New Fallout 3 Screenshots

[zioburosky13]

but bethesda actually has a TRACK RECORD of fucking up games based on PnP series.

Not just PnP title. Others like Terminator series and IHRA racing.

They fucked up the H.P. Lovecraft game that was based on call of Cthulhu a year or two ago. They took the PnP mechanics...and made it real time and first person.

Call of Cthulhu is plagued by lack of support of its developer. Bethesda just published it. I admit it, playing a FPS game in Lovecraft myths is unlike any other FPS games out there due to the psychological game-play. But that's the only good about it.

An "Evolution" would be something like JA2 -> jagged alliance 3.
They're taking that series into 3D, while STILL remaining true to the core gameplay of the series. I know! It's batshit insane!
We all know turnbased doesn't sell.
An evolution would follow the core gameplay mechanics of the previous games.

Upcoming game titles like Starcraft 2 moved its graphic from 2D to 3D but retain the core gameplay such as resources harvesting and really, really balance units. Because we know if Blizzard fucked up this sequel, millions of korean will swarm to their office and burn them alive. . Or they might just go back replay Starcraft.

What Bethesda is doing now is taking other's people creation, torn it down based on Toad the emperor's 'knight on a horse' fetish idea, fed to millions of uneducated gamers who have zero idea what is a PnP.

 

[Sebastian of the Wastes]

That's not a word.

You're right, thanks .. I'll correct my spelling for you.

Odd, they weren't gone a few years back, when BIS was working on Van Buren.

What, you're saying it's somehow impossible to make these kind of games anymore? That seems like an odd thing to say.

Actually, no, what I said was those days are gone ... is it impossible to see a game in that style again? Of course not, but it won't be anytime soon, I think. By the way, how is development coming on VanBuren?

Until then you'll be telling other people they're "rabbid" because they don't agree with your personal views?

That makes sense.

Rabid is being personally attacked because my opinion is different than yours .. not to be confused with defending one's arguement.

Also, are you really FMF's public relations director? Your attitude towards the very people FMF is meant to service is a bit odd, if you are.

We're making a mod for people who enjoyed FO1 and 2 ... we started the project 6 years ago before FO3 was going to be a Bethesda game. I love those games and enjoy them regularly ... however, just because I love a classic game doesn't mean I can't enjoy anything new or different that may come along with the same brand name.

We're making a game for fans of the original fallouts, regardless of their opinions of the future of that franchise.

 

[whirlingdervish]

Perhaps you should stop calling us names, quit repeating the same old strawman arguments we've already heard way too many times from uncounted bethesda apologists, and act like a reasonable human being if you don't want to be subjected to personal attacks and regarded as a loony for believing that the content of a label on a game's box magically makes it the spiritual successor to a beloved franchise..

 

[MrBumble]

Call of Cthulhu is plagued by lack of support of its developer. Bethesda just published it. I admit it, playing a FPS game in Lovecraft myths is unlike any other FPS games out there due to the psychological game-play. But that's the only good about it.

What the fuck ? Dark Corners of the Earth was a great game, unless you consider it as a mere FPS of course. It's a bit like penumbra : mehish gameplay but still a great game !

 

[Section8]

Sorry, but I just wanted to jump on this one:

retain the core "idea" in the sequels even when the mechanics are wildly different (Grand Theft Auto

I can't stand to see this sort of thing bandied around by the Fallout 3 defenders, let alone one of the good guys.

Grand Theft Auto 3 isn't a major departure from the first two. Yes the perspective changes, and the narrative elements are beefed up, but the core gameplay is basically the same thing viewed from a slightly different perspective. You're still essentially driving or running around the XY plane.

It's also a very good example of evolution. It takes the basic principles and core gameplay of the previous games, and builds upon them.

And as a quick aside, one thing that really irks me about Bethesda is that they don't seem to be taking Fallout's lessons to heart, nor are they taking Oblivion's/Morrowind's.

One of the few good ideas in Oblivion was to abolish chance-to-hit and put more of the combat skill in the hands of the player. If you've already decided to go the action FPS route, then you've gotta make it at least half-way compelling for action players - standing toe-to-toe and hammering your mouse button just wasn't much fun. So they progressed the idea with Oblivion, and while it was a long way short of Mount & Blade, but it was a (baby) step in the right direction.

