Fallout 3!

[Jessica]

Unfortunatly agreeing.
No, I haven't played Oblivion expansions, or morrowind expansions, because I just didn't like the game.
Everyone tells me the game is great. I just didn't like it.

I've tried liking it. I really have. But, I didn't. Maybe I'll try again someday. I know I won't be paying full price for a game I've tried and didn't like.

I hope, beyond hope, that I'll like fallout 3. But, looking at Bethesda's past experience I probably won't, and it makes me sad. So, I'm not getting my hopes up. I'll probably buy the game on opening day, and I expect disappointment.

[EdgarJPublius]

I'm not trying to say oblivion = fallout, or even that shivering isles = fallout (okay, I might have said that, but it's not what I meant)

Having Played Shivering Isles make me believe Bethesda has the flexibility be capable of both The Elder Scrolls and Fallout.

Saying they can't is like saying The same guy who directed a tongue in cheek animated comedy couldn't flip tracks and do a good job of directing a moralistic fantasy epic, in theory the two are completely different and need an entirely different touch to do well, in practice, the same guy who directed Shrek directed The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe and managed not to cock up either one.

Or, from a game perspective, The same company that made a brilliant, hard core, gritty sci-fi strategy game couldn't make a cartoonish, hell you know where I'm going with this Blizzard made StarCraft and World of Warcraft, Valve made Half-life and Portal etc.

Get over yourselves, If you read the press releases and stop judging them against other Bethesda games (especially ones you haven't even played) then you might just realise that maybe they can make a Fallot game, at least long enough to stop bitching about it until they do
make a Fallout game and we can judge whether it's a good addition to the series or not.

[Marlowe]

My problem is thus:

Bethesda have made games which are increasingly meant to cater for the market. Look at Morrowind -> Oblivion. Morrowind was user unfriendly, and was better (in my opinion) because of it. Oblivion was popular, but that doesn't mean it was abso-friggin-fan-dabby-dozy. I worry that Bethesda will try to please the market instead of the die-hard fans (of which is impossible, there's a rant by one of the people involved with Fallout at the fans for having double standards somewhere).

Even then, Fallout 3 probably won't please the fans beacuse they're trying to reproduce something which the long-defunct Black Isle had their stubby little creativity-claws so deep into that nothing could replace them without mutilating the finished Fallout. Fallout 3 might (and probably will) be a very good game. But I doubt it'll be Fallout in the way Fallout 1 and 2 were.

In answer I've played Shivering Isles, but not finished it. I can't really see the Fallout connection, to be frank.

[SecondTalon]

Arena > Daggerfall > Morrowind > Oblivion in terms of complexity

Morrowind > Oblivion > Daggerfall > Arena in terms of modern enjoyability.

Complex and Fun are rarely a function of each other.

[Pandercolour]

My problem is thus:

Bethesda have made games which are increasingly meant to cater for the market. Look at Morrowind -> Oblivion. Morrowind was user unfriendly, and was better (in my opinion) because of it. Oblivion was popular, but that doesn't mean it was abso-friggin-fan-dabby-dozy. I worry that Bethesda will try to please the market instead of the die-hard fans (of which is impossible, there's a rant by one of the people involved with Fallout at the fans for having double standards somewhere).

That guy who ranted was from Black Isle, not Bethesda. And the rant had a very good point, as it was about Fallout fans who are predominantly demented little whackjobs.

[Jessica]

saying they can't is like saying The same guy who directed a tongue in cheek animated comedy couldn't flip tracks and do a good job of directing a moralistic fantasy epic, in theory the two are completely different and need an entirely different touch to do well, in practice, the same guy who directed Shrek directed The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe and managed not to cock up either one.

Or, from a game perspective, The same company that made a brilliant, hard core, gritty sci-fi strategy game couldn't make a cartoonish, hell you know where I'm going with this Blizzard made StarCraft and World of Warcraft, Valve made Half-life and Portal etc.

