisting genres, or blatantly rip off preexisting games. Just think about games like Resident Evil, Starcraft, Halo, Half Life, Final Fantasy, or GTA3. I'd go so far as to say that most of the really big titles after 1987 or so were very similar to one or more preexisting title.

I think your real sticking point is whether FO3 does anything well. You are entitled to your opinion on that, but I'm more interested in trying to gauge the opinions of others, at least to the extent that such a thing is possible.

Witcher, the new version. Even morrowind was better done. Skills mattered. You could play the game differently. Mass Effect, while not better, is also a game to not to be ignored. Fable 2, again, is not better, but in terms of sales, it is competition.

The Witcher isn't even an open-world game or a sandbox game, and it has huge restrictions on player freedom. It's fine, but it isn't much like FO3 at all. Fable 2 is similar, but even that isn't similar in the same way that Quake 2 is similar to Half Life. The basic gameplay and controls are obviously different, and it has a more casual "Sims" sort of focus. It is definitely popular, but it will probably go down as a foil that makes FO3 seem like the "hardcore" WRPG of this era. That appears to be its current role, and I doubt that will change.

The ES games are certainly similar, but Beth is the only notable dev that makes that sort of game. They aren't a dime-a-dozen like linear action games. The next "great" Bethesda game is coming in 2-3 years. The next "great" shooter is coming in 2-3 weeks.

 

[Public]

You wanna tell me FO3 is a better RPG then The Witcher?

 

[Patton89]

To a great extent, you seem to be basing your opinion on your own qualitative judgment of the game. You can say it's mediocre, but that doesn't jive with the fact that it is getting GotY awards or heavy traffic on big general gaming sites. Clearly, there's a larger population that sees it as a standout title.

SOME people see it as standout title. No real suprise, when this year has been rather abysmal, and that is why it got GoTY.
So, your main point for a reason why this game will be remembered, is its GoTY and sales. Too simplified. Atleast for long term.

Maybe, but I'm certain that there are more forgotten games that didn't sell well, weren't a critical success, and weren't even liked by the players. I'm not saying that I have a crystal ball. I'm just using some simple logic here.

You missed the point, there are no certainties, you are saying that this game will be remembered on the base that it sells well and got critical acclaim. But that doesnt guarantee anything, now does it.

It doesn't have to sell better than everything, but it certainly helps that it is a high profile game and it is selling well. People can't remember something that they never encode. It doesn't have to start something or be unique. There are tons of memorable games that work well within the confines of preexisting genres, or blatantly rip off preexisting games. Just think about games like Resident Evil, Starcraft, Halo, Half Life, Final Fantasy, or GTA3. I'd go so far as to say that most of the really big titles after 1987 or so were very similar to one or more preexisting title.

I think your real sticking point is whether FO3 does anything well. You are entitled to your opinion on that, but I'm more interested in trying to gauge the opinions of others, at least to the extent that such a thing is possible.

And you think there has been nothing atleast unique in gaming after 1987 ? "You are entitled to that opinion". I can just ignore a question that easily,like you did, but i wont. If you look into, remembered titles, they do fit most of the gategories i gave now. They either sold insanely, they had something unique or original ,they did what they did very well, they started something, or combination of the above. Game HAS to have something more then okay sales and critical acclaim. It has to have some longevity, something that will keep people playing the game for many years.
And you are ignoring that how valid the critical acclaim is.
When a game has game breaking bugs, and bad ending and still gets 10, and gets praised for great ending, i really must ask, is the praise valid ?
(note that even most of the players agree with me on the bug and ending)

The Witcher isn't even an open-world game or a sandbox game, and it has huge restrictions on player freedom. It's fine, but it isn't much like FO3 at all. Fable 2 is similar, but even that isn't similar in the same way that Quake 2 is similar to Half Life. The basic gameplay and controls are obviously different, and it has a more casual "Sims" sort of focus. It is definitely popular, but it will probably go down as a foil that makes FO3 seem like the "hardcore" WRPG of this era. That appears to be its current role, and I doubt that will change.

The ES games are certainly similar, but Beth is the only notable dev that makes that sort of game. They aren't a dime-a-dozen like linear action games. The next "great" Bethesda game is coming in 2-3 years. The next "great" shooter is coming in 2-3 weeks.

You claim that there is no competion. There is. fallout 3 is better RPG than anything else on the market ?" Not a fact, your own qualitary judgement". You are accusing me of that, and you do it yourself.

 

[Per]

Not a fact, your own qualitary judgement. You are accusing me of that, and you do it yourself.

Dionysus is making points on an inherently speculative subject. If your best reply to that is "that's just your opinion" and "you can't KNOW" and "NO U" then you're losing badly and Fallout 3 will be remembered forever.

 

[Patton89]

He says it is just my opinion that i am basing on my own qualitary judgement, yet he is doing the same thing he is accusing me of. Hypocricy


I said, in my post, that sales and GoTY alone cannot make a game rememberable, and there are plenty of games that have "failed" to be remembered with both of these, and there fore it is unlikely that this means that the game will be remembered .You have to look at the quality of the game. Fallout 3 lacks almost everything to be well remembered game, in the long term. will people after 11 years still look back and say: "wow that is a great game, with great design" ? No, not very likely.

He is putting to much value on the critical acclaim this game is getting.

We are in the end, just gambling.
I am betting, based on facts, that this game will not be remembered, after 11 years.

 

[alec]

Not a fact, your own qualitary judgement. You are accusing me of that, and you do it yourself.

Dionysus is making points on an inherently speculative subject. If your best reply to that is "that's just your opinion" and "you can't KNOW" and "NO U" then you're losing badly and Fallout 3 will be remembered forever.

What does it matter whether FO3 will be remembered anyway? I'm not going to lose sleep over something like that.
'Cause yeah: it'll probably be remembered. If not by the masses, then certainly by a few individuals for whom it was perhaps their very first experience with games or on whom it made a really good impression. They might even start a website thirty years from now, a website dedicated to their favourite childhood game, FO3. Who cares?
Look at the web: it's filled with tons of marginal stuff, stuff no one but a small group of geeks seem to care about, you can find traces of the smallest of things. Surely a game like FO3 will have a snippet of information left somewhere in the dark corners of the web, even in the far far future.

That is, of course, if Yellowstone Park doesn't become a global killer. But in that case, nothing will be remembered, I guess.

 

[Commiered]

I said, in my post, that sales and GoTY alone cannot make a game rememberable, and there are plenty of games that have "failed" to be remembered with both of these, and there fore it is unlikely that this means that the game will be remembered .You have to look at the quality of the game. Fallout 3 lacks almost everything to be well remembered game, in the long term. will people after 11 years still look back and say: "wow that is a great game, with great design" ? No, not very likely.

He is putting to much value on the critical acclaim this game is getting.

We are in the end, just gambling.
I am betting, based on facts, that this game will not be remembered, after 11 years.

Too true. Just look at the sales of well remembered games in the past. They didn't sell all that much compared to F3(Though they were pretty much exclusive on the PC and not console). I'm curious as to see just how much Fallout 3 sold on the PC. My bet is very little compared to the console version.

If sales make a game great then just look at the top lists from the past. In 2001 one of the best selling games was Harry Potter (3) and another was Frogger (12). By the logic of Dionysis they are games to be remembered forever because they sold more than Gothic did that year for example.