So what's the first thing they do with Fallout 3? Toss it out in favour of a shitty KOTOR-like system that denies the action gamer their skills and isn't likely to offer much to tactical gamers. What the fuck?

I just don't think Bethesda are capable of being critical. They don't actually perceive problems - they just respond to popular opinion telling them there's a problem. And I don't get that either. I mean there's what, about a hundred people working there? Surely there must be some good ideas and/or opposition to the bad ones.

But hey, whatever works for them. I'm sure Zenimax are pleased with the rewards their toiling monkeys bring them.

Anyway, don't mind me. Let the thread continue!

 

[Brother None]

I can't stand to see this sort of thing bandied around by the Fallout 3 defenders, let alone one of the good guys.

Grand Theft Auto 3 isn't a major departure from the first two. Yes the perspective changes, and the narrative elements are beefed up, but the core gameplay is basically the same thing viewed from a slightly different perspective. You're still essentially driving or running around the XY plane.

It's also a very good example of evolution. It takes the basic principles and core gameplay of the previous games, and builds upon them.

That's what I said, dude. Different mechanics, same core gameplay.

I just don't think Bethesda are capable of being critical. They don't actually perceive problems - they just respond to popular opinion telling them there's a problem. And I don't get that either. I mean there's what, about a hundred people working there? Surely there must be some good ideas and/or opposition to the bad ones.

They're probably very hierarchical.

Their idea of "take complaints and do something with it" has always amused me. They usually end up solving problems (it's hard to find quest items in Morrowind) by making another problem (the quest compass in Oblivion is intrusive)

 

[star]

They usually end up solving problems (it's hard to find quest items in Morrowind) by making another problem (the quest compass in Oblivion is intrusive)

Yeah, they really have still a lot to learn. It's just a shame that Fallout 3 will be too early to really make a good game out of it.

 

[Azrael-Arkangel]

I love those games and enjoy them regularly ... however, just because I love a classic game doesn't mean I can't enjoy anything new or different that may come along with the same brand name.

I agree with you in some point. I love next gen FPS the same way I love FO, probably I love FO more because of the depth and freedom of choice and a lot more stuff. So I'm kinda happy with the way things were going. Just thinking that there is going to be a Fallout FPS, that I'm going to be able to travel throug the wasteland and ruined cities is really cool. But seeing the screenshots, and the little story of the BoS and the stupid weapon(yes, the katapult), the physically impossible tiny mushroom clouds is very depressing. So, as you can see I'm don't totally agree with most of the people in here, but that doesn't give me the right to say that they are wrong or call them "rabid fans" or whatever. In fact, sometimes I think that they exagerate, but it's okay by me, they don't harm or anything, so why other people has the need to come here and start arguing with them? Tell me if you please, why you try to convince them that they should try this?

 

[Makagulfazel]

And if you're looking for a Fallout corollory (sp) to not being able to save the emperor, look no further then your aforementioned water chip quest. You can't NOT do it ... you never get to wander the wastes freely with that ticking clock always in the background. Isn't that being forced to "help" the vault, just like Oblivions main quest forces you to help the emperor?

Ernt!!!! You're wrong.

You can finish the game without doing the quest. Not a happy ending, but you finish the game regardless. In Oblivion, they keep you on track- from quest to quest. In the Fallouts, there are several ways to complete the main quest.

EDIT:
Also, you're analogy is way off. That's like saying Master of Orion 3 is better than it's predecessors because it's newer. WTF kind of argument is that?

EDIT X2:

One of the few good ideas in Oblivion was to abolish chance-to-hit and put more of the combat skill in the hands of the player. If you've already decided to go the action FPS route, then you've gotta make it at least half-way compelling for action players - standing toe-to-toe and hammering your mouse button just wasn't much fun. So they progressed the idea with Oblivion, and while it was a long way short of Mount & Blade, but it was a (baby) step in the right direction.

