but stay away from Fallout Tactics or BOS for the Xbox
They have a great plot inspired by post apocalyptic games .. lots of dark humour and retro futurism + they are mature rated and deal with things more seriously ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_series
[deleted]
Two very good games.
sharetoo lazy to go dig up a link, but Fallout3 is coming out in the fall. GOogle the teaser.
err
Fallout 3 has literally nothing to do with Fo1 and 2.
It's made by dumb people, for dumb people, while Fo1 and 2 where quite good, story, morale, choice and consequences and character-build-wise
interesting. Fallout 3 is not out yet and a decent preview has not yet been released, yet you seem to claim it's an inferior game that's less good that the originals.
As a very dedicated fan of the originals, I have a great feeling about fallout 3. I'ts (almost)everything I hoped fallout 3 will look like when I was a kid that just finished playing Fallout 2 and wanted a 3rd game.
Now I'm not saying that I'm 100% with Bethesda on that game, but i'd rather be optimistic about it.
Just try to neutral about the game for now, don't let yourself get angry about bad previews and wrong impressions of a game that for now we know very little about. Remember, even Fallot 1&2 weren't perfect, so it's okay if the 3rd one isn't.
Wow, now that I look at it it's quite a long reply post for a discussion on a movie that I don't really care about :\
ok let's see:
Fallout 3 is not out yet - true
BUT there were a lot of previews, and we got a lot of screenshots, infos, interviews and so on.
Bethesda's opinion is "WE are making the game WE want to make", so they basically *beep* on the hardcore Fallout 1&2 fanbase and make a game they want.
As far as I have seen, they really work like that. Look at the screenshots please.
At first: the style of graphics is very different.Yes of course it's 3d, yes of course it has to be somewhat different. But... just look at Van buren (cancelled Fallout 3 by Black Isle). It's how I would like it to have been. Isometric, 3rd person, turn based. Look what we got so far (and they definitely won't change any of that) : 1st person (yes you can go 3rd person, but it's designed to be played in 1st), generic post-apoc graphics - it's more like "any" post apoc game than specifically fallout. They are not making a Fallout game, they are making a post-apoc game they want, with it's own rather realistic and somehow super-violent- graphics style (they really think that the stark violence in the game was one of the things that MADE fallout be Fallout. Which is utterly wrong. You could even switch the violence off at all. You know what they said in an interview? About that: "In our game, the violence switch would be at 1 step above Fallout's highest violence setting and fixed there OLOOLOLROFLROFLROLOLOL"
Okay.. let's take another look at the graphics: super mutants. Super mutants don't look anything like those in Fallout 1 &2 , same for the Vault Suits, the ghouls, the brotherhood of steel and some other things (dogmeat is a wolf??). Then there is this super mutant behemoth (which looks 99% like a character of Resident Evil :) ) which you "NUKE" away with your "NUKE launcher". That's so stupid and not-fallout. And also the cars explode nuclearly when you shoot at them.
So basically Fallout is a First person, non-turn based, action shooter, with big resident evil monster you _nuke_ away, nuclearly exploding cars (they expect fans to think the game is cool!!1, so the target group is 11-16 year olds) swearing robots and brotherhood of steel members (and that's their "Fallout humour" in their game - stupidly swearing and uber violence - nothing like thedark humour Fallout really had), choice and consequence is barely a thing of being evil, good or neutral anymore (nothing between that O_o), also _their_ choice and consequence is like this:" if you nuke the town of megaton, you can't make the quests there anymoaaar !!!11" is that also choice and consequence for you?? tell me, please.
Also they said to want to target a mature audience. Come on. Stupid uber-violence, foul language, explosions... How mature is that please?????
