Russian Gameland previews Fallout 3

[Brother None]

We continue our streak of Russian previews of Fallout 3. This one, the "Страна Игр" of august 2007, talks about the fandom, the special status of Fallout among Russian gamers and gamemakers, the limitations of old technology for the originals, describes the demo, and:<blockquote>But without the Brotherhood the matter can not be resolved. Along the way to the point of rendezvous with the customer of nuclear terror, the hero falls into the epicentre of his followers with an army of mutants. It could not possibly be narrower here: you're either with the Brotherhood, or into the grave. The final struggle for you is a duel with the gigantic monster, to which there is only one way. We find in our hands a strange device next to the corpse of a soldier, we consider, that is - not RPG, but indeed it is a real nuclear catapult.

(...)

We did not restrain ourselves and posed the question to the producer, that for us supplements the violence: "What about the murder of children, the usage of drugs and the ability to make sex for money?" Todd Howard understandingly nodded his head and answered: "Alas, we can allow ourselves none of this. We do not wish to repeat the history with Manhunt 2, cruelty, blood - this yes, this is all plotted into the framework of a Mature rating. Everything else is not. To kill mutants and adult people is possible, but not children. Of course, we also have stimulators, which temporarily raise characteristics, but we do not intend to relate the history of harm and benefits of addiction (...)".

(...)

In the game it is possible to tune your Pip-Boy to the frequency of the radio station of the Enclave, which has long ago been destroyed by the hero the previous part. How is that possible? "We won't say," answer the developers. Will there be a dog in the game? A "good idea!" Is the dog a robot? "Remarkable idea. Emil, write that down!" Possibly, in a year of such negotiations with the press Fallout 3 will turn unrecognisably? That we will see on E3 2008.</blockquote>Link: Gameland website

 

[radnan]

i just love how they blame the rating and the Manhunt precendent instead of just admitting that theyre not themselves mature/professional enough to pull off those things so that they work in a mature serious manner - not to mention an actual logical story and setting ... oh well .. this be just another brick

 

[Brother None]

Curious about whoring and drug-addictions, though, the answer isn't very clear.

I find the extreme linearity of the scripted (!) BoS encounter to be laughably stupid and worrying.

 

[anthracit]

I think that Beths are just a bunch of **** ***. But there is no reason to put a shame on them for that or expose their "toddy-is-that-nice-?" behavior. Why? What is the purpose to tell over and over and always the same thing? Everyone already knows how they handle that licence.
My idea is that it is much better to roll with them together. Let's unite and start to imagine some stupid silly stuff like handy catapult or may be rocket launching scissors. The more absurd it will be the better.
When Beth's hollow sculls absorb enough of such a brilliant ideas - there is no doubt - geme is gonna go gold.
And what is it gonna be - no one will call Fallout.

 

[yossa]

I find the extreme linearity of the scripted (!) BoS encounter to be laughably stupid and worrying.

"Leaving the village you begin your travel through the wasteland. On the horizon a couple of silhuettes appears, it only takes moments to realize you're in over your head. A bunch of giants in shining armour is threatening a stranded family. You stand mortified as the biggest of armoured hulks rips the poor souls apart after a short argument. Alas the ruthless freaks do you no harm only insisting that you keep what you just saw to yourself. Willingly you leave the place of massacre and head for the nearest town."

 

[Brother None]

"Leaving the village you begin your travel through the wasteland. On the horizon a couple of silhuettes appears, it only takes moments to realize you're in over your head. A bunch of giants in shining armour is threatening a stranded family. You stand mortified as the biggest of armoured hulks rips the poor souls apart after a short argument. Alas the ruthless freaks do you no harm only insisting that you keep what you just saw to yourself. Willingly you leave the place of massacre and head for the nearest town."

Amusingly, the Frank Horrigan event, while scripted, was the mental equivalent of a cut-scene. It had the same intention and effect as the cutscenes from Fallout 1.

It's also one of the most unnecessary things from Fallout 2. A good showing of Bethesda copying what's wrong about previous games while ignoring what's right.

Good example of bad design execution, yossa

 

[Draconis13]

Hey if they keep up the bad Fallout 2 design elements maybe Todd Howard or others will show up in game ala Feargus. However you will need to buy the game to explode their brains all over the place. Sort of a pime taradox.