So if they abolished chance-to-hit(An important element to any traditional Role-Playing game) from Morrowind to Oblivion, what's it going to be for Fallout 3 to Fallout 4? And by the way, Mount and Blade is badass.

EDIT x3:
I am the edit master! OT: Didn't they make a patch for Fallout 1 that abolished the time limit? I may be wrong, but I guess that doesn't matter much in the end.

 

[Morbus]

Is funny that in his sig says. (...)

I was just making fun of the situation. It was not intended as bashing or flaming towards him... He changed his ava, though. It's better now

 

[Morbus]

The Fallout world we know and love (FO 1 and 2) is gone, relegated to our memories and replaying of two great games in a time when the industy was more heavily PC based and not as commercially mass market as it is today.

Shut up (no offense). Fallout had nothing to do with what the industry was back then. If anything, the only relation it had with the industry then was that it was the OPPOSITE of what it was. Got it? Now, tell me what's the relevancy of invoking the "change of seasons" (they haven't changed) to apologize for a change of Fallout? No buddy, those days are not gone, fallout is not like a tree which leaves are blown forever. Its spirit lives, that which made him live. Look at Afterfall, look at Age of Decadence. Commercial (if indie) projects with pretty much the same ideals of that Interplay team back then.

And a cookie for anyone who understands the reference. It's easy.

Exploding cars? Eh, I've know about this for a while ... I would think that any nuke fuel cells would have been harvested by survivors long ago and the chance to have a car explode just by shooting it (at this point) would be rare. We'll see how it feels once gameplay starts.

My guess: like HL2 red barrels.

I'll miss turn-based play (which is why I still play X-Com) but I'm willing to give it a try. In the end, it was the RPG system in place and the story the game told that was most interesting to me, personally, with FO1 and 2. Until I'm actually PLAYING the game, it's really rather unfair of me to call it total shit.

Hey hey hey, you wait there mister. Do you think that the fact you had a personal perspective on a certain game gives you the right to say whether it is fair or unfair to complain about it? What if I think that the combat was the most beautiful thing in Fallout, huh? Wouldn't I be right to complain? I respect that you like the story better, ok, of course. But it doesn't matter. Fallout is a game, not a game how you see it. It's a game, it had design documents, it had a vision, it had a purpose. It had turn based combat because it was aimed at players that liked turn based combat. It used GURPS because it was aimed at players that didn't like classes and shit. It was top-down because it was meant to simulate PnP gameplay. It had a narrator for the same reason. Now you come and say that the story is the best and expect it to be ok to change everything BUT the story? Nah, that doesn't make sense.

When it comes out, I'll play it. If I like, I'll say so... if I hate it, I'll say so. Until then ...

Until then? If you don't think it's in your right to talk about this game then shut the hell up. But don't expect others to do the same, because, at least in my eyes, many people feel themselves in the right to talk about this game, to say what they like and what they dislike, and if anyone wants to make a fool out of himself complaining about every single thing about Fallout 3 just for the sake of it, then let them do it. Is that a problem? No! It's called freedom of speech, and, in the end, they are the fools.

This is NOT a strawman, thank you very much.

:EDIT:
Oh man! Double post... I can't delete it now, someone has posted after me

 

[Sebastian of the Wastes]

I agree with you in some point. I love next gen FPS the same way I love FO, probably I love FO more because of the depth and freedom of choice and a lot more stuff. So I'm kinda happy with the way things were going. Just thinking that there is going to be a Fallout FPS, that I'm going to be able to travel throug the wasteland and ruined cities is really cool. But seeing the screenshots, and the little story of the BoS and the stupid weapon(yes, the katapult), the physically impossible tiny mushroom clouds is very depressing. So, as you can see I'm don't totally agree with most of the people in here, but that doesn't give me the right to say that they are wrong or call them "rabid fans" or whatever. In fact, sometimes I think that they exagerate, but it's okay by me, they don't harm or anything, so why other people has the need to come here and start arguing with them? Tell me if you please, why you try to convince them that they should try this?

Well, to be specific, i was referring to the two posters who started coming after me instead of my opinions just before my post. I wasn't intending to lump a community with that statement. If that's how it came out, then I of course I apologize.

