| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (37)

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 8:22AM Twist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They are really getting the hype train rolling early on this game. Over a year from the planned release date is way to early for the amount of effort they are already putting into hyping this game.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 9:08AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah and speaking of trains you really missed one, Joystiq. Bethsoft is creating Fallout 3 for I don't know who, but it sure as shit isn't the "obsessive, tight-knit group of fans" you write about in the first paragraph.

It should be readily apparent that this is being marketed and made for the console crowd first, PC crowd second.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 9:31AM Triforceowner said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Miles foreman, you are probably correct that this game, as a product, is being pushed for the console gamers. If Bethesda can make a Fallout game that gets a good percentage of console gamers to buy it than they don't have a niche piece of art but a fully profitable product. On the other side of things, they still need to keep that hardcore fan base as part of their market. This might be why Kyle said, "Obsessive, tight-knit group of fans." So you are correct that this game is aimed to get console gamers into the Fallout experience, but Fallout fanatics should not worry about the game being too different from previous games, not in terms of, say, gameplay, but in terms of the context of the story and the background and experience the fallout franchise brought.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 10:01AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm sorry Triforceowner, but have you *seen* what Bethsoft has released so far? Other than Ron Perlman and the tragicomic Vault Boy being plastered on everything... I don't even recognize it.

Imagine this: Bungie decided that when they were making Halo 3 that it would no longer be a FPS shooter, but rather a turn-based dialogue heavy RPG. Sure, you'd have the Warthog, the familiar weapons and enemies and of course the Master Chief... but would it really be Halo 3?

The "Fallout fanatics" are (for the most part) disappointed and angry. Many of us have been waiting 10 years (myself included) for at least a *decent* attempt at a sequel... which will never come.

You know, I'd have loved a full-3D Fallout 3, fancy graphics and all. I just don't want a FPS shooter marketed as Fallout 3.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 10:17AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Twist

I think BethSoft is attempting to get some basics out early because of how different the game it from the previous ones. They can break the fan-boys hearts now when they realize that it won't be a bit-for-bit recreation of the original. Then, after that initial sadness passes and reality of the situation sinks in, they will be more prepared to actually give the game a fair shot a year from now.

@ miles foreman
From what I've read, you can use a FPS style shooting mechanism, but dice rolls are still happening in the background. I think it's just so that console users don't have to dig through menus.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 6:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I dedicated two or three years of my life almost solely to the first two installments of the Fallout series. I was so wrapped up and entrenched in the game that I even considered starting a collection of bottle caps so I could sustain myself after someone pressed that big red button. I loved the games, to say the least. That being said, I am extremely excited about Fallout 3. I cannot for the life of me understand why people are so pessimistic about the what Bethesda is developing. Perhaps I am one of few Fallout fans who also highly enjoyed Oblivion. It was not perfect, but neither was Fallout(whether you want to admit it or not, fanboys). They are both highly engrossing games. I guess what I am saying is that I wish people would wait and not be closed minded to a game that won't be out for at least fifteen months. When it comes out, you don't have to like it. At the moment, however, we don't know enough (having never played it) to make a rational decision.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 10:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I find it funny. The quote at the end of this article is so off.

"At the end of the day ... I think [the fans] just want you to treat [the franchise] with respect," he said. "They don't want you to cheese it up, and they want you to take it seriously because they take it seriously. And we do."

It should be redacted and replaced with:

"At any time, especially the end of the day, the fans just want to whine and bleat, and idolize the franchise to a point where it is taken so seriously, that nothing will satisfy them. Things that will satisfy some will alienate others. Do we have any chance of making the rabid fans who want Fallout 1 with a new story on XBox 360? I don't think we do."

I was intrigued by the Fallout 3 forums, but trying to find fun game spoilers there is like looking for $1 bills in a sewer choked with feces and rotting corpses. Thanks a lot, bitter Fallout 1 fans!!

As a side note, I still play the first Fallout, and occasionally Fallout 2. I love those game, I have just not clung to the Luddite expectation that a modern game will emulate them. Time for a new generation, gentlemen. Enjoy, or write your own.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 10:54AM Pushtrak said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"It should be readily apparent that this is being marketed and made for the console crowd first, PC crowd second."

I hate that bullshit.

The console crowd? Do you not think console gamers might want a great RPG? Think thats impossible?

