It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Hmmm... I guess I'll buy it anyway :D I -need- to get another Fallout game, even if it will be worse than previous ones... And I spent about 200 hours of my life playing Oblivion, so I guess I will be playing Fallout 3 too long enough :D
Let me just say this first. I loved the two first Fallouts. In my eyes, they are the best games ever.
I loved Morrowind. Bethesda did that right. It's not a RPG, like Fallout though. It is an ARPG.
I hated Oblivion. The only way to play that game is with mods. Countless of mods.
So when I heard Bethesda was to make Fallout 3, I got really sad. These guys butchered one of their most known franchises, making it a dumbed down shell (a beautiful shell yes) of the last game. And now they where to make a sequel to the best RPGs ever? Not well.
Through development I thought I should forget what they did before, and instead hope they would make a fun game.
Well, that worked out well. Every news about the game, every preview only confirmed what I had thought initially. This might be an OK game, but it is not Fallout. I am still buying it, but that is just because of the awesome things they put in the collectors edition. I want that bobble-head and the lunchbox :P
Let me tell you why I think this will suck as the sequel to Fallout:
1. Mutants. OK. There might have survived a few mutants, who then got themselves over to the east coast. And yes. there might even be another kind of VAT there. I am interested to see how they explain that, if they are at all. But what irks me is the fact that all the mutants are enemies. You have no way to communicate with them, according to Bethesda. Why? This is not supposed to be a mindless shooter, where everything looking like an enemy is. In both Fallout games you could talk to mutants. You could even have a mutant tag along!
2. Ghouls. The same thing. According to them, these are merely cannon fodder. And guess what. You have a glowing kind as well. That's fine, they where in the first games as well. Only these seem to spit on you. That's right. Radioactive spit. Wonder how that will look like. Probably like a small ball of flame.
3. The Enclave. Yeah. For any fan of the first two games, you know this is messed up. Why are they still there? You blew up their main base, taking out most of them and all of their leaders. I vaguely recall them needing the Navarro base for refueling, which means their Vertibirds cannot fly over very large distances. So why are they on the East Coast? If they have a good explanation, I can let that go, but it still irks me.
4. Brotherhood of Steel. Way to go ruining them.
5. Nuclear explosions. How could Bethesda do this? During one hour of gameplay you can theoretically see at least a dozen nuclear explosions. Why? In Fallout the world is ruined by nuclear war. The only nukes you can set of in those games are the ones who ironically save the world. That has been one of the best things about Fallout. And now you can lob small nukes yourself? Every car can blow up into a nice mushroom if you shoot at it with a handgun? WHY ARE YOU RUINING FALLOUT!
I have a lot more where that came from, but I think I'll end this by saying this:
Some people respond to every negative view on this game with "haven't you seen the gameplay videos? This game will rock!"
I have seen all of them, downloaded all to my Xbox 360. So I have seen them in proper HD, and I have one thing to say to them. Thank you Bethesda for making those videos. That was the best way to prove this game is not going to be good at all. It might be fun, if I manage to forget that it is supposed to be Fallout, but that might be hard. After all, you have thrown in a lot of things from the first games to please the fans.
I had flashbacks from Oblivion at least three times for each video. Familiar faces, familiar voices. Just the way everything is set up seems familiar. And don't get me started on the "over the top" gore, the VATS system (which looks totally idiotic. You cannot aim at bodyparts for some weapons it seems), the way you made the powerfist look more primitive (why would it revert from a futuristic looking weapon to a primitive looking weapon?), the mudcrabs... oh sorry! The mutated giant crabs... Bah.
The only good thing coming out of this game is the lunchbox and the Bobble-head. Oh, and the fact that more people might play the first games. Guess that is something.
Honestly, why must we view this approach to Fallout 3 with such pessimism? Can't change be a good thing?
Besides, let's not forget Temple of Elemental Evil and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. Both lackluster games made by [GASP!] Troika Games. Proof that great minds CAN miss.
Oblivion was, in my mind, weaker than Morrowind for a lot of factors. The story wasn't as exciting or original and the gameplay was nerfed for the casual gamer crowd. But the Journal system in Oblivion was a lot easier to use compared to Morrowind, and the relaxed gameplay allowed players to get into the game faster than trying to collect eight pieces of armor of a single class just to make sure your character didn't bite the dust.
Fallout will always be a fond memory for me. But just because things have changed doesn't mean that the game will be horrible. Maybe they can explain why the Enclave was able to being in troops after it's main base was destroyed. Maybe the mutants in the Eastern Sector never learned language, or simply forgot it over 200 years. Who can tell?
My few pet peeves are: the VATS seems to make things too easy in combat. The constant slow-down with a headshot or limp removal will get annoying after the 20th artsy blast of gore. The difficulty curve looks like it's going to be incredibly steep for people just entering the Genre.