Okay let's some it up:
Fallout 1&2 minus: Dark Humour (they don't want to reproduce it or just didnt get it), Real Choice and Consequence and moral decisions, style (it has a nice post-apoc style, but it's not a bit like Fallout's style and at parts totally *beep* up), conversation (won't be able to reproduce the good conversations and got the oblivion dialogue build), maturity (nuke launchers in a nuclearly devastated worlds make as much sense as resident evil monsters in the game and cars that explode nuclearly although they are fueld with non-nunclear fuel cells, just for the sake of explosions), a good story (the story is only decent as far as i know about it, and there are a lot of contradictions and its only loosely based on Fallout's canon, it could even be considered non-canon in the end, we will have to see...), ...
All my statements are based on things I've read or seen, so they are not just made up and I also elaborated each argument and explained why i think so, so you see I'm not just blindly hating the game and prejudicing it, but basing my opinions on something solid.
I'm solely basing my opinion on what I've seen and know.
Wow kuki, that's quite a reply you wrote me there. I'm impressed because you pretty much wrote an essay here and it's actually a very well put and well written one (not being sarcastic).
I'll try to discuss every point you made here.
There are a lot of previews, but most of them say the same things, so it's pretty much one preview being rewritten every time and the same things being said and very little being added. I'm sure that a company like Bethesda is trying to keep most of the content secret just to surprise us to the better (even though good intentions don't always yield very good results).
"We are making the game we want to make". Yeah, and I agree. Bethesda has their vision of the new Fallout. A Fallout made with today's technology, and they actually think it's gonna be true to the value of the originals. Whether they are right or wrong, well, that's what we're debating here.
I did look at the screenshots. Frustrated with some of them, drooling over others.
Most of them are from the alpha stages of the game, so how relevant are they now? the new ones were amazing. The supermutant doing that ridiculous back flip makes little sense to me, but i guess you gotta see that in real time. Though why they chose that specific screenshot to represent their game is beyond me.
I didn't like the van buren project at all, the story line from what I read just seemed like the plot line of a bad amateurish video game from the 80's.
The isometric view didn't look good in my opinion in van buren. When you think about it, the only reason the first two games used an isometric point of view was due to the technological of the time and the game's budget. with the graphics of the 90's it was the best way to portray the world of fallout at the time.
Nowadays we can have a beautiful full world with beautiful graphics full of detail. I personally can enjoy a game in 1st person, and I don't think that it would prevent it from being an incredible rpg adventure game. But I do understand that a lot of people prefer 3rd person view (not necessarily isometric) and we can just hope that the guys at Bethesda get their 3rd person perspective right.
One of the great things about the original games, is that since the graphics weren't that great, players had to use their imagination to fill in the gaps, that's why we all see the new fallout differently. I don't agree entirely with Bethesda's interpretation of the fallout world, but I understand that I imagined it in my own way. Besides, the story takes place in a completely different part of the country, and with the geographical differences, it's not a surprise everything looks different.
Violence..... Violence wasn't what made fallout great, but it was indeed a very big part of the game, that's the reason why the game changed from GURPS to the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system. Steve Jackson, the creator and owner of the GURPS franchise wanted the game to be less violent, and the developers refused, believing it was a very big part of their game. Personally, I think the game should be violent enough to the point of realism, other than that, I couldn't care less about cool camera angles and views of heads exploding (By the way, the screenshot of the mutants head exploding was lame. It was just a blood stain on the screen with random parts of the head like one eyeball a jaw and some piece of bone flying in the air).
The supermutants do look different, and it's important to make them look like in the originals. It's okay for them to look a little different. What's important is to make the MOVE like in the originals. The destruction of Vault 13 video with the mutants raiding the vault and killing the overseer is a good example of how they should move in 3D.
The nukes are just plain stupid, the cars don't make sense and the fatman I can live with only as long as its a one of its kind weapon that i won't have to see ever again after blowing up our friend the behemoth.. Reminds me of the crappy games I played on the NES as a kid (on a pc emulator, the original was before my time :-\ ) where the developer's just put random things to blow up that made me scream "What the *beep* were they thinking!"
The humor, well, Todd Howard does sound like a childish schmuck, and I won't try to make sense of his words.
