Biggest Problem With Fallout 3?

[bgalin]

I emailed Beth asking why they didn't title/re-title the game Fallout: [subtitle], and they didn't even answer the question. They basically just said 'we don't care and won't change anything'.

 

[PlanHex]

Ah yes, I constantly forget that information the developer divulges willingly as promotional material is completely unreliable and must be bullshit.

NEVAR FORGET

yeah, i know. you're making the point that all the speculation is based on the information available to us but i just couldnt help myself

 

[Moving Target]

My point is there is a huge difference between a console gamer and a PC gamer along with the preference of both gamer types.

There is?

I've been both in my admittedly short 28 years of life, played on various consoles since I've been 6, computers since I've been around 17....

I like both "types," honestly, don't see *that* much of a difference.... it's all a matter of preference for specific games. Sure, PC games had/have more opportunity to be larger, but that's more due to the technical advantages of computers versus the less updatable/static hardware of consoles.

Though, I will say this- in defense of console gaming, it's nice to be able to buy a game and not worry about the hardware requirements, or having to update the hardware every six months or so.

And in defense of computer gaming, using a keyboard and mouse, and potentially having longer, more involved games definitely is a major advantage over consoles.

Both have their advantages, both have their drawbacks.

And the dominance of console gaming is killing PC gaming.

Boy do I disagree with this one. And I know a lot of others do too. If there's anything 'killing' PC gaming (which seems unlikely, to say the least) it's market oversaturation and excess hype that's doing it.

That and lots of folks being dumb enough to fall for the same PR tricks over and over, buying garbage that should've been canned during the inevitable drunken 'what if' session that probably was its genesis.

And, additionally- bigger budgets. Which means more oversight (or, depending on your perspective, more bosses breathing down your neck) and therefore, more need for bigger audiences. Often, the most obvious choice for gaining a larger audience is to simplify the game. Or to make the game bland enough that anyone can, apparently, 'relate' to it.

This often backfires, but not quick enough that the makers of the games don't make loads of money from pre-orders of "game of the year" or whatever, and end up repeating the same tactics. Which work, AGAIN, for some bizarre reason.

But, well... that's the way things are. And to blame consoles for it, when it's a much more complex issue, does a disservice to the nuanced reasons why things are so bad for gaming in general. It also insults console gamers. Oh, I'll admit, a lot are unbelievably stupid... but there are plenty of unbelievably stupid, casual computer gamers as well. Just play any frag-fest over whatever network the company's set up. You'll see what I mean.

OK, well... ON topic:

I'd still be upset at Bethsoft if they changed the name of FO3 to something more "spin-offey," because they'd still be making the same idiotic, even apparently willful, mistakes in lore and gameplay. It wouldn't really make things better, especially not since they own the rights to Fallout anyway, and could make the "real" Fallout 3 if they wanted.

It's like when Brian Herbert began the 'prequels' to the Dune series, which made some pretty drastic, and rather silly, changes to the Dune lore. Then he butchered the backstory of the Butlerian Jihad in the series dealing with those events. Both of these were still not acceptable because they radically changed the way many newer fans related to the Dune series, and because they were considered canon (for those who cared.)

In a similar way, if FO3 was called Fallout.C. Wasteland or something like that, it wouldn't matter. The lore is different, the BoS is absolutely unrecognizable, the Enclave for some un-freaking-godly reason is making a comeback on the other side of the continent (actually makes more sense to have them there in the first place, but dammit, they were in California!!!), and DUNGEONS.... well, these and other things add up to something that's definitely NOT Fallout, or even "Fallout spinoff", whatever it may be called.

It's still considered canon, as much as we may hate or like the idea, and they're still messing up the basics of the game.

And that's not even considering that there was a reason beyond the "technical limitations of the time" to have TB and iso in the first place. Yea.

 

[Ceson]

I wouldn't have a problem with it then. They could call it "Fallout: Retardation". Aahahaha, who am I kidding... I would still hate Bethesda. Bunch of scatpushers.

