Official Fallout 3 Catch-All

ranalin wrote:
fathamburger wrote:

They could have even called it Fallout Tactics 2 since it was more focused on combat but this still doesn't look anything close to an RPG.

Not sure how you can say that unless you've already played the game. We've only seen a trailer that's focused on combat which is known to hit all the right buttons with FPS kiddies. Which is good marketing. They know they've got those of us RPG players in the bag already. They're trying to reach out to the ones who may not know what FO is.

this is fallacious reasoning because it means no matter what Bethesda is going to disappoint someone. If they show this game off as a FPS and it's not, then those FPS people who were suckered by the trailer will be pissed. If it's vice versa, then the RPG fans who support the franchise will be pissed.

I don't think you need to have played the game to judge the game based on the trailer. The trailer's entire existence is specifically to show what the product is about. Just because the Fallout series is a beloved franchise doesn't make it above criticisim

This game was totally "meh" until I saw footage of the VATS.

VATS = teh awesome!

Its an especially nice touch that VATS uses action points.

Sort of disappointed in the bloody mess perk. You would think they could have put more work into the kills besides large chunky meat with eyeballs. I want that plasma kill with the tissue falling off then the skeleton falling over after. That had to be one of the most memorable kills in the old ones, so satisfying.

SexyBeast wrote:
ranalin wrote:
fathamburger wrote:

They could have even called it Fallout Tactics 2 since it was more focused on combat but this still doesn't look anything close to an RPG.

Not sure how you can say that unless you've already played the game. We've only seen a trailer that's focused on combat which is known to hit all the right buttons with FPS kiddies. Which is good marketing. They know they've got those of us RPG players in the bag already. They're trying to reach out to the ones who may not know what FO is.

this is fallacious reasoning because it means no matter what Bethesda is going to disappoint someone. If they show this game off as a FPS and it's not, then those FPS people who were suckered by the trailer will be pissed. If it's vice versa, then the RPG fans who support the franchise will be pissed.

I don't think you need to have played the game to judge the game based on the trailer. The trailer's entire existence is specifically to show what the product is about. Just because the Fallout series is a beloved franchise doesn't make it above criticisim

Your right someone out there will be pissed no matter what.

I still dont think it's above criticism. I just have a hard time with anyone condemning something they've not played yet. This goes for all games not just Fallout. Especially from a 3min clip. 3 minutes out of how many hours of gameplay?

I share many of fat's sentiments. The feeling is that we're not judging the whole game, we are just disappointed that this is what they chose to highlight as it lends itself towards a vision we may not share.

fathamburger wrote:
ranalin wrote:

They know they've got those of us RPG players in the bag already. They're trying to reach out to the ones who may not know what FO is.

I think its the opposite, I think they have the FPS players in the bag. If you read many of the comments especially on gametrailers, everyone that's positive about FO3 has never heard of it and only know that blowing peoples heads off "Rawks". Its the lack of RPGness that is causing all the emo tears.

Exactly. I don't get people who say over and over things about reaching out for more casual gamers, when only people praising Beth games are people who doesn't consider themselves RPG die-hards (and from that perspective Oblivion is a great game, for sure).

The gamesradar quests preview is hopeful but it still sounds more like a Bioware good/bad meter action game than an RPG. At least thats a step up from what we've seen. My idea of RPG? well.. fallout, planescape, arcanum, baldurs gate (even though I never really got into that). Ultima series, even Lands of Lore lol The crap graphics were made up for interactivity, depth of world, decisions and consequences that have a lasting impact and change the world instead of just pushing a good/bad meter around.

Amen, my brother!
(Although I can't agree with "crap graphics", at least not for Planescape and other IE-based games: I think that they really hold up well even today, and that's because good art direction and atmosphere it creates. But enough with going wildly off-topic)

fathamburger wrote:

With respect to the gamesradar guy, he tried but FO was never just about good/bad. I think it's been so long that most people have forgotten what those RPG's were really about.

I thnk that it's valid to say that about every new cRPG. I have finished Mass Effect yesterday and was really surprised seeing how Bioware while keeping very strong narrative and story elements, downplays all cRPG things to it. It was astounding for me, I haven't had so mixed feelings about game in few years. I loved everything about the lore and story but just couldn't find roleplaying in it. I guess FO3 will be that kind of game, relying heavily on good/bad mechanics and marketing them as core RPG elements. (Plus it won't have that kind of writing that Bioware games have, I guess)

boogle wrote:

I share many of fat's sentiments. The feeling is that we're not judging the whole game, we are just disappointed that this is what they chose to highlight as it lends itself towards a vision we may not share.