Oh, and about the behemoth, he's supposed to be some sort of human that mutated beyond the level of a normal supermutant. He's sort of a combination between a normal supermutant and the master. I guess it could make sense.
So, let's sum it up.
Dark humor, as long as their not gonna break the fourth wall like Fallout 2 did constantly throughout the game, and as long as the humor is not too low to the point of hurting realism, than it'll be okay. Choices players make, freedom of choice, and the effects and ironies of the first games, we'll just have to wait and see. Dialogue, come on, we know next to nothing about it. That one screenshot of the guy in Megaton wasn't for the sake of presenting dialogue, rather than facial features and npc design. Maturity- yeah, I'm a little worried here. A good story, so far looks good. I like the brotherhood of steel story, and I don't think it contradicts the original brotherhood whatsoever, but that's a whole different discussion.
I just hope that you hope for the best and expect the worst.
I can assure you that even if the game ends up being great and true to the fallout we all know and love, (the good things about it, not the stupid crap like the fallout 2 humor and the temple of trials that made no sense, and the tribals that went from educated vault dwellers to ignorant primitives in a few generations)the hardcore fans who spend a lot of time trying to bury the new game before they got a chance to play, well, even if the game is good they won't be able to enjoy because they will only focus on the small things that they don't like about it and ignore all the good things.That's why it's important to be a little optimistic.
Hope you don't forget to check this out and actually read this. sorry, if I missed some points of discussion, and it took me a while to get my thoughts together on the game so some of my explanation might not make complete sense.
Thanks for writing back and taking this thread seriously.
Wow, I didnt expect an answer. Even less I expected an answer as elaborate as mine, and thanks for the praises.
Well, now I can understand your opinion. Also you are absolutely right about the Fo2 stuff being wrong like the stupid temple at the beginning, which was absolutely unnecessary and a waste of time, or the tribe there, I never really thought of that. Also- where are the vault 13 suits of the other guys gone and so on? Or why didn't they connect with one of the towns, the player made a lot of connections, he definitely could have used those for his benefit.
Well. You said, they made the game isometric and 2D (and turnbased?) because of technological restrictions at that time. You may be right, but 3D was already existent at that time for example, but probably it would have been too much effort to make nice 3D graphics at that time. And even then they would have looked *beep* probably. However, my opinion is that isometric view together with the turnbased combat system gave the game a strategical and tactical aspect and were one of the features that made Fallout so good. The fight system was just awesome and fun.
And think about this: Actually, you weren't the character you played. So not playing in 1st person just makes perfect sense. I think that's not so obvious, but true. It helps the authenticity of a game, and imo, that's very important.
Actually I think I read they wanted those big devastated skyscrapers to be in the game, but couldn't put them into its ingame, because of the isometric view and so on. They look awesome on the old artworks and videos however. I loved them. However, now we got 3D, but totally different ruins and stuff. The whole style is totally different - totally different people making it. And i don't think they care about staying really true to the original. I mean.. come on. They even admitted that and say they can't make everyone happy (old Fo fanbase *hint hint*)
Okay, we got the technology. But still, making the game isometric would be possible and nice (with an option to change the camera angle for example, to look around and stuff). I don't see a reason not to do it, apart from Bethesdas ignorance of the original. Turn-based isn't outdated either, don't listen to those bethesda nutjobs telling you that realtime is the new turn-based, that 1st person is the new isometric view and so on. That's *beep* There are still games being made in isometric view and even turn-based, so *beep* it, it's plain stupid and *beep* It just shows the stupidity of that company. A company that totally relies on marketing their products well (a reason they bought the Fallout license probably - for more dollaris). You know that most, especially the "big" publishers and developers put a lot of pressure on the game magazines and sites, so they write nice reviews and previews and give their games good ratings? It's true. And when i got that notion, i stopped buying those magazines.