Get over yourselves, If you read the press releases and stop judging them against other Bethesda games (especially ones you haven't even played) then you might just realise that maybe they can make a Fallot game, at least long enough to stop bitching about it until they do
make a Fallout game and we can judge whether it's a good addition to the series or not.

the problem with your comparions: Blizzard makes good games and has shown this in the past. Valve has made good games, and has shown this in the past. The director of shrek made a good movie.

I'm saying that in my experience, I didn't enjoy Bethesda's previous games. Neither morrorwind, nor Oblivion. Yes, they might be able to make a good game. But, their track record isn't in their favour for me. If you enjoy these games, that's perfectly fine. I'm sure you'll enjoy Fallout. I'm saying that, in general while a game company can make drastic style changes, if they make good games, the new games will probably good. The opposite is also often true.

I'm hoping that I'll enjoy Fallout 3, because I like the universe, I like the previous games. I REALLY hope I like it. I want to with all my heart. But, I might not. In fact that might is probably around 40% chance of dislike. If I dislike the game, I will be sad.

[EdgarJPublius]

What I'm trying to say has noting to do with whether or not the kinds of game Bethesda has made in the past are the same kinds of games as Fallout, or were the kinds of games you would enjoy.

I'm saying that Bethesda has proven itself to be highly flexible in terms of game design, and capable of creating a Fallout-like atmosphere.

While there record doesn't necessarily lend itself directly to creating an enjoyable, fallout game, it does provide evidence that that kind of game is something they have the experience and sense of humor to pull off well.

I doubt any Planescape or Forgotten Realms fans could have predicted the company that gave the world a tongue-in-cheek sci-fi parody to be able to fulfill their need for a gritty, esoteric fantasy RPG, but if you look closely, while AD&D fans might not enjoy them, the Fallout games proved that Black isle had the potential to make games like Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale even if it washidden under obnoxious ironic camp and nonsensical retro-futurism.

Even if you hate every game Bethesda has ever made and hated every minute of playing through them, you should at least be able to see that the elements for a good Fallout style game exist underneath all that Tolkienian fantasy epic.

And I'm going to have to disagree with you ( a little bit) on complexity v. Fun. Certainly , I enjoy a good, complex game as much as the next 'intellectual' PC gamer, But saying that Daggerfall was in anyway a better game than Morrowind because it was more complex is just wanking, we might as well just go back to text based adventure games, there's a difference between a 'realistic/stimulating/entertaining' level of complexity and 'we could only fit so many things on the disk and something had to go so interface plays second fiddle to content and oh by the way, you can't actually complete the game as shipped'

If you want to tell me that Daggerfall had a better story, better setting and better writing than Morrowind, I'd agree with you. If you want to tell me that Daggerfall is better than morrowind because it is 'more complex' I'm going to laugh in your face and go find some real people to talk to, for while I may have near unlimited free time, I have no time for wankers, and even less for pretentious wankers.

[Serrin]

Maybe Bethesda can nail the atmosphere and the humor and the mood and the storyline, and all that. I'm willing to allow for the possibility.

I'll still be terribly disappointed if the gameplay is anything, ANYTHING at all like Morrowind or Oblivion. Bethesda, in my opinion, has not proven crap with regards in their ability to crate good gameplay. They should just go ahead and hire Oscuro, putting him in charge of all gameplay mechanics. They'd still be sorely lacking, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

Yes, there's the potential for Fallout 3 to be good. However, there's no evidence in favor of it being likely, and I see Morrowind and Oblivion as being evidence against it.

[Endless Mike]

Portal is a really poor example to use. An outside group of game development students made the predecessor of the game, then Valve hired them all to make it into a full-fledged game (if you can call a two-hour game full-fledged). They also hired someone from outside the company just for the story and the humor. It's like claiming Lucasarts makes great games and pointing out KOTOR and Lego Star Wars.

[Pandercolour]

M
Yes, there's the potential for Fallout 3 to be good. However, there's no evidence in favor of it being likely, and I see Morrowind and Oblivion as being evidence against it.

A developer is not just limited to one setting and one setting only.

For chrissake. PEOPLE CAN DO OTHER THINGS.

