Fallout 3, Teaser trailer and release date news Options

[jklst14]

I didn't see this posted anywhere else but for all those Fallout fans, there will be a cover story on Fallout 3 in July's Game Informer. The teaser trailer was also released 2 days ago. Release date in Fall 2008. For PC, 360 and PS3.

Game Informer July Cover

Teaser Trailer at Bethesda

News at Gamespot

[Ravor]

Why do I have this sinking feeling that Fallout 3 is going to merely be Oblivion with guns?

*Edit*

I want my RPGs to be RPGs damnit, not baby FPSs...

[yoippari]

That is everyone's fear. Just sit back and hope bathesda takes the hint that people don't want another FPS.

[nezumi]

I can't check out the game trailers at work, alas.

That said, Bethesda did an EXCELLENT job on Call of Cthulhu (barring a few mechanics issues, like save points). While CoC had a first person perspective, I would hesitate to call it an FPS (you don't even get a weapon until 40% of the way into the game).

I did enjoy the top down view of fallout, there are many advantage to it. On the flip side, the first person view really does put you 'in' the setting. Fallout 1 and 2 are great, and no question a first person view would shift the emphasis of the game (and unfortunately, probably lose turn based combat, which would suck), but that doesn't mean it will lose the flavor that makes fallout as cool as it is. You'll just be looking at it a different way.

[Unarmed]

Well, as long as they don't change the actual game mechanics to be similar to morrowind and oblivion, I'm fine with it being first person. I am pretty damn stoked, though, that it's finally getting made. I even liked fallout tactics, for christ's sakes.

[yoippari]

I'm replaying though 1, 2, and tactics. Never did tactics the first time around though. It's... different.

[Unarmed]

[Fix-it]

[Unarmed]

[MasterCrow]

Just checked out the teaser... OMG, I cannot believe I have to wait that long for it. *shrugs* oh well, like Harry Potter books and 'good' movies make me wait at least that long...

I can't begin to count how many times I replayed 1 & 2. As long as I can create a char. and jack up the pickpocket skill....I'm Golden... I don't think there was a sprite left untouched by my pickpocketing specialist. I 'borrowed' some amazing things early on in the game...lol.

The 'vibe' of Fallout is so immersive, if they did a SR game like Fallout, Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, and on and on.... it would fly off the shelves. *crosses his feathers*

as long as they don't make ALL the content "online play only", I'm happy. Don't get me wrong, I like to play the occasional online game mmorpg but they aren't a priority. I'd much rather be sitting around the table with my comrades and throw the occasional die at my friend across the room when they're on the phone with their GF, making excuses why he won't be home til late..... *chuckles* 8)

[Backgammon]

Gamespot has a First Impression of Fallout 3 ("Oblivion with Guns"). Sounds really really promising!

linky!

[eidolon]

Personally, they took the two worst perspectives and put them both in one game as your "options".

I despise FPS, and the "shoulder cam" makes me angry.

[Wounded Ronin]

People should just play my fallout 2 mod instead: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=17141

:)



Anyway, everything I read at No Mutants Allowed has suggested that Fallout 3 will be the worst game ever.

[Backgammon]

Well,

They will never reproduce how cool Fallout 1 and 2 were. That was a different time. Those games were made.

But it's kind of how extremist gamers (ooh, I got a new term) find a way to bitch about everything. Oblivion got blasted for being a sell out game. Now, as you yourself WR pointed out, Bethesda has some questionable PR tactics, but on the whole, Oblivion was one of the best selling games evar, and honestly I had a blast playing it. Could it have been better, more hardcore? Yes. Does that make it a bad game? No, it was great fun anyway.

I think Fallout 3 will be the same. It won't stand up to it's predecessors, but it'll be a massive success and still fun. We'll shake our heads sadly and say Fallout Used To Be Better, but that's how the chips fall.

[Fix-it]

the guys at NMA ALWAYS say "this is gonna be the worst" and "this sucks"

they said it about fallout 2. they said it about tactics.

in a perfect world we would trap them in a time loop of 1997. so they could sit there and play the original Fallout over and over again.

I really didn't like the turn-based combat system. it was annoying. and in order to win you had to exploit it like a madman. (stab-flee-stab-flee-repeat-ad-nauseum)

that and running away from random encounters was sooo annoying.

fallout was built on the character interactions, depth of story, and the many possible endings. if they continue that, it really doesn't matter what the combat or visual perspective is.