Once, a gamestop journalist got fired because he wrote a review that was too critical, which made the game developer angry, putting pressure on the bosses of that site which led to this action. It's similar to a dictatorial country and it's press, which has to lie and write nicely about their leader, else they get killed. Freedom?
But that's a totally different problem, sorry for getting offtopic.
The story- as far as I know about it, it doesnt seem to logical and good, but I don't know enough. However, I definitely don't want the BoS members to act like hollywood-style army-glorifying-movie marines, and as far as I know they acted like that in the presentation. Very inmature.
The violence thing: i liked the violence too, because it was so overdone it couldn't be taken seriously, it was quite funny imo. I always had it maxed. What i don't like is how Bethesda treat this topic, they do look at the whole game very superficially and get it all wrong, imo.
About the GURPS/SPECIAL thing I don't know much.
And about the story again: I think that the whole growing-up-in-the-vault-making-a-character-build-meanwhile thing could turn out to be pretty lame, as well as the omfgrofl-teh-father-iz-gone-must-search-h1m being pretty lame as far as i know about it.
Finally I also want to say something about the graphics again. Now we got the graphic technology and people being capable of using it at Bethesda, but at first we don't have any of the great artists of the original and also the graphics in the screenshots utterly sucks, keeping in mind that that's one of the things bethesda should have a clue of.
And thanks for replying to me as well, writing such a nice and well thought-out essay. :)
I'll start with the combat system. I don't think that turn based combat is a thing of the past, but I'm having a hard time thinking how can we make it work in a new game with a 3D environment without hurting realism. The designers who worked on the Van Buren project apparently had the same problem with it and decided to use the Fallout Tactics system of semi real time semi turn based combat where you could move without using APs but firing your weapon or using an item would use the APs. I'd personally rather have en elaborate environment in real time where my character could sneak around, scout the area, plant booby traps, use sniper rifles, try to figure out where your enemies would go, basically having a very interactive environment where you would have to think fast when you need to but also have the chance to develop a combat strategy when initiating combat. I can think of a few games that have real time combat but also require you to think first and shoot later.
About the skyscrapers and the destroyed city look. We still don't know how DC will look in the game, we only saw a few screenshots that took place in a very small area of the map. The teaser did show that atmosphere, but it had this dark grey look to everything. I guess that if the story line took place in NYC we would have gotten that look.
I'd wanted to say that we only saw the tip of the iceberg regarding the new game, but even that would be an exaggeration, we saw almost nothing, some shots of the vault, some shot of megaton, a little bit of fighting and that's it. Imagine that you only saw some screenshots of Fallout from the vault, desert, and Junktown, and then thinking that that's how everything in the game looks like.
By the way, not trying to make everybody happy is the first rule regarding any decision that will affect others. Honestly, I don't see why Bethesda should pay too much attention to the core fan base (even though I'm a huge). From reading what they write in forums, they seem to be very narrow minded regarding new ideas. Everything good involves a bit of risk, so I'd rather take that risk, the risk of Bethesda screwing up the game and making it a bit different in atmosphere from the originals, but surprising me with a lot of new things. I mean, come on, supermutants and rad scorpions and deathclaws? I'd love to see them, but I also want a lot of new stuff.
About the player being the character he played... It's a role playing game, you play the role of the character, you pretend to be the character. You don't have to, but that's the what most people do and that's kinda the idea.
If you prefer not to play 1st person, than from what I understand, the developers are trying very hard to take the 3rd person camera view to a whole new level, where you can control it and view the game the it's comfortable and fun for you, kinda like the witcher (not that I played it, but the game videos on youtube gave me a pretty good impression).
You also said that Bethesda probably bought the Fallout franchise just to market it, well, newsflash, the fallout franchise never really sold that well. Sure it's popular with rpg fans and sci-fi lovers. But it's really not that well known. Bethesda took a big risk with the game, and they are taking it's development very seriously.
I don't know about the magazines and I don't pay attention to review unless their telling me that the game sucks and that I should stay away from it.
