Fallout: New Vegas E3 previews

[x'il]

(...)Now we get Vegas shoved down our throat. It's like they specifically pick out the stuff that isn't Falloutish anyway and then magnify the crap out of it.

Very well put.

I don't always refer to those things in FO2 because I don't really have much against them. they didn't make the game bad for me. (...)

These things are setting-breaking, and when you see what has been shown of New Vegas + consider that it has FO3's game mechanics (regardless of whatever minor modifications they are putting in it will still be FO3's 'gameplay') = shitty unfallouty.

I hope there will be a lot of fedora hats... and references, lots of references to movies like Casino, The godfather 3, Leaving Las Vegas, etc, etc.
[/sarcasm]

 

[Expresate]

unfallouty.

This confuses me every time I see it. How could it be considered "unfallouty" when it's in Fallout? Whoever owns the IP can damn near make anything "fallouty" because it will be in Fallout. As far as I'm concerned, the players don't decide what fits with the game, and what doesn't. That's what the developers do. Even if you've been there since the beginning, and managed to get a midnight release of Fallout 1, you still don't dictate what is or isn't part of the game.

Besides that everybody is entitled to their own opinion. If one person is incredibly hyped for the game and thinks it'll be amazing; they're not wrong and have every right to believe that. If somebody thinks the game will be the worst release ever, and they would rather shove their hard-drive down their throat than play the game; they're not wrong, and have every right to believe that.

...opinion...
...opinion....
Opinion
OPINION!

 

[Verevoof]

News flash: the players are the ones buying the game. The developers should stick to what was established from the beginning, stick to what the players who fell in love with the original game want. Because without the players, they are nothing.

 

[x'il]

unfallouty.

This confuses me every time I see it. How could it be considered "unfallouty" when it's in Fallout? Whoever owns the IP can damn near make anything "fallouty" because it will be in Fallout. As far as I'm concerned, the players don't decide what fits with the game, and what doesn't. That's what the developers do. Even if you've been there since the beginning, and managed to get a midnight release of Fallout 1, you still don't dictate what is or isn't part of the game.

Fallout 1 = fallout-y; anything that breaks the setting of the original, that is, the original setting, is un-fallouty.

Since this goes into the shitty sequel territory... remember things like, for example, the Dune books by Frank Herbert's son, or the Batman & Robin movie? they were still they same IP but were they anything like the previous iterations? did they had the same concepts and marks (the idea, the purpose*)?

Edit: *(in before someone spouts: 'the idea is to make money'), i mean, to be conveyed.

 

[Expresate]

News flash: the players are the ones buying the game. The developers should stick to what was established from the beginning, stick to what the players who fell in love with the original game want. Because without the players, they are nothing.

Yes, but what about the now vast majority? The Fallout 3 fans? They're players too. I mean, I can see what you're getting at, but I don't quite agree yet.


@X'il No, they weren't. However, they're still going to be considered as part of the series.

 

[aiunit92]

unfallouty.

This confuses me every time I see it. How could it be considered "unfallouty" when it's in Fallout? Whoever owns the IP can damn near make anything "fallouty" because it will be in Fallout. As far as I'm concerned, the players don't decide what fits with the game, and what doesn't. That's what the developers do. Even if you've been there since the beginning, and managed to get a midnight release of Fallout 1, you still don't dictate what is or isn't part of the game.

Besides that everybody is entitled to their own opinion. If one person is incredibly hyped for the game and thinks it'll be amazing; they're not wrong and have every right to believe that. If somebody thinks the game will be the worst release ever, and they would rather shove their hard-drive down their throat than play the game; they're not wrong, and have every right to believe that.

...opinion...
...opinion....
Opinion
OPINION!

I agree with this statement, and personally I am looking forward to FO:NV and I for one love all the fallout games even the spin offs like brother hood of steel. But as he said everyone has there own opinion...

 

[x'il]

@X'il No, they weren't. However, they're still going to be considered as part of the series.