As for this: http://www.stuffwelike.com/stuffwelike/2008/04/09/interplay-returns-brings-fallout-mmo/
I really, REALLY don't want a Fallout MMO. No disrespect to Fallout, or to Interplay [MDK 3 and Descent 4, For the Freakin' Win.], But unless they can drastically change the formula and NOT make a WoW Clone [Like, you know, darn near every MMO on today's market], then a Fallout MMO will just not be enjoyable.
Post edited September 15, 2008 by xooiid
See I think a Fallout MMO could be successful if done correctly. Definitely not as a WOW clone, but I think if it were similar to Face of Mankind it could be amazing. FoM was a sci-fi future based MMO made by a small developer, it had a TON of great ideas but the company was a bit too ambitious considering their resources. I played WoW for over two years and FoM imo could have been a better game.
avatar
xooiid: Honestly, why must we view this approach to Fallout 3 with such pessimism? Can't change be a good thing?

That latter question assumes that the position you're arguing against is "change is bad", whereas I'd say it's closer to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Improvement is change, and obviously people who liked FO1/2 would want to see a game improve on them. Is Fallout 3 a better isometric, turn-based cRPG now that it's a first-person action-RPG? Different? Yes. Improved? No.
avatar
xooiid: I really, REALLY don't want a Fallout MMO.

I really, REALLY don't want a Fallout game done in Bethesda's style of action-RPGs. I'm hoping they'll be able to make Fallout 3 different enough from their usual stuff, but I have my doubts.
So now you have a better idea of where I'm coming from. :P
I'm along the lines of pkt-zer0, in fact I took "the fight" on Interplays Black Isle forums years ago when the infamous "machine guns in 3D would look so cool" statement from Feargus came, where I was against more or less the entire forum, which included a "certain deathclaw". (Lexx and Brother none wil know who this deathclaw is/was. :))
I stated that 3D is a technology, a "cool looking gun" doesn't automatically mean that the gameplay will suffer and that 3D in itself doesn't mean that you can't have the same iso. view the original has, it's just to "lock" the camera at an angle without allowing it to zoom or move.
The "all games have to be 3D, the market demands it" (where 3D means graphically heavy) is made because the market forces that view on the buyers via less than objective reviews and so on.
If Bethesda wants to make a different version of FO they're free to do it since they bought the license, but why not call it "Fallout 3D" (along the lines of Duke Nukem) to make people instantly see that it's not FO3? (and hire for instance Obsidian to make FO3, I'm well aware that it's not the best choice, but Obsidian at least has MCA and some other people that I'd trust to make something at least somewhat worthy of bearing the FO3 monicle)
Change isn't bad, what's bad is if you change things that don't have to be changed for the sake of changing them to please an audience whose claims about what's needed have come from the ones who state that "it's what the audience craves". (they claim that 1+1=3 because that's what everyone else says it is after they've managed to make people think that 1+1 is 3...)
Why did they buy the IP, was it because of the cool name? No.
Was it because they thought the originals are the same type of games they've always done so it suited them? No.
They bought it because it's a classic whose name has survived for ten years due to a hardcore group of followers and they thereby bought it due to its brand recognition, which this HC bunch of followers have made survive where many other games have disappeared.
Do they listen to those who are the ones that made the name last, that are the ones who've been waiting ten years for a proper sequel, of course not, they know a lot better what everyone wants than some "eleven angry guys on a website", even if those "glittering gems of hatred" are the ones responsible for keeping the name alive and worthy of buying...
I enjoyed - and spent quite a lot of hours with - Morrowind for what it was; a dungeon crawl/action RPG and it did a good job as such.
I'm not saying that Bethesdas FO will be a bad game, I'm not saying it wont be worth playing, what I'm saying is that it won't be a proper RPG, it will not be a proper sequel and that I would be more likely to like it if it had been called "Outfall" instead of "Fallout" since the name Fallout is the epitome of cRPG to me. (and I'd expect a whole lot more from a game entitled Fallout than I would from one called TES)
(Yes I am a "one of the zealots" even if I didn't join NMA's forums before the end of -03 and even if I haven't posted in a couple of years on the forums)
Post edited September 19, 2008 by Rainstorm
suure ill play it... CRACKED. muhahahah
but seriously that games an insult to the fallout fans. thinking about it i dont think ill play it at all. either way they wont get my money...
Post edited September 19, 2008 by razvan252
I will surely buy this game, in fact I already pre-ordered it. I'm Fallout big fan and I cant imagine not to play it. The whine is all about "3" number after the title. Try to think this way: "This game will not be worse it will be just different" and forget about the number. Then I'm pretty sure you will enjoy it. I'm also sure there will be numerous things i dont like as in every game i play, but its not the reason to flame it so much. The possibility of exploring your beloved wastelands is enough to buy this game.
yeah but i think we all agree there are too many first person shooters. Van buren was godish compared to bethesdas f3.
Well, Personally - I've never liked a Bethesda game to date. So obviously i don't have high hopes of anything particularly good. Bethesda don't make RPG games - They make dumbed down, Console-friendly Action "RPG" games. That how i see it, at least.
I'm looking forward to some achievements, yep.