 

[Makagulfazel]

When it comes out, I'll play it. If I like, I'll say so... if I hate it, I'll say so. Until then ...

What's the point of reserving judgment until we get the full product? It's not like we don't know what they're doing. We've read the interviews, seen the videos, visited the site, read their forums, etc. It's not like we are completely blind to what's going on until we have the full version of the game.
If you don't want to judge yet, then don't. Just like Morbus said, don't talk about it but don't expect us to not have judgments. If we (the Human race) didn't judge ideas/products/people before we had a chance to COMPLETELY analyze/learn about them, we would be in a lot deeper shit right now. It's a lot harder to change something after it has already been released, that's why it's good to criticize something while it's in development.

 

[Sebastian of the Wastes]

Shut up (no offense). Fallout had nothing to do with what the industry was back then. If anything, the only relation it had with the industry then was that it was the OPPOSITE of what it was. Got it? Now, tell me what's the relevancy of invoking the "change of seasons" (they haven't changed) to apologize for a change of Fallout? No buddy, those days are not gone, fallout is not like a tree which leaves are blown forever. Its spirit lives, that which made him live. Look at Afterfall, look at Age of Decadence. Commercial (if indie) projects with pretty much the same ideals of that Interplay team back then.

And a cookie for anyone who understands the reference. It's easy.

It has everything to do with the industry at the time. Video Games as a medium were not nearly as main stream as they were 10 years ago. 10 years ago you could have a company like Interplay (By Gamers For Gamers) and Black Isle to make games like this, that were original and interesting and that tried new ways of bring the RPG to life.

The industry has absolutely changed, and not necessairly for the better. The fact is, in today's gaming marketplace, you need to make games that aren't just good, but that will also sell. As a new generation of gamer takes the forefront games are moving toward more "instant gratification" design models and less towards careful planning, strategy, thinking ... roleplaying.

Oblivion is a great example of this in its character advancement system. You don't put points anywhere, you don't have to think ahead with your character's development so much as just grabbing the next more powerful weapon or spell before running in to the next "challenge". Don't get me wrong, I do like Oblivion, but it is also a flawed game with faults. Fallout had those too. But Oblivion is a product of today's gaming environment.

Frankly, you could take more risks back then because the industry just wasn't as big as it is today. That's why companies are closing their doors or getting bought out by the evil EA machine. Maybe the analogy I made was broad, but I feel it is still valid.

My guess: like HL2 red barrels.

I hope not .. but, ugh, you're probably right ... that sucks.

Hey hey hey, you wait there mister. Do you think that the fact you had a personal perspective on a certain game gives you the right to say whether it is fair or unfair to complain about it? What if I think that the combat was the most beautiful thing in Fallout, huh? Wouldn't I be right to complain? I respect that you like the story better, ok, of course. But it doesn't matter. Fallout is a game, not a game how you see it. It's a game, it had design documents, it had a vision, it had a purpose. It had turn based combat because it was aimed at players that liked turn based combat. It used GURPS because it was aimed at players that didn't like classes and shit. It was top-down because it was meant to simulate PnP gameplay. It had a narrator for the same reason. Now you come and say that the story is the best and expect it to be ok to change everything BUT the story? Nah, that doesn't make sense.[/qoute]

Point taken.

Until then? If you don't think it's in your right to talk about this game then shut the hell up. But don't expect others to do the same, because, at least in my eyes, many people feel themselves in the right to talk about this game, to say what they like and what they dislike, and if anyone wants to make a fool out of himself complaining about every single thing about Fallout 3 just for the sake of it, then let them do it. Is that a problem? No! It's called freedom of speech, and, in the end, they are the fools.

Fair enough

 

[Morbus]

It has everything to do with the industry at the time. Video Games as a medium were not nearly as main stream as they were 10 years ago. 10 years ago you could have a company like Interplay (By Gamers For Gamers) and Black Isle to make games like this, that were original and interesting and that tried new ways of bring the RPG to life.

Thing is, now you can too.