By those who are more concerned with IP rights, franchise names and such irrelevant stuff than with consistency with the original setting and ideas. More doubt can be cast upon such argument when you consider that it's not even the same people making those sequels and that their aims are completely different. If someone were to get, say, the rights to the "1984" movie, and makes a sequel (called 1984 '2'), in which the main character is suddenly able to overcome the spirit-breaking/brain-washing, rescue his girl from the party's evil clutches while shooting everyone in his path with a big rambo machine gun, ending in a final, climatic, confrontation with the Big Brother himself (who is wielding dual submachine guns and riding a motorcycle and is dressed in a white suit), which the main character finally kills and thus liberate the whole population when the big brother evil complex explodes, and the main character walks to the sunset on a mount with his girl while a cheering crowd applauds and epic music plays... if someone were to make such vomit, would it still be 1984? and where talk of 1984 storyline, setting, aims, etc, is concerned after that, should the part '2' be included?

 

[DexterMorgan]

Whoever owns the IP can damn near make anything "fallouty" because it will be in Fallout.

By that logic a cook can add ground glass in my beef stroganoff but since he's the cook I should shut up and eat it. 'Cause he says it's stroganoff-y.

Please.

 

[Expresate]

Whoever owns the IP can damn near make anything "fallouty" because it will be in Fallout.

By that logic a cook can add ground glass in my beef stroganoff but since he's the cook I should shut up and eat it. 'Cause he says it's stroganoff-y.

Please.

That's not a great example. Did he invent the recipe of beef stroganoff?


@X'il You have a point there. ....is...is it bad...is it bad that I would totally buy that movie?

 

[x'il]

Whoever owns the IP can damn near make anything "fallouty" because it will be in Fallout.

By that logic a cook can add ground glass in my beef stroganoff but since he's the cook I should shut up and eat it. 'Cause he says it's stroganoff-y.

Please.

That's not a great example. Did he invent the recipe of beef stroganoff?

Did Bethesda or Obsidian or even the FO2 devs invented/made Fallout 1?

@X'il You have a point there. ....is...is it bad...is it bad that I would totally buy that movie?

I'm sure there would be much better movies and settings for those action flick aims and audiences, but... of course, to each his own... and it would certainly not be '1984-y'

 

[Expresate]

Did Bethesda or Obsidian or even the FO2 devs invented/made Fallout 1?

No, but they own the series in its entirety (or at least Bethesda does). I don't think that chef has personally laid claim to the recipe. Any chef, anywhere on the planet could make beef stroganoff. If any dev, anywhere on the planet were to try and make a Fallout; they would have to answer to Bethesda.

 

[Yazman]

"you guys"?

I was Actually™ addressing two different posters at the time. The "you guys" part was Actually™ kind of a give-away that it wasn't addressed to you, wouldn't you say so?

as for checking your previous posts, I don't care enough what you think that I'm gonna waste hours reading through all your posts, especailly considering only a small percent of them are Actually™™ about Fallout. what matters is the discussion we're having right here, right now. don't feel like posting your thoughts, then why post at all?

Actually™, all of my posts are Fallout related. In spirit. And some of them, Actually™ a bigger percentage than can be said of most posters, are Actually™ cleverly written and Actually™ quite amusing at times, so you still may want to read all my posts in due time, Actually™, especially if you're looking for a good chuckle.

You're just relying on straightup fallacy here. It doesn't matter how many or few posts you've made on these forums - it doesn't validate anything you've said, nor does it serve to prove you right or wrong in any way when it comes to the discussion we're having here and now. Not only that but like the guy said earlier, not having 50,000,000 posts doesn't mean we haven't been coming here for a very long time - some of us just don't bother to actually post. I've been coming here for six years now, and have been playing Fallout for at least 11. Remember though that when it comes to the discussion we're having that none of this is actually relevant and doesn't serve to prove you right or wrong.

 

[x'il]

Did Bethesda or Obsidian or even the FO2 devs invented/made Fallout 1?

No, but they own the series in its entirety (or at least Bethesda does). I don't think that chef has personally laid claim to the recipe. Any chef, anywhere on the planet could make beef stroganoff. If any dev, anywhere on the planet were to try and make a Fallout; they would have to answer to Bethesda.

Back to IP rights and franchise names talk again, are we? you're getting circular now.

 

[Crni Vuk]

This confuses me every time I see it. How could it be considered "unfallouty" when it's in Fallout?

