Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

Fallout 3, RE 5 in 2008, Final Fantasy 360 Never 136

Posted by Zonk
from the zombies-and-radiation-are-so-cheery dept.
In addition to the truly excellent trailer, yesterday Bethesda Softworks let slip the platforms on which Fallout 3 will be playable. CVG reports on an article in the upcoming issue of Game Informer magazine, which describes some of the gameplay and states the title will be on offer for the PC, 360, and PlayStation 3 sometime in Fall of 2008. Meanwhile, Eurogamer is reporting that Capcom won't be letting Resident Evil 5 out of the holding pen until at least April of next year. For now they're relying on the Wii port of the title and other offerings to see them through the year. Finally, if you were hoping to play Final Fantasy XIII on the Xbox 360, you'll be waiting a long time. IGN has word that there are no plans for any FF games on Microsoft's console.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fallout 3, RE 5 in 2008, Final Fantasy 360 Never

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    If you're into Fallout 3, don't miss the original Fallout 3 Van Buren design documents [demonoid.com]. Cool stuff. Going to be interesting to see if anything survives from there.

    • by Anthony Boyd (242971) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:10PM (#19412051) Homepage

      I would note that in addition to the original design documents, the original Fallout 3 tech demo [nma-fallout.com] has been leaked. That's right, it's the playable game that the original team was working on 4 years ago. It doesn't have anything to do with the new game that Bethesda is trying to build. Bethesda only came into the picture when the original company folded.

    • by bckrispi (725257)

      If you're into Fallout 3, don't miss the original Fallout 3 Van Buren design documents. Cool stuff. Going to be interesting to see if anything survives from there.
      Gaah! Put up an NSFW tag next time!
  • I would really appreciate it if someone paste the article text since I'm suck behind a filter.
    • by Zencyde (850968)
      June 5, 2007 - Looking for more Final Fantasy following the Xbox 360 port of Final Fantasy XI? Then you're going to have to look to a different next generation system. A Square Enix executive has disclosed to Japan's Nikkei BP that the company currently has no plans for Final Fantasy games on the 360.
      Noting that the PS3 is getting Final Fantasy XIII, the website asked Square Enix's Shinji Hashimoto if the Wii or Xbox 360 will also be getting games in the series. "For the Wii, we have FF Crystal Chronicles
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Aladrin (926209)
        'Blank page' doesn't mean 'never', it just means 'no current plans'... That's about a minimum of a year, if they decide to do a port, or 3 years if they decide to innovate. Minimum, mind. Not average or mean.

        Nintendo had been the sole Final Fantasy Console for years when Sony stepped in and took it. Now Nintendo has FF titles again (weak ones, but still...) so there's nothing stopping them from doing the 360. They are probably fishing for a big check from everyone's favorite monopoly first.
    • by GrayCalx (597428)
      Shadows

      There really wasn't anything in the link. Just references to an upcoming Game Informer issue. I'll paste the article below, but theres really nothing there. :(

      Fallout 3 is heading to PC, Xbox 360 and PS3, according to Game Informer magazine which has posted a scan of the cover of a forthcoming issue that features the sequel.

      Bethesda's game is described as an open-ended RPG by the GI chaps, and as you'll know if you watched yesterday's teaser trailer it's due out in autumn 2008.

      It's no great surprise that the developer is targeting those three platforms, but it's always nice to have it confirmed.

      Expect a flood of Fallout 3 information to plaster itself all over the internet soon.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    See http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/06 /06/busting-rumors-sonys-ps3-price-drop-and-square s-360-final-fantasy-plans [arstechnica.com]

    They explain that Square said the 360 was a "blank page", which isn't the same thing as a flat out "Not gonna happen".

    Nathan
  • No FF on Xbox360 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mortanius (225192) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @11:32AM (#19411369) Homepage
    Does it really surprise anyone though? FF is huge (perhaps as an understatement) in Japan where Microsoft has a pretty tiny share. Releasing exclusively would be suicide, and though there is a large market in the US, I would expect there's enough PS3 owners and enough would-be PS3 owners on the fence that would pick up a PS3 because of FF that it wouldn't necessarily be worth the added effort to port to xbox.

    And please God, don't let them contract out to another company to do a half-assed port. :-P
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Araxen (561411)
      I agree, the 360 just doesn't have the foothold in Japan to warrant Square/Enix to develop for the 360. The PS3 has a larger player base in Japan than the 360 and eventually the price will come down enough that the Japanese and Americans will buy the system en mass. You can't say the same for the 360. America yes, but in Japan I doubt it.