[SecondTalon]

Portal is a really poor example to use. An outside group of game development students made the predecessor of the game, then Valve hired them all to make it into a full-fledged game (if you can call a two-hour game full-fledged). They also hired someone from outside the company just for the story and the humor. It's like claiming Lucasarts makes great games and pointing out KOTOR and Lego Star Wars.

While I completely understand the point you're making..... Lucasarts used to make awesome games. Full Throttle, Maniac Mansion, The Secret of Monkey Isle, and so on.

All that being said, I think it's completely acceptable for a Fallout Fan to not have high hopes or any hopes and to be under the impression that Bethesda will muck it up based on their experience with other Bethesda titles. Yes, like a good director or writer or car company or whatever, they are capable of doing other things - but they've yet to really prove it. And while I do adore the Elder Scrolls series, I also can clearly see that it's not for everyone. I can even see how someone with similar tastes as mine wouldn't like it.

And I can see how hearing that the new Fallout game is being made by Bethesda using the same engine as Oblivion would send off titanic alarm bells. And that's fine.

[Serrin]

You read my entire post, right?

Bethesda games with good gameplay (as judged by me): 0.
Bethesda games with deeply flawed gameplay (as judged by me): 2.

The first is zero evidence in favor of Fallout 3 being good. The second is evidence in favor of Fallout 3 being bad. Notice how my gripe with Morrowind/Oblivion/Fallout 3 has nothing to do with setting, mood, atmosphere, or style. Morrowind's story was exactly what I expected of a game of that genre. So was Oblivion's, except for the Dark Brotherhood line, which was actually a cut above expectations. A good story with bad play is still a disappointing game.

Or are you saying that Oblivion's gameplay and Fallout 3's gameplay are so different that the former is in absolutely no way indicative, at all, or the latter?

[Hephesus]

My problem is thus:

Bethesda have made games which are increasingly meant to cater for the market. Look at Morrowind -> Oblivion. Morrowind was user unfriendly, and was better (in my opinion) because of it. Oblivion was popular, but that doesn't mean it was abso-friggin-fan-dabby-dozy. I worry that Bethesda will try to please the market instead of the die-hard fans (of which is impossible, there's a rant by one of the people involved with Fallout at the fans for having double standards somewhere).

The problem is Fallout fans cannot agree on what Fallout is, because it is different for everyone. For me it was the freedom and consequences of that freedom. For others it was the mechanics, the humor, the combat...

TES actually came close on the freedom front, but it kind of lost its flair in the consequences front. Why am I allowed to be in a lawful organization AND the thieve's guild at the same time? This does concern me, as did some of other things I saw in press releases, but on the whole, it looked good. In a way, it does seem the folk at Beth understand what fallout was about, and are trying to stay faithful to the source material while trying to use modern technology and make the storyline somewhat fresh. (The rehash of the Vault Dweller line really grated on me in Van Beuren).

A year ago I didn't think I'd ever play another Fallout RPG. I am willing to give it a chance, until I see something that gives me a reason not to. At this point, I see enough evidence to for and against the game being good that I can't I know what will happen.

Also, a note about track record, Icewindale 1 & 2 were also Black Isle games, and they felt like nothing but glorified diablo clones with a party system attached to it. Not every Black Isle game was RPG gold.

EDIT: Thanks for deleting my post, board

[Endless Mike]

Portal is a really poor example to use. An outside group of game development students made the predecessor of the game, then Valve hired them all to make it into a full-fledged game (if you can call a two-hour game full-fledged). They also hired someone from outside the company just for the story and the humor. It's like claiming Lucasarts makes great games and pointing out KOTOR and Lego Star Wars.

While I completely understand the point you're making..... Lucasarts used to make awesome games. Full Throttle, Maniac Mansion, The Secret of Monkey Isle, and so on.

Oh, I agree completely. My point was more that they don't make anything but Star Wars games NOW and the good Star Wars games that have been released in the past few years have either been developed by other companies (Lego Star Wars, KOTOR) or are direct ripoffs of games other companies made with a splash of Star Wars thrown on. Either way, it's not really relevant.