 

[Lepidus]

Side note: How has the ultra-violent uer mod team not shouted at you for placing this here Lepidus? Antony and Caesar tell you to put it here?

Game'd still suck. But in a POS "It's more of a joke than real sequel" way than Fallout 3, so I'd just find it funny, rather than offensive.

Sorry; I haven't monitored this thread in a while, but Caesar was dead when Lepidus was a Triumvir, I believe you are referring to Augustus (Octavian). Also, as my Avatar suggests, I named myself after the Consul and Censor Marcus AEmelius Lepidus, not the Triumvir of the same name (not that anybody cares...)

Also, what is the "ultra-violent uer mod team"?

 

[velvatier]

bethesda could call fallout three anything they like and i'd still be pissed off. personally, i'm not that upset that they made an immature, masturbatory, pseudo-rpg gore-fest - shitty games come out all the time and i don't lose any sleep over it. however, i'm seriously offended by the sheer lack of communication between bethesda and the fan community, and the childish corporate deception that takes place every time they attempt an interaction. if bethesda had been straight with the community about what fallout 3 was going to be from the start of it all i could have saved myself a lot of time and energy.

 

[Chesty La'Rou]

I'm probably gonna get flammed to no end for this comment.... but I really do think you guys should give this game a chance. I think they tried really hard to meet old fallout fans' expectations, while trying to bring more people into the fan base.

I ask that you keep these 3 things in mind when thinking about your next post...

1. Would you rather have had bethseda make fallout 3 isometric again and royally screw it up...or go with what they know works and then try to add a lot of the fallout content to it? You could pretty much count on it being PC only and most of the fanbase to consist solely of die-hard fallout gamers.

2. This one is for all the people that watched the fallout 3 footage and then post about "How it was just an oblivion gore fest and nothing else". You guys DO realize all this footage was played using the bloody mess perk right? (I only ask this question because everyone that posted about the footage of the raider getting shot in the head and then exploding into gibblets, didn't even seem to realize this).

3. Everyone complained that there would NEVER be a fallout 3... then someone picks up the title and decides to actually TRY to make it a good game and now it seems like people wish it never WOULD have been made.


I suppose people will do what they want though. I'm still gonna support fallout 3.

 

[velvatier]

I think they tried really hard to meet old fallout fans' expectations, while trying to bring more people into the fan base.

not to be rude, but where are you getting this impression from? from where i'm standing, bethesda completely ignored and mislead the fallout fan base from the get go, and simplified the game to such a juvenile state that i can't imagine any mature gamer unfamiliar with fallout being interested in the least. they're not trying to expand the fan base - they're trying to generate the most profit by appealing to casual gamers and teens. i don't fall into either of these categories, so i'm completely disinterested. case in point: the very idea of building a rocket launcher out of a leaf blower and fatally shooting an adversary with a stuffed animal is an insult to my intelligence.

 

[Chesty La'Rou]

I think they tried really hard to meet old fallout fans' expectations, while trying to bring more people into the fan base.

not to be rude, but where are you getting this impression from? from where i'm standing, bethesda completely ignored and mislead the fallout fan base from the get go, and simplified the game to such a juvenile state that i can't imagine any mature gamer unfamiliar with fallout being interested in the least. they're not trying to expand the fan base - they're trying to generate the most profit by appealing to casual gamers and teens. i don't fall into either of these categories, so i'm completely disinterested. case in point: the very idea of building a rocket launcher out of a leaf blower and fatally shooting an adversary with a stuffed animal is an insult to my intelligence.

You must not have played fallout 1 or 2 very much then because both of these had an almost INFINITE amount of funny moments and items.

I mean come on...pop rocks and nuka cola, anyone?

I guess what I was really trying to say, rather than sounding like I was bashing people was this.