The story about the BoS seems to be pretty complex, you see. You gotta think about things and question everything, the brotherhood was depicted, not directly I may add, as the knights of the wasteland. Don't you thing that it's directly misleading? They are depicted as being the good guys, probably only to cover up a hidden agenda. I don't know if you read the designer diary regarding the BoS, but it never says that the brotherhood's splinter faction in DC aims to help the people of the wasteland. It simply says that the brotherhood are in conflict with the supermutants in the city (it makes a lot of sense because the brotherhood still remembers how the supermutans were soldier's of the master's army and the fact that they reorganized themselves in DC is a good reason of concern for the brotherhood.) and that the people who lived in the ruins of DC and were under constant mutant threat, they see the BoS fighting the mutants thus making their life safer and better, even though that's not why the brotherhood is at war with the mutants.
I don't think that the designers are taking the violence matter a lot more seriously than their executive producer Todd Howard and their cheesy spokesperson Pete Hines.
I think that the growing up in the vault thing is an excellent idea. It makes you get more into the character. Now, they might not make it work well with the character creation part but we'll have to wait and see. But experiencing daily life in the vault is very important.
I disagree with you on the father theme. I always like father-son stories. For example the book "The Road' by Cormack Mccarthy, look it up.
your father in the vault is your whole family, the closest person to you. He is also the vault's doctor, he's in a very important figure in the vault, and his character is supposed to to be the one of a very intelligent and clever person. One day he disappers, god knows why, and your life suddenly changes and will never be the same.
You said the graphics sucked, I said most of them were old and things probably changed, and you said again that they sucked. Did you even get to see the newest ones from the OXM magazine? they were incredible.
Oh, and BTW, a boy and his dog sucked. I'm sure that the original short story was great, and the story line of the movie was good, but the movie itself was a victim of 70's style B movies making.
1. it makes no sense why a turn based combat system suddenly would make any difference only connected to the change into 3D.
2. so they shouldn't pay attention to what Fallout 1 & 2 are, although they are making a sequel to those. Also they evade innovation, you say.
Well, I'd also say the graphics don't look anything like Fallout style-wise, it's just random post-apocalyptic. It's not Fallout. It's a post-apoc game by Bethesda, and they bought the Fallout license just to exploit it, nothing else.
3. they are not doing much to support a consistent and usable 3rd person perspective and also said this already several times. Of course it's included and you can use it, but it is not thought to be your 1st choice in the game, it's just meant to be a little additional feature to look around and stuff....
"the developers are trying very hard to take the 3rd person camera view to a whole new level" - ridiculous, you sound like somebody from their PR team talking to some game journalist who must write nice stuff about the game or he will get fired.
4. It never sold well? It's critically acclaimed, got into a lot of "best games" -lists and it has a huge fanbase, so show me the sale numbers which as you claim are so low- or I can't believe you this. Also look at how much Bethesda paid for the license, and that although Interplay is in debt, so they probably got it relatively cheap.
"Bethesda took a big risk with the game, and they are taking it's development very seriously." What risk???
5. I read the stuff of Bethesda about the BoS stuff and have to say it sucked. Contradicting, boring, stupid, and then you see BoS Soldiers acting like US Marines in those Hollywood movies, swearing and acting stupid and agressive,...
6. They are the heads of the production and so they got a lot to say and influence a lot of the decisions and the design. Keep that in mind.
7. How good the growing up thing will be depends on how they make it. Same for the father-son thing. It just sounds were basic and cheesy.
And it's btw. fun how every character we saw so far, looked pretty similar and indistinctive. The artists obviously really try hard to make this game great.
8. Yes I've seen them.
BoS soldier on front was ridiculously ugly. Fallout 1 had a nicer 3D BoS soldier render in it and that was like 10 years ago...
The scans of course dont have such a nice quality, ingame it all will look quite differently and flaws will more obvious so I can't say that much about the graphics. But just look how they are overdoing things like bloom and such effects.