 

[yossa]

Good example of bad design execution, yossa

Just putting things into perspective. Being escorted b a bunch of BoS knights in FO3 doesn't sound nearly as bad as seeing the main, ruthless villain bargain for silence of some useless fellow to "set the mood of the game".

 

[Brother None]

Just putting things into perspective. Being escorted b a bunch of BoS knights in FO3 doesn't sound nearly as bad as seeing the main, ruthless villain bargain for silence of some useless fellow to "set the mood of the game".

So?

As far as I know, there was never a clamouring for Fallout 3 to please, please, please copy the bad design decisions of previous iterations.

Since it's a sequel, I expect it to improve upon its predecessors' mistakes, especially obvious ones like scripted events. I'd like it to move forward, not be stationarily stupid.

 

[taarn]

Now, I'm not clear on this. We're talking about the demo that they ran to show off the game being too highly scripted and without any choice right?

 

[Brother None]

If the demo is considered representative enough that we accept previewers gushing over the next Game of the Year and have to consider all positive elements to be true, then it is also representative enough to worry about game elements from the demo that look terrible making it into the game.

Either it is representative enough to gush over and criticize, or it's not representative at all and thus de facto useless in everything but graphics (or something in between). Make your pick, but do it consistently, it's nothing short of hypocrisy to trust gushingly positive previews but not trust critical ones.

 

[ivpiter]

In the game it is possible to tune your Pip-Boy to the frequency of the radio station of the Enclave, which has long ago been destroyed by the hero the previous part. How is that possible? "We won't say," answer the developers. Will there be a dog in the game? A "good idea!" Is the dog a robot? "Remarkable idea. Emil, write that down!"

The lack of originality is stunning – as is the implied pandering to the gushing press…

A dog in the game, great idea! A robot dog! I can’t believe we didn’t think of this… since, you know, there are four dogs in FO2 that can join the party, two of which are *gasp* robo-dogs.

Heh, perhaps Todd can make sure these robo-dogs shoot lasers out of their eyes. Better yet, and more in line with what I’m hearing about FO:3 them walking nukes.. pull the tail to set the device, and have them say something snarky before walking up to the target and detonating*.

Any question related to the extremely improbable presence of FO-1 / FO-2 factions is to be answered “Can’t say” or “You’ll have to play to find out.”

 

[Sorrow]

We did not restrain ourselves and posed the question to the producer, that for us supplements the violence: "What about the murder of children, the usage of drugs and the ability to make sex for money?" Todd Howard understandingly nodded his head and answered: "Alas, we can allow ourselves none of this. We do not wish to repeat the history with Manhunt 2, cruelty, blood - this yes, this is all plotted into the framework of a Mature rating. Everything else is not. To kill mutants and adult people is possible, but not children. Of course, we also have stimulators, which temporarily raise characteristics, but we do not intend to relate the history of harm and benefits of addiction (...)".

What a bunch of pathetic cowards.
As someone wise said:
"With dreams to be a king, first one should be a man!"

 

[Brother None]

What a bunch of pathetic cowards.
As someone wise said:
"With dreams to be a king, first one should be a man!"

It reminds me of a great quote from Fallout 2 designer Scott Bennie, from the Codex dialogue interview:

I think rather than spending a lot of time accommodating those who will force you to make a poorer game, you do the best you can and hope the audience follows. If you can craft a game with compelling characters and a beautiful story, why neuter yourself? It's like covering the Grand Canvon just so you don't scare the acrophobic.

 

[Joe Kremlin]

I really hope there is some sort of reason we can't kill children besides them just being invincible.
Oh well, no silliness in FO3.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Did they -know- they weren't going to be able to have killable children, prostitution, drugs, groin shots, and all the other things essential to the spirit of Fallout before they bought the license? Did they realize what they were buying?

It's like buying a license for Playboy when you know you can't have any nudity or dirty old men in pajamas.

 

[Kyuu]

It's like buying a license for Playboy when you know you can't have any nudity or dirty old men in pajamas.

Well you just know the uber-mature and non-silly Bethesda folks read Playboy for the intelligent and pertinent articles.