A decent software company finally picked up the Fallout franchise after 10 years of wondering IF Fallout 3 would ever be a reality and now that its happened you guys all hate it. You've seen 10 minutes of gameplay from E3 footage or footage from TV shows. You've seen like .02% of the game. I realize one of the biggest things people got mad about was the switch from the isometric engine, but can't you atleast wait till someone actually plays the game with more than demo content before you blast it to the moon?

And btw I HAVE play Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 so many times that I could write a 120 page faq outlining the entire game and probably recite every perk and trait description word for word.

I think that they did a pretty decent job considering what they walked into. Just wait till it comes out.

 

[Sander]

You must not have played fallout 1 or 2 very much then because both of these had an almost INFINITE amount of funny moments and items.

I mean come on...pop rocks and nuka cola, anyone?

There's a difference between Fallout's humour and killing people by shooting them with teddy bears.

A decent software company finally picked up the Fallout franchise after 10 years of wondering IF Fallout 3 would ever be a reality and now that its happened you guys all hate it. You've seen 10 minutes of gameplay from E3 footage or footage from TV shows. You've seen like .02% of the game. I realize one of the biggest things people got mad about was the switch from the isometric engine, but can't you atleast wait till someone actually plays the game with more than demo content before you blast it to the moon?

Why do people consistently think that it's somehow wrong to judge the information given out by Bethesda freely, as promotional material. You know, promotional material that's supposed to show the best qualities of their game, apparently limited to shooting limbs off of people.

And, no, it isn't just the lack of an isometric perspective. It's the fact that Fallout 3 isn't a Fallout game anymore, it's Oblivion with Guns - a shooter with some RPG elements.

 

[Bad_Karma]

I still would have problems, not because it's playing in the fallout universe, but because of dump design decisions and such...
It simply looks like a more or less bad game to me, where i wouldn't have fun to play it.

 

[Confalone]

I'm a huge fallout fan and loved the first games. I couldn't have asked for a better looking version of fallout 3, I dont really think there is anything wrong with it from anything thats been released so far, Im very excited to say the least and Ill be there doing the Nerd line up at 6AM thing to get it.

 

[velvatier]

There's a difference between Fallout's humour and killing people by shooting them with teddy bears.

what he said.

And, no, it isn't just the lack of an isometric perspective. It's the fact that Fallout 3 isn't a Fallout game anymore, it's Oblivion with Guns - a shooter with some RPG elements.

agreed. i was actually stoked that fallout 3 wasn't in isometric perspective [though i really don't understand why it couldn't have multiple perspectives]. i was also really excited about the real time combat, so i didn't really have an issue with the mechanics - it's the lack of respect for the spirit of the source material and the fans of said source material that gets my goat.

 

[horse]

well, you had it right there in your post, chesty.

a "decent" company picked up the franchise. we expected an extraordinary, magnificent shining example of great game design, story and graphics. tbh, none of what has been published yet impressed me and many others that much that we would jump on the praise-train. averything is "ok", minus the omitting of central classic gameplay mechanisms and basically switching to another genre-mix. which is ok in itself, i probably will enjoy the game as it is.

but - there is a difference between, say, a KOTOR3 and a Fallout 3. i dont expect much more of a KOTOR 3 to be entertaining up to a degree, but never really challenging, be it on the combat or the dialogue side. i do expect a HELL of a lot more from a new fallout implementation.

 

[Chesty La'Rou]

Ok let's try this a different way. WHY and how does fallout 3 skew off the storyline. All I have read is just complaints, but very few people actually explain why they are upset with it. Most people just seem to bring up the fact that its fallout on the oblivion engine or "lame, I can kill people with a teddy bear".

Someone (such as a moderator who actually knows what he might be talking about) please explain to me WHY you think fallout 3 is such a bad game. Go down the list or point me to a topic that states this clearly (preferably one I don't have to read through 100 posts to understand please). I truly would like to see this converstation from someone elses point of view because I just can't see how this game is going to be as bad as some of you make it out to be.