Fuckin elitists.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 11:01AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
RE: Andrew

I'm sure the dice rolls are going to piss off players not accustomed to shooting at something and nothing happening. That's how Morrowind was (dice rolls in the background) until apparently the complaints were so bad that they removed dice rolls completely for Oblivion. That's why those dumb-ass minigames were present, apparently player skills are more important in an RPG than character skills.

The real crime here is that I'm not sure Bethesda understands what they're doing. Is it a twitch game for console kids? Is it an RPG? is it none of the above? Sure, they're professed "fans" of the games and that's okay. I'm a fan of Bukowski but that doesn't mean I think I'd do a good job at aping his style when I write.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 11:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
RE: Newbiezilla

Fallout 1 and 2 are cRPGs, which are completely different from traditional console RPGs. I'm not being an elitist, I'm just being realistic. I play *gasp* consoles too!

Why is it that a game like Civilization or Fallout could never succeed on a console but can on a PC? They're platforms more suited toward that type of gaming, while consoles excel at action or arcade style gaming. From what I hear C&C3 is pretty good on the 360 so perhaps a game like CivIV could do well there, but I doubt it.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 11:35AM Ghengis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What, exactly, have we seen announced so far that would preclude making a "real" Fallout sequel? OK, so it will be first/3rd-person -- Fallout is not defined by its isometric engine, if you ask me. It will be mixed real-time, with what sounds like as much turn-based as you want -- as long as there's not too much limit on that, it seems like "old school" fans can re-create a turn-based system, and ignore the real-time stuff. There's still a branching story with a lot of options for the player; I have heard that the writing will be on par with the first two games in quality, and we have no way of knowing for sure until it comes out.

What defines Fallout? The post-apocalyptic/50's sci-fi atmosphere, the sense of humor, the strategic combat, the open, do-what-you-want story... and it sounds to me like that could very well all make it in. Call me a Pollyanna, but I'm keeping my hopes up yet.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 11:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Fallout had a very good sequel, and two crappy sequels. Another in the franchise is being made, and boohoo, it is ten years later, you aren't guaranteed the same old same old. You die hards act like you "deserve" a sequel, which is just egotistical nonsense. And just because it is being marketed to consoles does not mean

A: it'll be a bad game
B: it'll be dumbed down
C: it won't be true to the Fallout universe

All they really are changing is the perspective. Still dialogue heavy. Still major consequences for opinions. Still same nuked to pieces world. Still minor emphasis on combat, which even that they are trying to keep true to the old games.

Whiners.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 12:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
RE: James

Now that there's a lot more information on the various game sites here's what I can tell you so far about V.A.T.S.:

Instead of a pause-whenever-and-issue-commands ala Baldur's Gate or any of the Infinity Engine cRPGs V.A.T.S. appears to work more like bullettime from Max Payne or the slo-mo feature in F.E.A.R.

Basically, your agility determines the about of APs you may spend in this paused targeting mode. I'm unsure of whether you can pause when you have no APs left. The APs regenerate in real-time. I am also unsure at whether your actions use your APs or if it's like a timer (IE: as you stay in the targeting mode, APs drain from your meter).

It seems to operate much like KOTOR's system rather than Fallout: Tactics real-time/turn-based hybrid system.

As for what makes Fallout Fallout: Fallout was a setting wrapped around (originally) a GURPS pen-and-paper engine. After the switch from GURPS to SPECIAL, it still retained its pen-and-paper roots. Fallout could be in any setting really, the setting is just an excuse for a pen-and-paper cRPG.

Meaningful dialog, the ability to affect the world around you and tactical combat also play their parts.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 12:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am a huge fallout fan, have been for a long time, but the community built around fallout is comprised of frigging idiots who have driven the reasonable people away.

To me, fallout is not about the combat, its not about the isometric viewpoint, its about atmosphere and exploring a kooky post apoc world. I think a first person view will help massively with the immersion of the world, and while its not going to be the same, theres no reaason this wont be a superb game, nor one that isnt worthy of the name.

But the nasty, spitefull, scummy little community built around the game wont give it a chance unless its a port with a new story.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 12:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh, for christ's sake, why can't you NMA rejects stay in your little nerd haven? Let us normal fans enjoy the hype and talk about this game without having to argue with a bunch of delusional virgins.

