After reading this I went on to read about the blacklisting of the Star Trek fansites at No Mutants Allowed, and then actually read some forum posts there about Fallout 3. I don't think I've ever seen a community so full of anger and vitriol. I'm of the opinion that you should be happy that at least *someone* is making a new Fallout game and say what you will about Oblivion, it was a successful title.

Shiho you can always *always* go back and play more Fallout 2, even if Fallout 3 blows. Myst isn't a very good comparison due to the complete lack of combat and well, any roleplaying elements whatsoever, but I understand your concern. Fallout is more than just turn based isometric combat though, and if Bethesda was able to put together something that still feels like Fallout (and isn't horribly neutered mature-content wise) I'll be happy. My only real issue right now is the complete lack of information about the game. Give us some screenies dammit!

Too small, too concentrated, feeding off of itself. All the anger reinforces itself because community leadership never stepped in to do anything about it. That being said...

But why should they be happy if they don't think it will be anything like the originals? People don't love the game because of it's "ultra-kewl name".

"You should be happy that at least *someone* is making a new Star Wars movie". Yeah, we all saw how well that went.

Very true. Such is the issue with the rise of console gaming and the fall of PC gaming.

Man what? That makes absolutely zero sense. No game's essence is defined by its technology. How old it was is meaningless. The truth of the matter is that no matter how you design your game, you will never please your target audience or the people who buy your game. No matter which two people you ask about something, you'll get three different answers.

Well, you can never please everyone... if the Fallout Fanatics were in complete agreement about what they think made Fallout Fallout, it would be possible, but alas...

Indeed, but it shouldn't be "Terminator: Future Shock" fun or "Baldur's Gate" fun. It should be "Fallout" fun. I guess the developers are faced with a nearly impossible task - they have to advance the genre, introduce new things, keep the traits unique to the franchise, and avoid dumbing things down.

However, Fallout 3's pending failure will not happen because Bethesda's developers are faced with such daunting tasks. It will happen for a different reason.

By analogy - the reason Uwe Boll wouldn't make a proper sequel with Godfather IV is not because he'd be faced with extraordinary challenges, but because his ability does not extend far enough to actually RUN into those challenges.

I predict that Fallout 3 will be to Fallout as Alien Shooter: Vengeance is to Crusader: No Remorse.

And yet a decade ago it was more advanced in the area of _gameplay technology_ than most games of the type are today. Also, the way it displays things is irrelevant. It could be isometric, it could be overhead fake view like Ultima Online, or distant-third-person like WoW with a camera zoomout. It certainly will be prettier than a decade ago, and that isn't a bad thing.

Who was the major designer on Fallout? Unless you get that guy back, I don't see a problem with Bethesda taking creative license to highlight their own strengths.

Guaranteed failure? Imitate someone else without adding any touch of yourself.

Which, per classic Bethesda, will be 2 months before they release the game, and after all the systems are in place with little chance of changing them. Unless they delay the launch, which is definitely possible.

I like their tight-lipped approach to PR, however. Let them make the game they want to make (within reason and after listening to some select major themes coming out of the fan-base) and fail or succeed on their own merit.

This coming from someone who is by no means a die-hard fan of FO, mind you.

Hi. First off, let's avoid the frequent mistake of using the word "mature" to describe "juvenile sex fantasy." It's one of my pet peeves.

Second, the important context here is that Fallout is one of those games that is more fun in our memories than on our computers. It's a brilliantly-imagined archetypal post-apocalyptic world strapped on to a creaky wagon of an game system with a goofy, stupid UI and a combat system that involves generating random numbers by waiting for grass to grow and then measuring the individual deltas of the blades in millimeters. In other words, there is plenty of room for improvement.

I think it's because Fallout's setting and plot touch such deep archetypes that it inspires such drooling insanity amongst the fanboys. For that kind of idiot, no new game will ever hold up, because it won't suck in exactly the same way that the fanboy's 13-year old self wants it to suck.

So I agree with thegameguru: Screw 'em.

Read his 'articles'. He doesn't actually want RPGs, he wants shooters set in fantasy realms. Only dressed up in a mountain of bile.

Sure, I link to my blog. That's because I've been writing about games for years, and have often written about the issues being discussed in more detail. If hyperlinks offend you, feel free to not follow them. I've never been one to think that it hurts for someone to provide more supporting detail, but maybe I'm naive.

You couldn't be more wrong. The thing about games is that they are, fundamentally, a young medium. That means that the tropes and vocabulary of the medium change very rapidly. Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord was a superb game when it came out, and I adored every minute I spent playing it. But 25 years of games with automaps and user interfaces that don't suck have made Wizardry I intolerable. It's still the exact same game it was in 1981, but -- and here comes a link, so you can ignore my point -- it is effectively no longer playable.

It's not in any way a conflict to say that Fallout was a great game when it came out, but it sucks now.

Except it doesn't. It might suck for someone who seems more caught up in flashy graphics and fancy interfaces, but the truth is that gameplay and story don't degrade if they're done right. There's plenty of room for interface improvements. Tooltips, keyboard shortcuts, better inventory management. Clearly the game doesn't work for you anymore. Still works fine for me and thousands of other people who can still appreciate it. Just because you state your opinion as fact doesn't make it any less a personal perspective.

It is an exaggeration. The interface is a big part of it though.

As much as any other game 10 years old.

I'm plenty comfortable here because most of the regulars already know and acknowledge that they posts they make are their own opinions. I don't see how you expect to have anything to do with how comfortable I feel here. You've made a whole 12 posts in 2 years and most seem to be just to pimp your own site.

Quintin, you're wandering into ad hominem territory, settle down please.

peter, if you ever wonder why you can't seem to discuss anything without getting into arguments of a more personal nature, I suspect it's before you preface your opinions with how wrong the other person is. If I were to yank out the ego-gratifying "You couldn't be more wrong" from the statement below, it would be totally fine. You gotta swallow those if you want to discuss ideas, rather than your motivations.

Good to see everybody having a fun time talking about games in a friendly manner!

I'm a huge Fallout fan. Best RPG I've ever played, bar none. Do I remember there being a demo? Seems like there was. I know that when I first heard about it, I instantly thought it was a fantastic idea. The more I read, the more it sounded right-on. When it came out, I ran out and got it immediately, and would play it from the evening until daybreak the next day.

Anyway, I'm part of the crowd that's just happy that someone is finally making a Fallout 3. And I'm doubly happy that it is someone with a proven track record for making great RPGs - even though I used to hate Bethesda for the buggy mess that was Daggerfall.

I don't get all the people who are foretelling Fallout 3's suckiness - has there been enough information about it revealed to make a reasonable judgment? I'm of the opinion that Oblivion has pretty much lived up to the hype.