[Jebobek]

I'm glad I searched for a thread before a made a new one.

I'm looking at the graphics and I do say I am impressed. I'm liking the battle system. What it reminds me of is a more polished-off version of Vagrant Story.

I've never played the first two games but I've wikied their plotlines and I think I'll like the humor/setting the first two gave. Hopefully bethesda pushes the humor in hard.

If you guys have not taken a look at the newer hi-def trailer yet, do so. As one who only sampled the Oblivion game I'm very excited.

[thecommabandit]

I saw a bunch of adverts for it a few days back and decided to look around for info. Found the trailer and then the next day while I was watching a video games show on TV it was shown as one of the best E3 things. I'll definitely be getting it once it comes out.

I'm not a die-hard Fallout fan, but that's more from lack of knowledge than lack of enthusiasm. I've got Fallout 2 and have been playing it today and yesterday. Love it so far in that it really doesn't give much of a shit about you. You rob from this guy and he attacks you, then you die. You're dead, start again. And the dark humour is great. I also really like the fact that traveling any appreciable distance takes a large amount of time and that time is important rather than just another statistic at the top of the screen. I can't really say much more since I'm still only level three and clearing out an underground mall with a little pistol. Oh and while I'm at it, I love Sulik in the first bar. Really cool character - "We and I be happy to help."

I'm interested in the combat system of Fallout 3. From the show I watched it seemed like you could choose between FPS-style shoot-at-them-'til-they're-dead and using the Pip-Boy to select what you want to shoot at and watching the cinematic-like camera angles which isn't actually turn-based. Though other places have said that there's no other choice than the turn-based aiming combat. I'm hoping it's the first just because more freedom is always nice.

[Irrefutable]

From what i hear its standard shoot em up fps fare but you can use the 'Action points' from previous games to freeze the action and take an instant targeted shot at a part of your enemies anatomy with the old percentage chances to hit system to try and criple your enemym, make him drop his weapon or do something else unpleasent.

I may however be totally wrong.

Edt - Im also playing through the game and its less fun when you know exactly what to do.

Spoiler:

For example the moment i start i run past everything, ignore all begining quests, save and head way south to LA. Pick up the quest from the Brotherhood of Steel to infiltrate the enclave base so i go and raid the base. I get the power armor, super slege and the high end energy weapons and all of a sudden all encounters i meet for ages are a walkover. I also get enough cash to buy the best small gun ingame. The XP i get from these quests takes me to level 7 with no effort at all.

Its the same with Morrowind where with a few simple finds and strategys you can have embarasing amounts of money at level 1 with no effort at all. You no longer get the sense of discovery and intregue which you get from the first few play throughs which is one of the main joys of RPGs for me.

[toshiro]

From what i hear its standard shoot em up fps fare but you can use the 'Action points' from previous games to freeze the action and take an instant targeted shot at a part of your enemies anatomy with the old percentage chances to hit system to try and criple your enemym, make him drop his weapon or do something else unpleasent.

I may however be totally wrong.

Edt - Im also playing through the game and its less fun when you know exactly what to do.

Spoiler:

For example the moment i start i run past everything, ignore all begining quests, save and head way south to LA. Pick up the quest from the Brotherhood of Steel to infiltrate the enclave base so i go and raid the base. I get the power armor, super slege and the high end energy weapons and all of a sudden all encounters i meet for ages are a walkover. I also get enough cash to buy the best small gun ingame. The XP i get from these quests takes me to level 7 with no effort at all.

Its the same with Morrowind where with a few simple finds and strategys you can have embarasing amounts of money at level 1 with no effort at all. You no longer get the sense of discovery and intregue which you get from the first few play throughs which is one of the main joys of RPGs for me.

Well... If you do the speed run, naturally the game will suck. You're not playing it as it is intended. I've been playing Fallout 1 or 2 on-and-off these last years (in drawn-out sessions), and I usually made a point to play through the initial quests. The game is just much more fun that way. Of course, you can also play the game by quicksaving and quickloading to steal all the items from people (nets you tons of XP), but why do it? It makes the game very boring. And why would you play a game that bores you?