This guy has never seen the game in action and can write a bunch of paragraphs about how the combat is wrong and not true to Fallout; dude, you should invest in the stock market if you can predict the future so well! The combat was by far the clunkiest aspect of the engine, thank god they're updating it to a more sensible system.

What makes Fallout Fallout is the setting, the mood, the black humor, the silly pop-culture references, it's what made it stand out in the first place! Turn-based cRPGs with pen & paper roots were dime-a-dozen in the 90s, and were much more a result of hardware limitations than developer choice (a dice roll is trying to simulate reality, if you can simulate it more realistically, with proper physics, why the hell would you still use dice rolls?).

The game is looking awesome
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 12:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I always think its funny that people continually bash the Fallout community as if we're just a bunch of asshole morons. True, there are some that say mean, spiteful shit (and even threats against developers... that's just low) but every community has it's nutter fringe.

So because Bethsoft has decided to create some weird FPS hybrid that caters largely to a market that knows nothing of the Fallout series, this is somehow the Fallout community's fault? A community that has been active for 10 years? Find another series that has had that kind of following, especially when there hasn't been a direct sequel for 9 years now.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 12:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
RE: Ither

What are you talking about? The gold box days were over and people were no longer making solid cRPGs. It wasn't until Fallout came out that a new wave of cRPGs hit the market.

Fallout redefined the idea of what a cRPG could be, not because of it's "atmosphere" but because of it's play mechanics. Fallout spawned a specific division at Interplay to make cRPGs and nothing more.

But go ahead, keep calling us names.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 12:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
sorry, but i will bash the fallout community as i think it is warranted. Just because a company is changing a product to be more in line with the desires of the general public does not mean that the game is du,bed down, nor that it ceases to appeal to fallout fans. It still appeals to fallout fans, just not the crazy community of grogs that has driven everyone away. From what ive seen, this game looks fantastic, and ive finished the first 2 fallouts multiple times each.

You guys have some crazy entitlement issues. Fact is, the game isnt yours, and if bethesda didnt take measures to broadening its appeal, this game wouldnt get made.

If the game sucks and breaks the universe, Fine, but what we have seen isnt cheapening the old games, it isnt a travesty or an insult to the world. It looks like its going to be a chance to see a familiar setting from a new perspective.

The ridiculous bitching surrounding this title? The slathering hate for no good reason? Personally, i count myself lucky that im getting more fallout at all.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 12:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Miles, with all due respect, when people act like a bunch of asshole morons, then that's what we have to react to. Any one of the Fallout 3 bashers could be a fantastic humanitarian and a great scuba diver, too, but it doesn't change the fact that when F3 news comes out, we get a group of people shambling out of the old 90s RPG graveyard. They mutter and shuffle about, "turn based.... SPECIAL.... groan..."

It's already tiresome, and I haven't even registered at the Bethesda forums. Yes, every group and community has fringe nutters. We want them to shut up in this case. If someone can evaluate what is before them with this post, then fantastic. If they want to get into the fact that the PIPboy buttons are different, or the artistic style of the BoS armor is different in the trailer, or if they want to argue that the BoS couldn't exist 30 years later and that Bethesda raped their Doritos and Dr Pepper fueled childhood, I would respectfully request that they STFU.

FOr goodness' sake. I cut my teeth on C= VIC 20, writing my own stuff in BASIC. Where is the text-based mod? I might lament. Graphics?? Things MOVING?? I long for the old days. Where are the Zork-like text based games. Fallout 1, with it's graphic representation of moving figures is a travesty. It was written for the graphics obsessed community, instead of for the pure of heart. Us text lovers!

When, oh when will the first text-based RPG show up on the 360? Or how about rogue-likes?

If Bethesda wants to sell a few more copies of these to the nutter Luddite community, they should figure out how to port over the 2 originals and include them on the disk. Otherwise, leave them to the dustbin.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 12:54PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Perspective doesn't really matter. Now if they change the way the world works to get it more in line with the console shooter crowd, then you guys can have a problem about it.

Obsessive fanbases sometimes love to bitch about what they love as much as praise it, i mean how much flak did Nintendo get from its own fanboys when they announced "the Wii"?
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 1:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So I guess it's okay then for folks who like the way Fallout 3 is progressing to heap their praise upon the altar but those that are angry need to just shut up?

That seems reasonable.

