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
Full Version: Fallout 3
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...
*Edit*
I want my RPGs to be RPGs damnit, not baby FPSs...
That is everyone's fear. Just sit back and hope bathesda takes the hint that people don't want another FPS.
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.
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.
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.
I'm replaying though 1, 2, and tactics. Never did tactics the first time around though. It's... different.
| QUOTE (yoippari) |
| I'm replaying though 1, 2, and tactics. Never did tactics the first time around though. It's... different. |
Nowhere near as good as 1 and 2... but, I like it. It's pretty fun, as long as you play it in turn-based mode. The story didn't really stick with me though, because I know I finished the game and yet I can't remember what happened, whereas I can in the first two fallout games.
| QUOTE (Ravor @ Jun 7 2007, 05:02 AM) |
| 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... |
they already did Oblivion-with-guns. it was called S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
EDIT:
And "Tactics" isn't an RPG. it's a strategy game. people bitch about how it's "not like fallout 1 & 2" duh. not supposed to be.
although you do have to admit they streamlined the pip-boy interface by a lot. that's what I enjoyed most about it. not having to fight through inventory menus.
| QUOTE (Fix-it) |
| And "Tactics" isn't an RPG. it's a strategy game. people bitch about how it's "not like fallout 1 & 2" duh. not supposed to be. although you do have to admit they streamlined the pip-boy interface by a lot. that's what I enjoyed most about it. not having to fight through inventory menus. |
Agreed, but the game in general is still not as good as 1 & 2, Imo, because it didn't make a lasting impression on me. Of course, since it wasn't an RPG it was starting from a tremendous disadvantage, but cest la vie.
The interface was a lot better, agreed.
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*
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*
Gamespot has a First Impression of Fallout 3 ("Oblivion with Guns"). Sounds really really promising!
linky!
linky!
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.
I despise FPS, and the "shoulder cam" makes me angry.
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.
Anyway, everything I read at No Mutants Allowed has suggested that Fallout 3 will be the worst game ever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| QUOTE (Fix-it) |
| 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. |
My personal feeling is that a golden age of gaming has passed. In the 80s and the early 90s a few bright programmers with a few good ideas could go ahead by themselves and release innovative games with new ideas in game play. I feel that people like Sid Meier and Jordan Mechner are examples of these sorts of people.
Today, though, since the demand for graphics is extreme you need a whole studio to release even an exceedingly simple and stupid game; you need corporate backing. Corporate backing, in turn, by its nature tends to fight against innovation and risk-taking.
That's why I haven't bought any games at the time of release since I was a little kid in the days of NES. I only buy games secondhand after they've demonstrated their quality for a number of years.
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)
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)
| QUOTE (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) |
You have a reasonable argument but I also personally hate to be what I see as a vacuous new-product-obsessed consumer. I'd always want to be making an informed and considered decision rather than just buying something because it is new and has a big name brand.
It's like Windows Vista. Microsoft has been whoring Windows Vista so hard that it begins to border on comedy. However, many agencies and firms have chosen not to "upgrade" at this time because they can't justify dumping a ton of money on a resource-hogging OS that works against you and which might require new hardware altogether. In the mean time, Microsoft puts pressure on you for the pointless "upgrade" by making the interface on their newest software look Vista-esque so that they can normalize the new interface just through consumer exposure/saturation. Hell, I've been using Windows since version 3.1 but I'm seriously considering switching to Linux instead of eating the cold fly-encrusted dog turd that Microsoft wants me to swallow now.
I just really hate all this consumerist bullshit where software firms release substandard garbage and then try to use various types of pressure to make me buy it when I really feel like in many cases that's really not going to be in my best interest.
So, that's all. I really feel strongly that buying software when it's new and unproven makes me into a big sucker.
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...
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...
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.
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
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
The original, top down. The version where you stopped instantly if you hit a tree and motorcycles were absolutely insanely difficult to use, but if used effectively, were tremendously awesome.
*whistle*
Yes, the NMA guys are nuts, in that "should be locked into a box with a Pentium 166 for the rest of time". Mind you that 'other' fallout forum isnt a whole lot better.