You could always try playing Brotherhood of Steel to learn what inside a Fallout game could be considered "Unfallouty"

*Edit
And to say that. While Brotherhood of Steel (game) and Fallout 3 might not be really similar the idea behind it was or is very much so. The idea to rather go for the fast cash aiming with the gameplay at the casual gamer and trying to be more visualy impressive then with deep gameplay. The difference is just that Bethesda managed to use the Oblivion formula which was pretty succesfull regarding the casual gameplay. Or McRPG as one might call it (comparable to what McDonalds is to quality food).

 

[Expresate]

Did Bethesda or Obsidian or even the FO2 devs invented/made Fallout 1?

No, but they own the series in its entirety (or at least Bethesda does). I don't think that chef has personally laid claim to the recipe. Any chef, anywhere on the planet could make beef stroganoff. If any dev, anywhere on the planet were to try and make a Fallout; they would have to answer to Bethesda.

Back to IP rights and franchise names talk again, are we? you're getting circular now.

What? It's coherent with every other point I've tried to make so far.

How about we just agree to disagree? Since, well, you're right. This is starting to become "circular."

@Crni Vuk: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've believed that "unfallouty" means that something is in no way part of the Fallout universe, or, X'li as a member of the playerbase, has every right to deny its existence and say it's not part of the game even though in reality it is? Like "Since New Vegas is not like Fallout 1 New Vegas is not Fallout." Or does it simply mean something else?

 

[draeke]

Did Bethesda or Obsidian or even the FO2 devs invented/made Fallout 1?

No, but they own the series in its entirety (or at least Bethesda does). I don't think that chef has personally laid claim to the recipe. Any chef, anywhere on the planet could make beef stroganoff. If any dev, anywhere on the planet were to try and make a Fallout; they would have to answer to Bethesda.

Back to IP rights and franchise names talk again, are we? you're getting circular now.

What? It's coherent with every other point I've tried to make so far.

How about we just agree to disagree? Since, well, you're right. This is starting to become "circular."

@Crni Vuk: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've believed that "unfallouty" means that something is in no way part of the Fallout universe, or, X'li as a member of the playerbase, has every right to deny its existence and say it's not part of the game even though in reality it is? Like "Since New Vegas is not like Fallout 1 New Vegas is not Fallout." Or does it simply mean something else?

Apparently, you're new here and aren't familiar with the term 'glittering gems of hatred' so to go easy on you...

There is something that is referred to as 'canon' and if something doesn't fit within those confines then it wouldn't be considered fallouty I'm kind of surprised someone hadn't brought that up yet.

Since, yes you've tried to make a point, but haven't succeeded yet there really is no need to 'agree to disagree'

By your logic, because someone possesses rights to an IP they can make any new additions/revisions they wish even if they don't make sense to the established norms/doctrines. Let me try and put it this in terms you can understand. It would be like saying in the WH40K universe, getting the IP rights and saying there were never any orcs or an emperor and eldars controlled most of known space or in the SW universe, lightsabers never existed, the jedi were evil. and completely removing all of the skywalkers. You can see what sort of problems true fans might have with this sequence of events. just like in the case of fallout, fans would have a problem with this and reject the revisionist material as non-canonical and then ergot... bullshit and try as best as they may to ignore the changes by the idiotic, new IP holder. I think we can read between the lines here and can tell that you're a newer FO3 fan and probably haven't played any of the other titles. That's great but fallout was never meant to be a FPS. You may want to think about where you're posting before you post again, this is NOT the beth/fanboy forums and people here are very opinionated and IMO for good reason. You'll realize that a solid percentage of our regulars have played every fallout title a number of times and either like/dislike aspects of each title for a legitimate reason. we are really the most outspoken community that i know of re fallout. Anyway, you might want to pick up a bargain disc with all the previous fallout titles on it and see what it is we all found something to fall for and yes, pun very much intended =) so, that being said, welcome and happy posting!

 

[aiunit92]

Did Bethesda or Obsidian or even the FO2 devs invented/made Fallout 1?

No, but they own the series in its entirety (or at least Bethesda does). I don't think that chef has personally laid claim to the recipe. Any chef, anywhere on the planet could make beef stroganoff. If any dev, anywhere on the planet were to try and make a Fallout; they would have to answer to Bethesda.

Back to IP rights and franchise names talk again, are we? you're getting circular now.

What? It's coherent with every other point I've tried to make so far.