[johnbob06]

From what i hear its standard shoot em up fps fare but you can use the 'Action points' from previous games to freeze the action and take an instant targeted shot at a part of your enemies anatomy with the old percentage chances to hit system to try and criple your enemym, make him drop his weapon or do something else unpleasent.

I may however be totally wrong.

you are right but the action points only come back slowly over time so if you are facing a lot of enemies you will probably run out and be forced to use standard fps style. also i saw the most awesome weapon in a demo that was basically a mini nuke launcher that blew up like 15 square feet. fucking. awesome

[Jebobek]

As we're about a month away from the release I took another look at the main site and saw that they put up a couple more gameplay trailers. I have not watched them yet. Maybe the action system is explained more.

Also, any word yet if this is going to have DRM?

[headprogrammingczar]

Also, any word yet if this is going to have DRM?

Bethesda won't stand for it. Look at how they protected Oblivion. They found that they make enough money anyway that the piracy problem is not actually that bad.

[Jebobek]

Which raises the question, why do some companies get nailed by pirates more than others? Or do they just complain about piracy so much just to throw DRM in there to kill the resale market? Ok enough of that, I'm just glad that Bethesda will be nice guys.

[Endless Mike]

Everyone hates EA because they're the big guys of the industry and put DRM in their games, so they pirate them. EA puts DRM in their games because everyone pirates their games.

[thecommabandit]

As we're about a month away from the release I took another look at the main site and saw that they put up a couple more gameplay trailers. I have not watched them yet. Maybe the action system is explained more.

Watch the videos. You will want to build a time machine like I do. They make it look awesome and explain the combat system(s). Basically, you can go through the whole game aiming at people with the crosshair and just shooting at them, but you get Action Points which you can use to use VATS to select a body part and shoot at it. While in VATS, everything slows down. I think the figures are enemies go half as fast as you and the world a tenth as slow. I'm not sure about that but I'll see how it works in practice. VATS shots are generally a bit more damaging but not something you can do all the time, but they have some AWESOME camera angles. Like the powerfist ones. It zooms out to show you, the enemy runs up to you, you do a proper professional boxing punch and THEIR HEAD COMES OFF. The guy was playing it with the Bloody Mess perk which in this game increases the chance of dismemberment, but it's still awesome. VATS is totally optional but totally worth it for the camera angles and cinematics.

I am so stoked for this game.

[Jebobek]

I'm sure that they changed up the speed of the vs. the speed of enemies for balance/aesthetic reasons. They either sped up the enemies cause it was way too easy, or they slowed down the bloodspray cause it looks awesome. I'm sure people will be demanding a "VATS free" Achievement to pop up when beating the game I will be using VATS freely but I'm hoping that you can cancel out the cutscenes after you get tired of them.

Speaking of sales, for Oblivion, what was the % of copies sold to consoles vs. the % of copies sold to PC's?

[Xeio]

Bump, another week to go...

Incidentally, I can't decide whether to buy this for the 360 or PC. I prefer console for shooters, but Bethesda's games have always been very popular for mods, but then again, I wonder how my computer will handle it (it meets required, but not quite recommended for graphics card).

[Jessica]

I'm getting it for the PC. I don't have a 360, so that choice is easy.
Also, I like playing RPGs on the PC. And I like playing shooters on the PC.

It may look shitty compared to the 360 on a highdef tv, but it'll look good enough for me.

[Jebobek]

I just got my 22 inch LCD monitor so I think I'll be happy with it on my PC. I just hope Bethesda does not do something weird like the 2$ armored horse mod fiasco in Oblivion.

[thecommabandit]

It may look shitty compared to the 360 on a highdef tv, but it'll look good enough for me.

This is a fallacy; the developers themselves have stated that the 360 is getting on a bit and that Fallout 3 is stretching the hardware on it. You'd probably be better off getting it on the PC anyway.

[Endless Mike]

It may look shitty compared to the 360 on a highdef tv, but it'll look good enough for me.