The graphic strawmen arguments are too funny to resist though. I know the average thought of a Fallout fan is some troglodyte living in his parent's basement playing a Rogue-like and bitching on the internet... but most of us have varied tastes. I used to compete on a local level at various Q3 tournaments a few years ago. I'm currently re-playing GTA: SA on my laptop. I like all kinds of stuff.

We don't want the world. We just want a faithful recreation of a pen-and-paper cRPG. The last group to do that was Troika when they released the Temple of Elemental Evil. I'd LOVE to see a Fallout 3 with awesome graphics.

Arcanum was more Fallout 3 than this game by Bethsoft. As I said earlier, the post-apocalyptic setting is merely a wrapper for the meat underneath.

In all honesty, I have no idea why any company would want to bother with Fallout given the stigma that surrounds it. You'd think that if Bethsoft was really interested in doing a post-apocalyptic romp they'd just make their own IP. It would have saved them the drama.

On the other hand, I guess you really can purchase this kind of hype. 5 million dollars worth.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 1:09PM copa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, Bethesda got stuck with a pretty lousy 'fanbase'.

Oblivion has been by any measure an unqualified success. Well over a year after release, it ranked number 6 this week on the list of played XBox 360 games. But as soon as it was released, the Bethesda forums were swarmed by an unrelenting, vitriolic, hysterical mob that seemed to feel this was the worst game since E.T. for the Atari 2600 (except for the fact they had all paid for the game and were playing every day).

It is a testament to the quality of Oblivion that they were able to grow the audience for the game to the general gaming population. Because their forum fanatics did nothing to help here.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 1:15PM copa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"So I guess it's okay then for folks who like the way Fallout 3 is progressing to heap their praise upon the altar but those that are angry need to just shut up?"

I think when a company like Bethesda, BioWare, Valve, or Blizzard has a consistent track record of releasing quality games, they deserve the opportunity to get the game through the development process and have it judged on its own merits.

It's entirely possible that at the end of the day they could release a product that stands on it own as a very good game, even if they didn't make all of the same design decisions that an amateur like yourself would have.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 1:20PM luca108 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"
Why is it that a game like Civilization or Fallout could never succeed on a console but can on a PC? They're platforms more suited toward that type of gaming, while consoles excel at action or arcade style gaming. From what I hear C&C3 is pretty good on the 360 so perhaps a game like CivIV could do well there, but I doubt it."

You keep bitching but the answer to your biggest gripe is in this article itself...

"While the game offers the option of shooting things out in real time, more thoughtful gamers can use the Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System (VATS) to pause the action and plan out their moves. Like a pen and paper RPG, VATS uses the statistics of your character and weapon to determine how accurate and damaging each attack will be. Shots can be targeted at specific body parts for specific effects -- a leg shot will slow down an approaching mutant while an arm shot will lower their accuracy."

For console owners, its obvious they would want to use the FPS-style aiming to avoid annoying menus, whereas a PC gamer can use the VATS system.

Unless I'm missing your point. (Either because I didn't read all of your posts or because you don't have one)
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 1:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
RE: mark

You missed my point. Read post #12 for the most current information on V.A.T.S.

RE: copa

"even if they didn't make all of the same design decisions that an amateur like yourself would have."

How do you know what I can and can't do? Having taste doesn't equate to proficiency.

I take it you've never critiqued anything in your life?
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 2:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't understand all the bitterness towards a game no one has played, or even seen for that matter...wait til it comes out to pass judgement.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 3:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Damn fine looking game. Let us hope it turns out well.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 6:34PM chargen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"I don't understand all the bitterness towards a game no one has played, or even seen for that matter...wait til it comes out to pass judgement."

I think for now I'll just go with the 6 previews from 6 different sources that I've read. They give me sufficient evidence to draw a single conclusion: this is NOT Oblivion with Guns.

This is Postal 2 with a pipboy. Worse than I could have imagined, but great for the genetically challenged.

Tim Cain, 2002: "My idea is explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a postnuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun"

Todd Howard, 2007: "Violence done well is f**kin’ hilarious"

Man NOTHING will please those fanbois. They put the Suck-O-Tron in and everything and the STILL complain. Jeez!
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 6:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i've only ever played fallout tactics.

Even though i'll be playing this on a pc, i'm glad they've geared towards a more 'action-orientated' style ('seemingly' for consoles) as that turn-based shit bores the fuck outta me. I installed fallout 2 once & uninstalled straight afterwards, as i was expecting something more akin to Tactics.