Then it's three of us, boogle ;]

Aren't you too focused on the three letters RPG? Is a game better just because you can use these three letters to describe the game? So it's not a true and focused RPG, so what? It's a crossover just like all the other games of the current generation. Either it's fun and worth your money or it isn't. Those three letters mean nothing. A bad RPG isn't better than a bad FPS or RTS or whatever. Everybody wants to see a game that exactly fulfills all your wishes. Well, life isn't like that. If this game isn't enough like Fallout 1+2 for you, fine, don't play it or play it and be disappointed.

I'm not looking forward to playing an RPG, I'm looking forward to playing a great game. You're saying it isn't the same genre as the old Fallout games and I say many people simply don't care.

Andy wrote:

Aren't you too focused on the three letters RPG?

Is it me who labeled it and marketed it to me as RPG game? No. It's pretty obvious that it will be very good game by "casual" standards. But it won't change the fact that it fails at what it tries to (and is supposed to) be.

Andy wrote:

I'm not looking forward to playing an RPG, I'm looking forward to playing a great game. You're saying it isn't the same genre as the old Fallout games and I say many people simply don't care.

I have to agree with you. More than that, despite all my critical views I hold the same attitude as you do, because it's the best thing one can do if he's to enjoy that game.
Still, you should understand that some goodjers share that ridiculous idea that Fallout game is supposed to be RPG game.

Andy I think people are mostly bummed because they feel that they lost the game they wanted for so long. Its not that a game was made in another genre and used fallout ideas, but no biggie they will go back to the tried and true in some time. BethSoft owns FO and this is what it is now, Fans are coming to terms with the fact they they will never get the game they looked forward to for a decade. I feel a creepy parallel to one of my other favorite classic properties, X Com. Someone may have forgotten strategy to FPS can be a bad idea. At least Mr. Lavine, bless him and all that is holy on his secret project, may have the last word.

Strategy to FPS may be difficult to pull off but Valkyria Chronicles got stellar reviews and it's kind of an RTS/RPG/FPS hybrid.

fathamburger wrote:

Exactly. I don't get people who say over and over things about reaching out for more casual gamers, when only people praising Beth games are people who doesn't consider themselves RPG die-hards (and from that perspective Oblivion is a great game, for sure).

Good grief man, hyperbole much?

I've played the same rpg's as you (with the resume you listed earlier in the thread), and rpg's are my favorite genre. The Elder Scrolls games (Oblivion included) are very much still rpg's, even if you don't like them. I think Bethsoft has done a great job with the franchise, and while I had some complaints about Oblivion, it was overall a fantastic rpg. A different style of rpg from the traditional styles of Planescape, Baldur's Gate, Fallout, or Arcanum (to throw a few examples out there), sure. But just because you don't personally like that style doesn't make the games invalid as rpg's or only aimed at casual gamers rather than "rpg die-hards".

Your elitist "old-school gamer cred, yo" attitude doesn't make you the end-all authority on rpg's, or even representative of all old-school rpg die-hards. I can respect your opinion, but I don't respect the way you're participating in the discussion.

Some input from Shacknews, not a bad article.

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredart...

I'm expecting this game to be pretty good. 7-9 on the 10 point scale, if that means anything. There's a possibility it'll be game of the year, but there's also the possibility that it'll be the area-loading, buggy headache that Oblivion sometimes is.

You know what? I'll probably still like it even if it turns out to be a less buggy Oblivion with better voice acting and NPC AI in a new setting. That would still be a pretty great game.

Andy wrote:

Aren't you too focused on the three letters RPG? Is a game better just because you can use these three letters to describe the game? So it's not a true and focused RPG, so what?

Well, considering that the Fallout franchise was built around an RPG system called S.P.E.C.I.A.L., and considering that Bethesda went through great pains to convince us they are preserving that basic underlying system in F3, then I'd say it's a big deal if we were to all of a sudden find out the game is not following that RPG system. Is the game better for being an RPG? Not a game. But Fallout 3 game, yes.

Andy wrote:

Either it's fun and worth your money or it isn't. Those three letters mean nothing. A bad RPG isn't better than a bad FPS or RTS or whatever. Everybody wants to see a game that exactly fulfills all your wishes. Well, life isn't like that. If this game isn't enough like Fallout 1+2 for you, fine, don't play it or play it and be disappointed.

I'm not looking forward to playing an RPG, I'm looking forward to playing a great game. You're saying it isn't the same genre as the old Fallout games and I say many people simply don't care.

Then let them call it Fallout: Revolution (as someone suggested earlier). Implying that it's in Fallout universe and setting, but a different kind of a game. Same as Fallout: Tactics. If it's called Fallout 3 then it brings with it certain semantic expectations. Bethesda is actually banking on those expectations and assumptions to get my money from me. If they didn't they'd just make another game and call it Oblivion: Nukes'n'Guns. But they aren't making that game. They are making Fallout 3. So, if they can be asking me for my money based on the baggage of that name, then I have every right to hold them up to the standards that baggage brings with it.

Imagine if Peter Jackson fell ill before he could complete the third Lord of the Rings movie. And the guy who takes it over creates Gigli like movie, with shake cam experiments akin to Blair Witch Project movie, crappy 70's-like animation special effects and replaces all the actors with all of the most expensive who's-who of Hollywood to drive up the budget into hundreds of millions. Do you think fans would be a bit miffed? Sure, you could tell them to simply not care and either not watch it or watch it and be disappointed. You think they'd just take your advice and disappear?

I'm pretty sure it will be a decent game. I'm still buying it day one.
I'm just filled with ennui for the feeling of the old games.

Edit: Never mind. I need to stay out of the semantics game.

Farscry wrote:
fathamburger wrote:

Exactly. I don't get people who say over and over things about reaching out for more casual gamers, when only people praising Beth games are people who doesn't consider themselves RPG die-hards (and from that perspective Oblivion is a great game, for sure).

No idea how, but you've quoted my post and labeled it as fathamburger's. I share most of his views, but I'm not sure who were you talking to ;] My response would be: if you treat Oblivion as a great RPG, that's good for you, it just means that we're far far away with our definitions of RPG. If you find my posts offensive, then I'm sorry, but I'm operating on definition of RPG as *I* understand it. When I write that Oblivion applies to gamers in general much more than to RPG gamers, I'm thinking about *my* perception of RPG gamers. They're all *mine* feelings and observations, there isn't any objectivity in both yours and mine attitude towards these games.
I hope that fits you and we could leave it be, m'kay? ;] I think that we went enough off-topic anyways.

The graphics aren't crap but by Crysis 3d wankery = good, 2d = old and busted Halo kiddy standards they are I just didnt want to get into a graphics debate either

I'd work on a fanmade "Fallout 3" based on the original FO3 Van Buren notes (which you can find at some place called Fallout vault or sometihng, I think it was a wikia thing) if I didn't have living expenses to pay etc. I so would if I was 18-21 again, I'm well past the age when I can work on IP/mods that I don't own and can't be sold Anyone who thinks this is a Fallout game should go and read those, and cry at what almost was. This doesn't even come close. After reading the details I got goosebumps without having actually played anything. Bethesda's FO3 by comparison is a gross oversimplification, like someone just read wikipedia and without playing the games themselves decided they knew what it was all about. Or try simplifying LOTR to just Aragorn vs Sauron and get rid of all that pesky middle earth, language etc and boring Gandalf stuff.

I *Think* this was the original link http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Van_Buren

Fathamburger, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your point is that this isn't a true Fallout game and therefore you are disappointed. OK. Message received. Whether you want it to be a "true" sequel or not, this is the game we're getting. You can keep complaining about it and stalking about this thread handing out wet blankets but that's not going to change the fact that THIS IS FALLOUT 3. If you quit your day job and go make a "real" Fallout game with Van Buren, fine, awesome, I'd love to play it, but that would be a game for a different thread because this thread is for the real Fallout 3. We're not all suddenly going to say, "You're right, this game isn't Fallout so it must suck" and all go run to sign the petitions on No Mutants Allowed.

You either like the game or you don't. It's generally considered bad form to go into a thread about something you don't like and constantly remind everyone why it sucks (unless it's a thread about how much something sucks, in which case you should make a new thread).

This is the thread to discuss Fallout 3. This is NOT the thread to talk about how Bethesda's Fallout 3 is an abomination that shouldn't be made. The time for that particular discussion is over and any attempt to resurrect it will be dealt with faster than that giant scorpion killed me in the original game.

It makes me grumpy when I have to quote Certis and point out his accuracies. This thread is getting old fast.

Fallout 3 looks like it will rock even hater-faces, and its great because most of purist-haters will still play it. It will be great when they turn out to love the game.

I just wish Bethesda would hire an online crew and come up with some kind of cooperative experiences for their games.

The early previews (non-video) make it sound like Bethesda really grasps and respects what makes Fallout great so things look promising. Im just glad its only a few months away, rather than a year +

I want to see a demonstration of how SPECIAL will affect combat. I never played Oblivion and had a very fleeting affair with Morrowind so I'm not sure how they handled stat based combat in a first person perspective.

UCRC wrote:
Farscry wrote:
fathamburger wrote:

Exactly. I don't get people who say over and over things about reaching out for more casual gamers, when only people praising Beth games are people who doesn't consider themselves RPG die-hards (and from that perspective Oblivion is a great game, for sure).

No idea how, but you've quoted my post and labeled it as fathamburger's. I share most of his views, but I'm not sure who were you talking to ;] My response would be: if you treat Oblivion as a great RPG, that's good for you, it just means that we're far far away with our definitions of RPG. If you find my posts offensive, then I'm sorry, but I'm operating on definition of RPG as *I* understand it. When I write that Oblivion applies to gamers in general much more than to RPG gamers, I'm thinking about *my* perception of RPG gamers. They're all *mine* feelings and observations, there isn't any objectivity in both yours and mine attitude towards these games.
I hope that fits you and we could leave it be, m'kay? ;] I think that we went enough off-topic anyways.

UCRC, sorry about that, that post got mixed up for me. My frustration was primarily with Fatham's general attitude so far towards anyone that doesn't share his elitist view.

I still disagree with your comment I quoted for the reason I noted: claiming that "only people praising Beth games are people who doesn't consider themselves RPG die-hards" is outright false, and intended to prop up one viewpoint by calling into question the validity of others' viewpoints in the process.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Fathamburger, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your point is that this isn't a true Fallout game and therefore you are disappointed. OK. Message received. Whether you want it to be a "true" sequel or not, this is the game we're getting.

QFT. Still a day 1 buy for me.

This game is a day one purchase for me. And that's saying something. I tend to wait for price drops because resources are so limited. Plus, I usually have a decent backlog of games, so I can wait and play something else in the meantime. This one, however, will have me rushing to the store to purchase on day one. I've never played a Fallout game before, but I absolutely loved Oblivion. I loved the sheer expanse of the game, something that Fallout 3 will have to a slightly lesser degree, but in a post-apocalyptic environment. I could go on but, suffice to say, I am excited at the prospect of what appears to be a really good game, regardless of the title of it.

Farscry wrote:

UCRC, sorry about that, that post got mixed up for me. My frustration was primarily with Fatham's general attitude so far towards anyone that doesn't share his elitist view.

I still disagree with your comment I quoted for the reason I noted: claiming that "only people praising Beth games are people who doesn't consider themselves RPG die-hards" is outright false, and intended to prop up one viewpoint by calling into question the validity of others' viewpoints in the process.

I guess I've just misrepresented my viewpoint a bit, my fault, so without further explaining: I didn't meant to question validity of other viewpoints, it's too subjective topic. Now let's leave this thread to serve it's purpose

I guess that as much as I wasn't happy with what we saw at E3, I'm as interested in this game as I was before expo. Reason for this is that I still approach it more as a "normal" game, opposed to RPG, and that suits me fine. Watching presentation in HD helped, I think I need to change my previous opinion on graphic direction which was overally negative. I still think that Oblivion engine was a bad choice, but now I see light at the end of tunnel. We'll see

Higgledy wrote:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/3...

The man himself.

Watched the video

With all that info he revealed, I shat ma pants.

This game will be awesome I'm sure of it : )

I saw the gameplay demonstration in the MS E3 conference and man that was a lesson on how to turn people off your game. It dampened my interest.

I was clear that this thread is not for discussing what Fallout 3 is not. We're done with that topic. - Certis