The industry has absolutely changed, and not necessairly for the better. The fact is, in today's gaming marketplace, you need to make games that aren't just good, but that will also sell. As a new generation of gamer takes the forefront games are moving toward more "instant gratification" design models and less towards careful planning, strategy, thinking ... roleplaying.

I don't understand. Explain to me one thing. Why is Heavy Rain being developed if Indigo Prophesy (Fahrenheit) didn't sell very well? Why is Civilization such a strong trademark? Strong enough to exist a Galactic Civilizations. 2! What about Europa Universalis? How can such a poor (mainstreamly speaking, if that was a word) selling game be so successful? How come Silent Storm had an expansion?

Somehow, you fail to understand the relationship between development cost and sales. Think about it.

Oblivion is a great example of this in its character advancement system. You don't put points anywhere, you don't have to think ahead with your character's development so much as just grabbing the next more powerful weapon or spell before running in to the next "challenge". Don't get me wrong, I do like Oblivion, but it is also a flawed game with faults. Fallout had those too. But Oblivion is a product of today's gaming environment.

So?

Frankly, you could take more risks back then because the industry just wasn't as big as it is today. That's why companies are closing their doors or getting bought out by the evil EA machine. Maybe the analogy I made was broad, but I feel it is still valid.

Maybe that's why European studios are flourishing. Independent studios. That's why there's a game called Spore, for example. You can take risks, and now it's easier than ever. There's more people, more corporations willing to invest money in an industry they know is more economically important with each passing day. And they know how taking risks is the best way to earn money. Not in the mainstream market, of course, but Fallout is NOT mainstream nor was it ever meant to be.

 

[Ravager69]

Well, the Oblivion's character development system actually makes sense.....you can't be better at skills you don't practice. Shame they watered it down in Oblivion (threw out Enchantment and combined long\short blades, threw axes and blunts into one category). I don't say it's perfect, but more reasonable than character points (mind you that I like the second one).

Today's game are like today's hip hop - it's not even good enough to laugh at it. 90's were the shit man, many of the best songs, movies and games were made in 90's (please don't ask me for examples, they're obvious). I don't even hope for a new FALLOUT game that'd live up to the name of the series - there's too much money to be made with the name. Even if Beth will loose rights to it, guess who'll take it over? EA Games or other mega company, cause who'd have enough money to buy it back from Bethesda? Bioware? Please, they'd make it even worse than Bethesda.

Anyway - Fallout 3 will be as Beth will see it fit, complaining serves no practical purpose here, but only to relieve stress and frustration of the hardcore fans. If you want something as good as Fallout - stay tuned for the lesser companies' titles.

I remember the emotional conversations I had with my friends abouts various computer games, about 4-5 years ago. Nowadays, I don't even talk about computer games, not only because I grew up a bit, but there are no games worth mentioning. My guess is, that after a...month? no one will talk about Fallout 3.

 

[Brother None]

The industry has absolutely changed, and not necessairly for the better. The fact is, in today's gaming marketplace, you need to make games that aren't just good, but that will also sell. As a new generation of gamer takes the forefront games are moving toward more "instant gratification" design models and less towards careful planning, strategy, thinking ... roleplaying.

Ok. Now give us a reason we should just roll over and accept that? The industry is what it is...and?

 

[Sebastian of the Wastes]

You don't have to accept it at all if you don't want to. You can either take my word for it, go look it up yourself, or disregard the point as shit. I don't care.

 

[Ravager69]

You don't have to accept it at all if you don't want to. You can either take my word for it, go look it up yourself, or disregard the point as shit. I don't care.

If you don't care, then why bother to discuss it with anyone? Seems to me you have no more arguments.

 

[Brother None]

You don't have to accept it at all if you don't want to. You can either take my word for it, go look it up yourself, or disregard the point as shit. I don't care.

No, you missed my point. I'm regarding your point as the truth, yes, that's how the industry is right now.

So?

Just because the industry is like that, does that mean I automatically have to accept what they make? You're saying the industry has absolutely changed. Sure. Does that mean I need to automatically accept this interpretation of Fallout? It's still shit, nevermind that the industry changed.

If the industry changed to much to make a game that's true to Fallout's legacy, then don't make that game, it's that simple.