      But....I wouldn't be totally surprised to see Square/Enix to totally focus on the Nintendo systems. The Wii will have by far the larger player base of the 3 systems and the
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by badboy_tw2002 (524611)
        I would. FF has always been about the glitz, and if anyone is going to push the limits of the PS3 and HD/BluRay it will be Square. It would be hard to call any FF a "casual" game, so they've got a solid core of hardcore fans on the PS3 waiting for the next installment. Look for the PS3 version as the lead platform, with a solid port to the Wii. (Using the Wiimote might actually liven up some of the battles, and would be an easy and great way to add something to the game without redesigning it from scrat
        • by StikyPad (445176)
          The Wiimote sucks. The motion sensing is too vague to allow precise control, and the controller is too small to work well sideways, at least with my non-child/non-asian hands. Don't even get me started on pointing.
    • by DrXym (126579)
      Does it really surprise anyone though? FF is huge (perhaps as an understatement) in Japan where Microsoft has a pretty tiny share. Releasing exclusively would be suicide, and though there is a large market in the US, I would expect there's enough PS3 owners and enough would-be PS3 owners on the fence that would pick up a PS3 because of FF that it wouldn't necessarily be worth the added effort to port to xbox.

      Not just that, but FF probably wouldn't sit too well on the 360 due to the limited storage capacit

      • by Aladrin (926209)
        Yeah, because the Wii has -so- much more storage capacity than the 360.

        While it's unlikely we'll see a true FF on the 360 (partially for your reason), it's possible we'll see spinoffs like the FFCC and the like, retro titles revamped, or new titles with 'hard core' gameplay without so many movies and more actual action. (I'm hoping for this, personally... Not holding my breath, though.)
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by DrXym (126579)
          Yeah, because the Wii has -so- much more storage capacity than the 360.

          The Wii has the luxury of being standard definition. Which means FMV is likely to consume 1/3 the space on disk that it would need for 720p on the 360. The same goes for textures, models etc. which invariably would have to be far more detailed on the 360 to suit its higher resolution and more capable graphics & CPU. The situation would be even worse if the 360 dared hope to support 1080. Assuming any FF title could be crammed onto

          • by 7Prime (871679)
            Actually, I made a post about this earlier. The 360 is tied down to HD resolution, which sucks up storage. The Wii can't do HD (well... technically, it can, just as the GameCube and PS2 could, but didn't), so it actually can put a lot more cut scenes on a DVD, because it's not required to be in HD (yes, microsoft requires HD).

            However, that's not a very strong arguement. Over the course of a 120 hour game (liek FF12), switching a disc once every 20 hours isn't exactly much to ask... I mean, FF7 and FF8 were
            • by DrXym (126579)
              However, that's not a very strong arguement. Over the course of a 120 hour game (liek FF12), switching a disc once every 20 hours isn't exactly much to ask... I mean, FF7 and FF8 were utter marketplace DISASTERS because they had multipul discs, right?

              That depends on how many disks you're talking about and the structure of the game being able to accommodate swapping disks. For example multiple disks would be a pain in the arse for open sandbox games where you can literally go anywhere. Since FF XIII doesn'

              • by 7Prime (871679)
                Gameworld size or linearity is fairly irrelivant. The thing that takes up space are FMVs. And FMVs, in the RPG realm, are almost always in a linear fashion. Even if they aren't completely linear, they're going to be fairly linear. jRPGs like FF13 have strictly linear plots, that's one of their main appeals (at least for me, anyway), so I don't think that we're going to see Fallout style FF games anytime soon (I hope not, anyway).

                In sandbox type games, however, you are correct, that could be a big problem. I
    • by skobar (890726)
      But worldwide, there is more 360 then ps3 and the games does sell everywhere in the world.

      There is also already a Final fantasy on the 360 even if it is a mmorpg.

      I don't really care though as I have a ps3.
      • by 7Prime (871679)
        Final Fantasy used to be my most looked-forward-to jRPG series, but that's over now. Not that FF12 wasn't an incredible game (it was), but there were better, this year, and I find myself looking forward to others more than FF13. I find myself actually more interested in the next FF:CC game for the Wii, as it looks to be a sort of hybrid between Zelda and Skies of Arcadia, two of my favorite games. Also Trusty Bell/Eternal Sonata just interests me a lot more, and in many ways, the Tales series has supplanted
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Conception (212279)
      I think in general people forget something...

      "Sony Invests in Square / Square Not Exclusive To Sony

      Sony Corp it will invest 14.9 billion yen in capital to Square Co Ltd. The investment will give Sony an 18% stake in Square. Sony does not intend to prevent Square from contributing games to rival game makers such as Nintendo Co Ltd or Microsoft Corp, a SONY spokeswoman said. - Source Reuters.

      "We are not exclusive to Sony, because of this deal." said Hisashi Suzuki, Square's president."

      Sony owns a large part o
    • Does it really surprise anyone though? FF is huge (perhaps as an understatement) in Japan where Microsoft has a pretty tiny share.