I ain't got time for that turn-based bullshit. I like the direction Bethesda is taking with this, if it upsets the hardcore fansboys, boo-fuckin'-hoo.

Got an issue? here's a tissue! (yer stupid whiny motherfuckers)
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 7:11PM chargen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can't spell, no attention span, likes shiny things, obviously genetically challenged. I FOUND THE TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC, JOHNSON!

I certainly can't have any effect against that with words n' shit, 'speshally in sum turn-based conversation. I'll admit defeat.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 8:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Altho this game has been in some type of development for the better part of ten years; I think the timing [like soon] and the emphasis on console only will offset the PC only [sob] S.T.A.L.K.E.R. as the genre looks kinda sorta similar. Just a guess, but it looks sweeeeet!
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 10:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And the myth continues to grow...

I loved the Fallout games, not enough to sell my first born for a decent sequel, but enough to conjure up some fond memories, and Bethseda is somewhere on my top ten list of developers I give a shit about, so, I'll wait for the results.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2007 11:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Number of die-hard Fallout fans is what, a few thousand? The number of current console owners who have never heard of Fallout is probably 10s of millions. I know which market I would go after.
Reply

Posted: Jul 2nd 2007 9:36AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What the fuck? This requires no great discussion. All you people say you're fans of the Fallout series, but you shoot this to shit. I love the game too, but were not going to get an updated Fallout 2, they would never make that. Just be happy that the Fallout universe is going to get another story.

Be happy you're getting anything at all you ungrateful shits.
Reply

Posted: Jul 2nd 2007 3:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I, for one, am excited about this. I'll take Fallout from a first person or third person over-the-shoulder POV if I can keep full turn-based combat. That and the ability to kill anyone that crosses my path. My favorite part about the end of any Fallout game was walking around towns and wasting everything that moved with plasma. Men, women, children, ghouls and supermutants, they all fell to my weapons. If I can't kill EVERYONE, it's not a Fallout game.
Reply

Posted: Jul 2nd 2007 8:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, call me crazy.... but I decided to play through Fallout 1 again a few days ago. I screwed up and went through everything too fast and am at too low of a level to handle the end-game, so I'm gonna do another playthrough to get to that part properly.

Here's what I've noticed though: The game isn't as magical as I thought it was. I've only played through the first one twice. The second one I've played through probably 10 or so times, but it's been years.

It reminds me of the time I saw G.I. Joe on late night Cartoon Network. My first reaction was: oh, they've made something like Sea Lab 2021 making fun of GI Joe! This is AWESO.... er... wait a minute... I remember this episode. Oh my god... did it always have this shitty animation? The same thing happened with He Man a few years earlier when a friend dug up a tape at a yard sale. It seems what we remember vs how it really was end up being two very different things as nostalgia kicks in.

That's not to say that Fallout is crap in retrospective, it's still pretty damn good, just not the grandiose thing I thought it was. The fact that Bethesda is actually trying to appease fans with things like VATS and a third person perspective (which had BETTER not be completely useless like the one in oblivion with the lack of a crosshair) bodes well. Sure, it might have a slightly different feel to it, but it's got to be better than the other console offering we've had so far. That was one seriously horrible game.

Now granted, Oblivion was pretty, but also lacked substance. I just couldn't get into it. I've tried twice now, and I just lose all interest before I get to the end. The simple fact that they're actually working on dialog and making real consequences to quests other than your current alignment being an issue... well it's a step in the right direction. I'm holding my verdict until we have some actual gameplay videos or a demo in our hands. If they botch this too badly, it could actually drag the company down with it, so I'm sure they're going to do at least a satisfactory job.
Reply

Posted: Jul 29th 2007 6:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I played F1 and 2, and loved it.
Now i can't remember where i put them... searched everywhere then just ordered the newest release box on the internet.. Gonna play it again and again.

Fallout 3? Offcourse it's gonna be cool
The released info on the game makes me feel like they are respecting the older versions alot.
The background music the lighting.
I just want to enter that world again and enjoy it.
I like the fact that it will look alot better too!
And well, offcourse they will need to make it sell. Unfortunately that is what it's all about in the end.
But judging the images they already released i think they will do a great job in building this game.
(I love it already :p)
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW