Comments on: Games for 2008: Fallout 3

By: solios

solios — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:01:25 +0000

Hell, the “3″ even risks alienating people who’ve never played (or heard of) the original, dismissing it out of hand

Maybe they should release it as Fallout VII. For hundreds of thousands of gamers, Final Fantasy VII was their first encounter with the series, and it sold gangbusters. It also snatched a portion of Nintendo’s userbase, as the fans who had been playing the Final Fantasies since the NES followed the developer (Square) to the Playstation.

Not saying the games have much in common, beyond “big sequel in RPG series with fanatically loyal fanbase,” but hey. Square sold FF7 to more new gamers than FF1 owners.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:49:48 +0000

The choice of perspective and the combat mechanics will stand on their own. Either they will work, be fun to use and intuitive, or they wont. Whether they compare to the original Fallout games will be irrelevant if it is a good system. Certainly the more real time closer to the character view is the common method for rpgs now, the isometric one being less popular. If it is done well it could give the game a great flow and be a lot of fun.

I haven’t really liked Bethesda’s previous games myself but the developers have been saying the right things in interviews, (scaled spawns were mentioned as being out in one interview I saw which is reassuring) I think it is virtually impossible to tell one way or the other. I just hope they make a game with some depth in terms of narrative and keep the character and witty aspects of the originals.

By: kadayi

kadayi — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:19:37 +0000

My point is not that the game should be isometric like the originals, just that a direct translation of the originals games stylings doesn’t suit the 3D engine format. By going with the licence they’ve hamstrung themselves in terms of the look and the feel and it’s overblown. If they’d developed a franchise free Post -apoc game things could of been a bit more measured.

By: Drugar

Drugar — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:50:17 +0000

I’ve got a decent amount of faith in Bethesda when it comes to Fallout. As was mentioned above, you can say a lot of things about ‘em but they’re not lazy bastards who’ll deliver a half-finished game, nor are they bound by a publisher to deliver on time. Seeing as rushing a game out is what ruined many, many good RPG’s over the years (like KotOR2 and everything by Troika) my main worry is somewhat comforted.

Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass about what the super mutants look like, they had only a handful of models in the original games and after that everyone’s imagination of what they looked like from a ‘human’ viewpoint was different. It’s also utterly unimportant, in the scope of things. Dialogue is also not a thing of worry, the focus of the Elder Scrolls was a huge world and joining every damn faction in existance, Fallout is largely about proper interaction so they’ll put the focus more on that.

What worries me is the thing mentioned above; consolisation and its impact on the interface. Oblivion’s interface was dreadful, the inventory system and statistics screens a Combat system on their own and character creation pained me. Am I the only one who doesn’t like spending 45 minutes trying to stretch, skew and mold a character’s face with those creators, and still ending up with someone that looks so alien it could scare off Ellen Ripley?
Anyway, my point is, if someone just had the brilliant idea of attaching a trackball mouse and small keyboard to the next-gen consoles, I could sleep easy at night.

By: malkav11

malkav11 — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:20:38 +0000

Huh. I sure wouldn’t describe my experience of either Fallout as slightly dark, lonely, with a taste of fear. I’d describe it as goofy hilarity with an undertone of what’s been lost in the wake of catastrophe. I may find shooting people (and/or plants) in the groin to be slightly more amusing than I should, though.

Tactics tried offering both turn-based and real-time combat modes. The end result was that neither one worked satisfactorily. (So did Arcanum, for that matter, with similar results.)

And yes, there are legitimate doubts to be had about the direction Fallout 3 is taking, particularly if one didn’t enjoy Oblivion (I did, very much so, although it did need a fair bit of modding to get there.). But there sure are a lot of people who seem willing to judge the game to be shit long before it’s come out or even seen more than a few sparse previews.

By: Garth

Garth — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:16:47 +0000

“And no, I didn’t play the originals (10 minutes with the Fallout demo in ‘97 which culminated in getting killed by a dog doesn’t count).”
Hey, that’s my experience (down tot he death, even) of Fallout.

By: Jae Armstrong

Jae Armstrong — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:01:33 +0000

Not that I wouldn’t have liked it to go to Troika, if they’d stuck around

I believe it’s been mooted about that Troika’s dispersal is a direct effect of their failure to secure the license. As in, they had publishers willing to keep funding them- if they got the license.

Which is a bit like someone stealing your wallet then coming back to kick you in the nads for good measure.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:14:30 +0000

Fallout 1 and 2 are on my list of games to play in 2008. I’ve got them ready, in fact, and looking at the first hour of gameplay makes me feel quite optimistic about the next however-many-there-may-be. In the same week, I also played STALKER for the first time, and there’s a really nice emotive link between them. The flavour is the same – slightly dark, lonely, and with an aftertaste of fear.

Fallout 3 seems like a nice idea. I don’t think it’s what everyone would want Bethseda to do – it doesn’t really count as something ‘new’, but maybe it’s as close as we can hope for for a company so large – but I think it’ll turn out ok.

By: dhex

dhex — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:00:41 +0000

And I never quite understand the “rabid fanboy” argument.

i once felt as you did.

and then i understood.

By: pnutz

pnutz — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:08:03 +0000

“That’s not their style.”
Yet that’s the style of the game they chose to develop. They could have adapted their engine to make a game that looks more like Fallout than TES, but instead they did the opposite.

By: Chis

Chis — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:07:33 +0000

Van Buren had the right idea: please, Bethesda, give us both forms of combat. The effeminate, blouse-wearing turn-based combat for those hairy-buttocked D&D players that masturbate over stats for hours. And real-time head-stomping/gunslinging/etc for the rest of us that have fucking lives to live.

(Yes I do watch Zero Punctuation)

By: Lou

Lou — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:21:53 +0000

“But the thing is, as much as I’d rather have a turn-based isometric Fallout 3 like Van Buren looked to be, I’m more than happy to settle for what Bethesda’s doing. It wasn’t realistic to expect them to go turn-based or isometric. That’s not their style.”

Of course – I just find that everyone who utters some doubt or scepticism is immediately labelled as a “rabid fanboy” who doesn’t realise that “things have moved on” etc. – by people who are actually much the same as these rabid fanboys. There’s something like a middle ground.