The worst part is, by titling THIS game Fallout 3 the chance of us getting a worthy SEQUEL is all but gone.
yeah but all is not lost. there are mods and projects like this one:
http://zero-projekt.net/
ill be keeping a close eye on that. oh and im trying something too:P
http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shot0vn5.jpg
avatar
Durandir: Let me just say this first. I loved the two first Fallouts. In my eyes, they are the best games ever.
I loved Morrowind. Bethesda did that right. It's not a RPG, like Fallout though. It is an ARPG.
I hated Oblivion. The only way to play that game is with mods. Countless of mods.
So when I heard Bethesda was to make Fallout 3, I got really sad. These guys butchered one of their most known franchises, making it a dumbed down shell (a beautiful shell yes) of the last game. And now they where to make a sequel to the best RPGs ever? Not well.
Through development I thought I should forget what they did before, and instead hope they would make a fun game.
Well, that worked out well. Every news about the game, every preview only confirmed what I had thought initially. This might be an OK game, but it is not Fallout. I am still buying it, but that is just because of the awesome things they put in the collectors edition. I want that bobble-head and the lunchbox :P
Let me tell you why I think this will suck as the sequel to Fallout:
1. Mutants. OK. There might have survived a few mutants, who then got themselves over to the east coast. And yes. there might even be another kind of VAT there. I am interested to see how they explain that, if they are at all. But what irks me is the fact that all the mutants are enemies. You have no way to communicate with them, according to Bethesda. Why? This is not supposed to be a mindless shooter, where everything looking like an enemy is. In both Fallout games you could talk to mutants. You could even have a mutant tag along!
2. Ghouls. The same thing. According to them, these are merely cannon fodder. And guess what. You have a glowing kind as well. That's fine, they where in the first games as well. Only these seem to spit on you. That's right. Radioactive spit. Wonder how that will look like. Probably like a small ball of flame.
3. The Enclave. Yeah. For any fan of the first two games, you know this is messed up. Why are they still there? You blew up their main base, taking out most of them and all of their leaders. I vaguely recall them needing the Navarro base for refueling, which means their Vertibirds cannot fly over very large distances. So why are they on the East Coast? If they have a good explanation, I can let that go, but it still irks me.
4. Brotherhood of Steel. Way to go ruining them.
5. Nuclear explosions. How could Bethesda do this? During one hour of gameplay you can theoretically see at least a dozen nuclear explosions. Why? In Fallout the world is ruined by nuclear war. The only nukes you can set of in those games are the ones who ironically save the world. That has been one of the best things about Fallout. And now you can lob small nukes yourself? Every car can blow up into a nice mushroom if you shoot at it with a handgun? WHY ARE YOU RUINING FALLOUT!
I have a lot more where that came from, but I think I'll end this by saying this:
Some people respond to every negative view on this game with "haven't you seen the gameplay videos? This game will rock!"
I have seen all of them, downloaded all to my Xbox 360. So I have seen them in proper HD, and I have one thing to say to them. Thank you Bethesda for making those videos. That was the best way to prove this game is not going to be good at all. It might be fun, if I manage to forget that it is supposed to be Fallout, but that might be hard. After all, you have thrown in a lot of things from the first games to please the fans.
I had flashbacks from Oblivion at least three times for each video. Familiar faces, familiar voices. Just the way everything is set up seems familiar. And don't get me started on the "over the top" gore, the VATS system (which looks totally idiotic. You cannot aim at bodyparts for some weapons it seems), the way you made the powerfist look more primitive (why would it revert from a futuristic looking weapon to a primitive looking weapon?), the mudcrabs... oh sorry! The mutated giant crabs... Bah.
The only good thing coming out of this game is the lunchbox and the Bobble-head. Oh, and the fact that more people might play the first games. Guess that is something.

I'd just like to point out your mis-information about the game.
Mutants - It's part of the plot, are they remnants of the Old Master's army, or are they new... something you must discover through the game.
Ghouls - YOu're completely wrong. There are two types of ghouls in FO3. Feral Ghouls, and NPC ghouls you can speak to. Beth confirmed there is an entire town of ghouls
Enclave - Again, plot will reveal
Brotherhood of Steel - How are the ruined? Have you read how the BoS are in FO3?
THe Brotherhood of Steel in FO3 are a completely independent contigent of the Original BoS. THe BoS homebase on the West Coast cut off direct support of the Eastern Outpost for disobeying orders. However, the technology the BoS discovered on the east coast is so valuable to the Brotherhood, they aren't cutting of affiliation. IN fact, there are Displeased members in the East Coast brotherhood because the Elder in charge there has derelicted his duty for protecting the wastelanders, instead of investigating the super mutants and technology.
Post edited September 20, 2008 by Thegreatbobo
after reviewing the website, this game is actually not connected to the storyline of one and two, and is only based upon the same universe.
why the hell they named it fallout 3 is beyond me, buncha retards.
but yeah, it looks like they've done their best to stay true to the original, while introducing the ability (read option) to go first person.
anyway, i'm just pleased you can explode heads.