And lol, look at this: http://www.fallout-archives.com/pics/oxm_2.jpg
you think that looks nice?? look at the rocks, the bloom-sky, the earthandstone-texture,... it looks like *beep*
Usually I don't care about graphics a lot, more about gameplay, atmosphere, story and so on, but in this case, there is not much hope for a good gameplay or so, so the only thing bethesda are supposed to do well, should at least be good, and it ain't.
Fail.
And i haven't seen the movie.
*Sigh*
This isn't gonna end any time soon. Yes, I have counter arguments to all those statements,and by this point I don't have to prove that I'm not bluffing, but why bother.
As long as this game is gonna be realistic, will have a good solid story and good rpg and adventure game elements, and good voice acting for all npcs, then I'll be more than happy.
If not, well, I love Fallout, but it's just a friggin game.
Anyway kuki, it was a good ride, your writing shows you're a thinking man and not just a bored fanboy with no life outside flaming in forums, and you really gave me some stuff to think about.
But I've said what I had to say about this game, and now I realise that I really need to get laid, and so do you.
Have a good one buddy.
By the way, just out of curiosity, how old are you?
Completely prophetic, this holds up now as a 100% correct assessment of the game.
shareNevermind. I read some later posts and changed my mind.
shareA smaller game, one you can find free online, is Caravaneer. I've been playing it for quite a while and I love. It's heavily influenced by Fallout Tactics in both gameplay and story.
shareI AM playing fallout 1 AND 2!! lol
Fallout tactics wasnt bad. it was the first game of the series i played and loved it. fallout BOS= fallout POS
after watching this movie i appreciate it even more. does anyone else know what other post apocalyptic movies tie into the games. i know the mad max series does for sure, as well as a few other that i cant name on the top of my head... oh yea dr strangelove is another.
what other ones ti into the games? i wanna make a list and watch them all.
I'm not sure why everyone sh*ts on Tactics. Yes, it took a couple liberties with the canon, but it was still a good game. I enjoyed it.
shareI think Dogmeat from the first game was inspired by Blood? There's even a guy in Fallout 2 called Vic!
shareDogmeat returns as dog in fallout 3, he is a familiar that you find in a junkyard. he's good at finding ammo and deflecting attacks.
he looks alot more like dog from road warrior than blood.
So now I'm watching this movie again after having played Fallout 3 + the 2 expansion packs. Yep, this movie + the Fallout movies have quite a bit tied together. Those "screamers" in the movie we never see must be "glowing ones".
shareFallout: 3 was released, sucked, and Bethesda should be ashamed for killing one of the greatest RPGs ever. It was more like the Elder Scrolls: Apocalypse than Fallout. They absolutely destroyed the lore and any semblance of a morally grey world with their obvious good vs. bad choices and Brotherhood of Steel who are white knights that save people. *beep* they created an awful game.
shareDespite what the trivia may indicate, none of these things came from Fallout 3, they came from Fallout (1). And yes Glowing Ones were in Fallout long before Fallout3. It's sad Fallout 3 is getting credit for all of this. Fallout 3 is a decent action game, but in my opinion it's not a true role playing game. You really can't play a role, you are forced to go along with the Brotherhood of Steel. It's quite linear despite it being an open world. Yeah you can ignore the main quest, but what's the point in that? The game gets boring ignoring the main quest.
Speaking of Tactics, I actually like Tactics, but that's not a role playing game either. It's a squad based tactics game, and it does a decent job at that. That game never pretended to be a role playing game. It's sad that Bethesda used the ideas from tactics (Brotherhood of Steel being the good guys) instead of the first 2 Fallouts.
New Vegas will still be my favorite game. Yes I may be biased as I'm from Las Vegas. but I feel it has the best balance of great action (even I have to admit turn based is out of date) and good role play. and I consider Obsidian to be the true heirs to the great Black Isle Studios. And they used their ideas from Van Buren (the true Fallout 3) to make New Vegas.