This is a fallacy; the developers themselves have stated that the 360 is getting on a bit and that Fallout 3 is stretching the hardware on it. You'd probably be better off getting it on the PC anyway.

But how good it looks on PC is entirely dependent on how powerful your system is.

[SecondTalon]

True.

But your system can be upgraded to have a shiny new graphics card, beefier processor, and more RAM.. or just set to the side when a new one is purchased that will allow you to play Fallout 3 at the shiny megagraphics settings. And you can get player made mods which, if they're like some of the ones for Morrowind/Oblivion, will make the game run prettier and faster at the same time.

When's the 360 Graphics Processor Upgrade module due out again? Oh...right.

.. of course, that is a bonus point for the 360.. you've already purchased it, no need to upgrade anything on it to play it's games, whereas you may have to do so to the computer. Both sides have their pros and cons. Point being, though, that the 360 version has a defined limit to how pretty it will be, and that limit is below what a high-end PC is theoretically capable of doing.... even if what I just said sounds like guy who owns a Taurus talking to a bicycle enthusiast about how fast a Lamborghini can go.

[headprogrammingczar]

It may look shitty compared to the 360 on a highdef tv, but it'll look good enough for me.

This is a fallacy; the developers themselves have stated that the 360 is getting on a bit and that Fallout 3 is stretching the hardware on it. You'd probably be better off getting it on the PC anyway.

But how good it looks on PC is entirely dependent on how powerful your system is.

But how good it looks on 360 is entirely dependent on how weak your PC is.
We can dance in circles for days, but the fact of the matter is that console technology jumps in discrete intervals and PC technology passes consoles after about a year. Get the PC version.

Edit: ST, you ninja bastard!

[Jessica]

Yes, there are pros and cons of both.
one of the pros of consoles is the developers know exactly the hardware specs and can tailor the game to them. On a PC, you only have vague "PCs are about this powerful now", and make for that level, or some theoretical level which may not even exist yet.

I mean, 80% of the demographic doesn't even have the latest directX.

Just another con to PC vs console. It's all about weighing the options, and taking into account personal preferences.

[Xaddak]

I think I'll be getting it for 360, just because my PC is SOOOO out of date. Pentium IV 3.0GHz, 2GB DDR2 667 MHz, and a Nvidia GeForce 7800 GT PCI-x16. I mean... it's okay. It could probably run Fallout 3 on crap settings. But honestly? It sucks and I would probably be getting 5-10 FPS at best. Oblivion didn't even work very well with this rig, I doubt Fallout 3, which is using at least the same basis for the engine, will do much better.

I do finally have a job now, though, so maybe I can upgrade my PC before too long, and just suffer until then... but I want me some Fallout 3.

[EdgarJPublius]

I mean, 80% of the demographic doesn't even have the latest directX.

that's a misleading statistic considering that the latest directX isn't required for any game, has questionable advantages over prior versions and requires an operating system with extreme PR issues and poor adoption.

A better statistic would be adoption of directX9 amongst non-vista users.

[Xeio]

In any case, I'm just torn because my computer is likely going to be a bit strained (Core Duo T2600 2.16GHz, 2GB RAM, Geforce GO 7600; probably more the graphics card). That, and I'd prefer to play it on the 360 (if it was only vanilla)... but... mods... *brain explodes*

[Jack Saladin]

Aren't mods not supported for Fallout 3? I think they said they hoped to possibly include that in a patch later on, but they weren't sure about it.

[SoapyHobo]

Yeah, it's mentioned in this short interview.

I'll be getting it for PC, mainly because I don't have any console to play it on.

[Jebobek]

Well thats a shame. But at least their reasoning is due to time contraints and not "hey we want people to buy all of our downloadable content instead."

[Toeofdoom]

Well thats a shame. But at least their reasoning is due to time contraints and not "hey we want people to buy all of our downloadable content instead."

Well that's what they say, anyway.

I'm also getting it on PC, with morphine replaced with "stims" due to the lameness that is the Office of Film and Literature Classification.