However, I played STALKER, and while it was cool, I got sick of it very quickly. Once I had my fill of the "Wow, thats some crazy good AI" moments, I stopped and traded it off for a copy of Prey, because it was IMO a better FPS. I dread FO3 being a oblivion clone, and I fear MORE what is going to happen to the flavor of it in the hands of Bethesda, whom are fairly famous for being very PG with their games. Mind you, Id suppose any game nowadays has to be able to not trigger the 'Wal*mart block', and in this post 'hot coffee' world, no one (cept Rockstar, who has reportedly thumbed their nose and taken an 'M' rating as a way to sell more copys of GTA4) is willing to produce a game that can draw that kind of fire.
On to the bigger issue. I blame a lot of the current market issues on the fact that nearly every major title in the last 4 years has been a multi system release. That in and of itself forces games to be the same. Why is FO3 going to be first person? Because the old 3rd person engine wouldn't play well at all with a game pad on an xbox 360 or a ps3. There is your answer. And now, because its going to be a console game, and not just a PC game, it has to fit in the family room next to Harry Potter. So no more killing kids by shooting them in the crotch and getting the bloody mess effect.
Yes, the NMA guys are nuts, in that "should be locked into a box with a Pentium 166 for the rest of time". Mind you that 'other' fallout forum isnt a whole lot better.
However, I played STALKER, and while it was cool, I got sick of it very quickly. Once I had my fill of the "Wow, thats some crazy good AI" moments, I stopped and traded it off for a copy of Prey, because it was IMO a better FPS. I dread FO3 being a oblivion clone, and I fear MORE what is going to happen to the flavor of it in the hands of Bethesda, whom are fairly famous for being very PG with their games. Mind you, Id suppose any game nowadays has to be able to not trigger the 'Wal*mart block', and in this post 'hot coffee' world, no one (cept Rockstar, who has reportedly thumbed their nose and taken an 'M' rating as a way to sell more copys of GTA4) is willing to produce a game that can draw that kind of fire.
On to the bigger issue. I blame a lot of the current market issues on the fact that nearly every major title in the last 4 years has been a multi system release. That in and of itself forces games to be the same. Why is FO3 going to be first person? Because the old 3rd person engine wouldn't play well at all with a game pad on an xbox 360 or a ps3. There is your answer. And now, because its going to be a console game, and not just a PC game, it has to fit in the family room next to Harry Potter. So no more killing kids by shooting them in the crotch and getting the bloody mess effect.
the latest issue of Game Informer had an exclusive on FO3, and I think many of your fears are unfounded lindt.
esp the part about it being "PG". not if the graphically exploding super mutant head had anything to do about it.
the aiming system is supposedly being used, so you'll still be able to shoot people's eyes and ding-dongs off.
black/white morality has never been part of Fallout, and it didn't seem like they were going that way, infact they made it a point to say they are not doing that on purpose.
esp the part about it being "PG". not if the graphically exploding super mutant head had anything to do about it.
the aiming system is supposedly being used, so you'll still be able to shoot people's eyes and ding-dongs off.
black/white morality has never been part of Fallout, and it didn't seem like they were going that way, infact they made it a point to say they are not doing that on purpose.
Ahh, well this is good. My faith in the world may yet be restored.
Oh wait, Scooter Libby went free, never mind.
Oh wait, Scooter Libby went free, never mind.
sorry i can't link you the article, I can't seem to find it online. guess you have to buy the mag and read for yourself.
I certainly hope they increase the depth of the Brotherhood of Steel.
I certainly hope they increase the depth of the Brotherhood of Steel.
Yeah, the Brotherhood of Steel was a lot more fun when they had a krotty class.
What I really want to see is red float text that says "REVERSE PUNCH KIAI!!!"
What I really want to see is red float text that says "REVERSE PUNCH KIAI!!!"
When i saw this game's announcement i put in my fallout 2 to try to play and only got as far as reaching the 2nd town after the trial part in the begining of the game. Meh. I did have "a kiss to build a dream on" awesome song.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.