 

[horse]

there are different points of view, expressed in nearly every thread that has more than the reflexive "omg this sucks" on the first two pages. and yes, most people just bring up those OwG argumentation. otoh, many people just praise this game for no obvious reasons, too. so, if you really want to contribute, you will have to read through some (larger) threads. as expected, the overall opinion leans towards the negative side, but you will find a lot of "thats ok" or even "thats great" from old nma-lers.

oh, edit: and tbh most of the people here are not on a crusade to convince people of fallout 3s suckiness. there are many positive things to say about f3, and many negative too. so, join the discussion by arguments that are based on your impressions or other material, and have fun!

 

[Confalone]

I think that the general vibe around NMA is thart for the most part people dont think it'll be good. Most people who are really excited about it and anxious to see such a beloved franchise come back to the limelight are a little.. trepadacious about REALLY giving it praise and talking about it because some grizzled aincient rpg snob will just come along and say "STFU fanboy your opinion is invalid and uninformed, go die.".If I may I'll use a fallout analogy, the people who are openly embraching F3's design, marketing and implementation of old concepts feel a wee bit like that BoS minority that went out east on those zepplins.

 

[Lepidus]

The way I think of it, I would only be happy if Fallout 3 was an Isometric Turn Based RPG with sprite-based graphics, made by Interplay, of course. Well, that is not going to happen.
The way I see it, Bethesda's new game is merely their own take on the Fallout series. I will play it, keeping in mind that is a pseudo-RPG, and more of an FPS, like BioShock.

In other words, Fallout 3 will be a good game, but not a good Fallout game. I say that because, as all of you know, Bethesda lacks the wit to create truly funny situations. (For instance, when one talks to a certain guard in Fallout one, he asks, "What do you want?" The VaultDweller can reply, "a burger".)


On the bright side, at least it's not Brotherhood of Steel...

 

[Confalone]

I'm probably gonna get flammed to no end for this comment.... but I really do think you guys should give this game a chance. I think they tried really hard to meet old fallout fans' expectations, while trying to bring more people into the fan base.

.

I actually agree with you on that point. The way I think of it, I would only be happy if Fallout 3 was an Isometric Turn Based RPG with sprite-based graphics, made by Interplay, of course. Well, that is not going to happen.

The way I see it, Bethesda's new game is merely their own take on the Fallout series. I will play it, keeping in mind that is a pseudo-RPG, and more of an FPS, like BioShock.


On the bright side, at least it's not Brotherhood of Steel...[/i]

I couldnt agree more with all of that although I really think F3 is going to be MUCH more of an RPG and less of on FPS than Bioshock was just because of the SPECIAL system

 

[Chesty La'Rou]

Well I think i'm starting to understand more about where people are coming from. Like I said in earlier posts, i'm not trying to start a flame war, I just want to understand why people are saying what they are saying.

From what i've gathered it seems like most people think this:

1. People seem to think this is going to end up being like the horror that was bioshock (Now THAT game ruined the system shock series). What I mean by that is that a lot of system shock 2 players were hoping for bioshock to be somewhat similar to system shock 2 and the bioshock developers totally choked on that one.

2. All the die hard fallout fans just afraid they are going to be EXTREMELY let down and disappointed when they play the game.

3. The fact that its going to be an FPS instead a typical styled RPG.


I only have 2 more things I do want to ask you guys though is this... I know a lot of you that have played fallout have played system shock 2 as well. As system shock 2 was a fps rpg, how come everyone thinks that that game rocked and fallout 3 will suck?

The other question is...honestly what other company would you have liked to make fallout 3? Bethesda was the only logical choice out of all the game developers to create Fallout 3 (If someone says blizzard or sony bad things will happen to you ).


I still feel kind of bad for writing stuff like this because I'm sure most of you are reading it in a negative context, but I'm just trying to understand why everyone is saying what they are saying. It's just seems like a lot of speculation rather than actual facts?