How about we just agree to disagree? Since, well, you're right. This is starting to become "circular."

@Crni Vuk: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've believed that "unfallouty" means that something is in no way part of the Fallout universe, or, X'li as a member of the playerbase, has every right to deny its existence and say it's not part of the game even though in reality it is? Like "Since New Vegas is not like Fallout 1 New Vegas is not Fallout." Or does it simply mean something else?

I believe some were it was said that FO:NV was a spinoff game.

Definition: Spin-off (media), the process of deriving new radio programs, television programs, video games, or novels from already existing ones

In that case FO:NV doesn't even need to really stay on track with what you all consider Fallout-y.

PS:Though with that said that doesn't explain why FO:3 was a sequel... buuuut thats not a discussion on FO:NV so weather FO:3 was a sequel or not isn't important hear.

 

[DexterMorgan]

That's not a great example. Did he invent the recipe of beef stroganoff?

The standard was set way before Bethesda got their grimy little fingers on the IP. The fact that they now own the IP does not imply that they know, understand, are able to build on or able to develop the core material.

They can use the name to their liking and some of the other established trademarks, and can prevent others from doing the same, but they're not an authority on all things Fallout.

Case in point:

Is this your authority on anything intellectual?

:ninjaedit: To tie in to my analogy, they can call it Fallout (beef stroganoff) all they like but I've had Fallout (beef stroganoff) before and this shit ain't it.

In that case FO:NV doesn't even need to really stay on track with what you all consider Fallout-y.

Actually, it does. It exists within a set universe and needs to conform to the cohesion of the said universe. I will grant you that there is a bit of a gray area and flexibility, but radically stepping out of bounds should be a no-no.

 

[draeke]

"you guys"?

I was Actually™ addressing two different posters at the time. The "you guys" part was Actually™ kind of a give-away that it wasn't addressed to you, wouldn't you say so?

as for checking your previous posts, I don't care enough what you think that I'm gonna waste hours reading through all your posts, especailly considering only a small percent of them are Actually™™ about Fallout. what matters is the discussion we're having right here, right now. don't feel like posting your thoughts, then why post at all?

Actually™, all of my posts are Fallout related. In spirit. And some of them, Actually™ a bigger percentage than can be said of most posters, are Actually™ cleverly written and Actually™ quite amusing at times, so you still may want to read all my posts in due time, Actually™, especially if you're looking for a good chuckle.

Actually, I was taking you seriously up until I realized that all you want to do is fight with everybody. maybe that's why you're post count is so high. either way, i had meant to point out that your logic was incorrect on two-three previous posts. you had incorrectly stated something about scientists preventing the bombs from dropping on LV iirc and that was actually due to a 'deal' between the ruling elite and the gov't (possibly chinese gov't) to spare LV from the apocalypse. It was private parties paying off gov't to spare LV and not scientists. Your maintenance argument, i believe is also invalidated based on the prior assertion and the fact that NV is run by Mr. House and is in control of an army of robots, who could say... do anything from maintain the city to oh, manufacture light bulbs, let alone maintain security or manufacture robots or other necessary goods. Also, you claim that you can't manufacture plastics without oil. Well, that's not correct either, not to mention that you're referring to every technological progression before the discovery of oil as non-progress (i bet davinci and ford would be pissed). Anyway, we've been able to manufacture plastics without oil for a couple of decades now iirc, but since i'm not taking you seriously anymore i won't bother to verify how long since you won't bother to validate how many of your 12000+ posts relate to fallout. I mean come on, a society that has mastered the atom and power armor cant make plastics without oil? that would be ludicrous wouldn't it. we've been able to make plastics without oil for the past decade or two with biological material iirc, but i'm not going to bother looking it up since i'm not taking you seriously anymore right

 

[.Pixote.]

Bethesda’s Fallout 3 simply masquerades as Fallout…somewhat like this little monkey* who is masquerading as a human. Now some people will go up to the monkey and be convinced that it’s human - (those people are generally referred to as morons), but we can forgive them if they know no better…but come on. Play the first 2 Fallouts a number of times (once might not be enough) and then try Bethesda’s monkey…it’s just poor imitation - (in all fairness Interplay killed Fallout before Bethesda got its grubby hands on it).

*Great monkey by the way.