[Wounded Ronin]

[Aku]

WR take this for what it's worth, but that sort of buying habbit on a large scale, can also reduce innovation. Because, currently, people want to make, what sells. So, instead of making something that IS different, or largely innovative (and i dont mean a list of "look whats new" thats 5 features long in a game), they make, what they know people will buy. and guess what that is? things that were previously made.

now, i understand that the gaming, especially console gaming, is an expensive hobby, but instead of buying what everyone else bought, try something else, ESPICALLY if it's from or has a name on it that you know you've previously enjoyed. Like Sid. I liked Civ. I say Pirates!, i said "hmm" did i wait while other people played it? no, i got it, and while it's mildly enjoyable, i wouldnt say it's kickass but largely it's enjoyable (except dancing)

[Wounded Ronin]

[Aku]

see, heres the problem i have this that arguement. and that's that you're essentially comparing apples and oranges. on one hand (we'll call them the oranges) you're talking about gaming and entertainment software, on the other, you're talking oranges (the productivty, needed to make anything else go os's and what nots)

In regards to os's, i agree to a point, that there are and should be "early adopters", that break, what dozens of people that know the code inside and out, in some regards, cant manage.

for entertainment, it's different, because, it should be about what YOU like. do you get duds, sometimes, sure. but heres a spinoff.

Lets take sid. Great games, for the most, generally live up to the hype. on the flip side, Theres Peter moly-whatever french letters come here. Renowned designer. I cant think of a game that's lived up to the hype! Fable, was imo, a flop. Black and white, (and 2) great idea's. didnt live up, imo.

Will i continue to buy sid's games as i come across them? more than likely, if the idea of the game appeals to me (Hollywood the game, no, not really, partially bvecause thats the industry im TRYING to get into myself, but thats another post)

Moly's games, thats another story...

[eidolon]

Regarding buying used somehow being a "bad" thing: piss on that. Buying used saves me my money. Until I start getting paid to buy things, I'm going to maximize my buying power by paying the least I can given whatever time constraints or level of desire might be in play.

[Aku]

i dont see how that MAXIMIZES your buying POWER at all. especially in a units sold industry, they dont count the second time. so your buying power (as far as any influence buying the item may have, saying, "hey, i want this", there is none.

But again, i dont think buying some things used, is a bad thing, but in all honesty, i'd buy used for things that i KNOW are going to be really great, or that i REALLY want to play, or try, for one reason or another

[nezumi]

"Buying Power" generally refers to what your dollar can get for you (as opposed to what it can get the vendor). While you are talking about another power based on your choice of purchases, it is not called 'buying power'. I do not know what the term is for it.

Your point stands, however, in that buying something, especially something new, sends a clear message, namely that you will pay good money for it. This may be part of why Fan Pro felt they had to make SR4 so different from SR3 - Shadowrun fans really have no reason to buy SR4 M&M if it's basically just like SR3 M&M and SR2 Shadowtech, but $10 more expensive. By making SR4 a different mechanic, any following books do not have to compete with their earlier versions. What video game manufacturers only sometimes realize is that the same does not apply to video games - when Fallout 2 came out it was not competing with used versions of Fallout 1. If for Fallout 3 Bethesda Software just took the engine and graphics from 2 and put in a completely new story line, it still would not be competing with 2 or 1 and, debatably, any other game currently on the market.

The nice thing about video game technology is while commercial video games are setting the bar higher and higher for how many resources they waste on getting great graphics, the tools are becoming more and more available to make lower graphics games for much cheaper, and frankly, the graphics of a decade ago are still good enough to make a truly excellent game in 2007. With corporations ignoring this basic fact and instead running on the premise that if the game doesn't force you to spend $150 on upgrading your computer somehow than it's not worth the $60 sticker price, it's losing out to smaller corporations (including Bethesda) who sell the game for $30 but only spend $20 per unit in making it, and to fans who give it away for free, both of whom focus primarily on the story and mechanics and let the graphics suffer. We're seeing something similar in the movie industry too where the cost of making and producing your own movie is dropping due to the availability of the interweb, digital media manipulation, etc.

Hopefully within 10 years we see more examples of smart developers making games out of their basements based on the engine for a game 20 years old, but putting in a plot that completely blows everything else out of the water.

[Aku]

well im not going to argue with the your money=buying power or not, because i dont know, my definition seems like the logical one, but anyways...

the "graphical acceptableness" is dependant on the genre of gaming you're talking about. I think (although i'd probably rank myself as a median to moderately high "care about gfx guy" that the rts's of 1997, such as Total Annihilation or Age of empires Look a tad...lackluster to me now. However, games like fps' tend to have a "longer" shelf life, and are quite playable after the hardcores get out of the game, because in general, they do still look good.

[nezumi]

Speaking for myself, I would have trouble paying for a game with graphics at the level of Monkey Island, but I'd have no problem buying one at the levels of Quake, GTA or, for a strategy game, Civ I. We are seeing an interesting dichotomy at this point though. In general, younger people put more emphasis on the graphics. Older people generally put more on game play (this is probably because we've been spoiled). The demographic of video game buying people is gradually shifting into the late twenties and early thirties, although it would seem the game companies haven't quite caught on to this (excepting whoever made Deer Hunter). I can't imagine it'll be much longer yet though, and I think Bethesda is one of the shops who has made that jump.

[Aku]

well, it depends, are you taslking GTA the original, or the more current renditions?

and then, theres the fact that gfx are, largely subjective. For me, it depends on the genre of gaming im playing. i didnt particularly like GTA's camera scheme, because it felt like they wanted me in the game, but not so much that they wanted me to be able to see, havingt he camerea largely right behind my head...