      There is no doubt that FF is a juggaurnaut on both sides of the ocean. However it's more successful her ein NA then in JApan. In JApan Dragon Quest is the huge franchise and FF is #2/#3 in RPG's. Here in NA FF is the #1 and Dragon quest is down the line.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @11:32AM (#19411377)
    After the last two Final Fantasy games, it's obvious that at the very least Square-Enix doesn't care about Final Fantasy any more. (The "last two" by my definition being XI, an uninspired EverQuest clone with moogles, and XII, an offline version of an uninspired EverQuest clone with moogles and bunny-women.)

    Seriously, after playing XII and discovering that the game really does play itself to the point where you're only there to guide the characters through the map, I really don't see any reason to get any more Final Fantasy games. Ever.

    Add in that the wonderful "storytelling" in FFXII sees a story wherein every character they've introduced through the start of the *tutorial* dies by the end of the tutorial, randomly jumping to some characters you've never met and really don't care about, and you've got a game with no gameplay and one of the worst stories I've ever read.

    Yeah, I know, there are some twists concerning that last statement in the story, but the concept of the first several minutes of a story is to hook the audience. Introducing a whole slew of characters and then *killing every last one of them* (even if it later turns out they miraculously survived) does not create a compelling story. Especially when the main character they randomly dump on you turns out to be, hands down, the most annoying Final Fantasy character I can recall.

    So let the PS3 keep their Final Fantasy. It won't help sales. Final Fantasy is dead, Square-Enix has decided to kill it.
    • by dhakbar (783117)
      Damn straight.
    • by dannycim (442761) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:03PM (#19411937)
      Matter of opinion. Sure, FFXII's story was a bit light, but the combat system was the best ever seen of any jRPG. You could do everything manually or litterally program the AI of the party members with the gambit system.

      I for one loved it, and most reviewers did too. SE's not about to "kill" FF any time soon, as you may think. It's their franchise, it's their cash-cow.
      • by Prien715 (251944) <agnosticpope@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:13PM (#19412127) Journal
        I agree.

        What I don't understand is the GP's hypocrisy in saying "Square never innovates" and saying "I didn't like FFXII because it was too different" at the same time. Either you really do want another clone or you want originality. If you don't like something that's original (like the ability system in FF8), at least have respect for the developers for thinking out of the box rather than simply playing it safe. Whenever you innovate, you're going to come out with some things some people really like and some people really don't. I much prefer this to a game everyone thinks is mediocre.
        • Well, I wouldn't exactly call it innovation. FFXII isn't the first RPG to have a battle system like FFXII's. Square is kinda like Blizzard--they take the niftiest things that everyone else is doing and refine the heck out of them. The Gambit system is definitely the smoothest implementation I've seen of that sort of combat system.
        • What I don't understand is the GP's hypocrisy in saying "Square never innovates" and saying "I didn't like FFXII because it was too different" at the same time.

          I have read the GPs post several times, and nowhere can I find him claiming that "Square never innovates". Or am I reading the wrong post?
        • What pissed me off was the fact that 90% of Final Fantasy XII takes place in a bunch of totally generic tombs, caves, mines, sewers, and tunnels. Seriously, every indoor environment is some stupid corridor dungeon with a whole bunch of rectangular hallways, all identically textured, strewn together with no rhyme or reason. Either the rooms are totally empty, or they have one treasure chest sitting in the corner.

          I found myself yelling at the game "who the FUCK would build a fucking 80 floor tower with h
          • Dude, you must be remembering some other 16-bit 2d RPGs. The pre-rendered dungeons in FF III and onward (up to VI) are just as aribtrary and devoid of stuff; big, empty tiled floors, a treasure chest at the end of a hidden hallway or whatever, walls that are all the same, save a few spot sprites.

            Main reason battle areas were so sparse is to allow maximum manuverability when fighting enemies, and to keep the polycount down. 6 enemies, 3 party members, and two spell effects were at the limit of the PS2.

            Outsid
      • by badasscat (563442)
        Sure, FFXII's story was a bit light, but the combat system was the best ever seen of any jRPG. You could do everything manually or litterally program the AI of the party members with the gambit system.

        I for one loved it, and most reviewers did too.


        When was the last time any big game got bad reviews? Game reviewers get caught up in hype just like everybody else, and maybe more importantly, they're often afraid to criticize games that they know have a lot of evangelists. They may not personally like a game,
        • by Canthros (5769)
          From personal experience, the FF combat system has often been less about strategy and more about power-leveling. It's been this way since FF1, and it's been true in the vast majority of the FF games. FF2, not to be confused with FF4, is probably the worst this way, but they've pretty much all been like this. Sure, strategy *helps*, but, when in doubt, you wander around and kill things to gain levels. As such, the combat's almost always been boring, and FFXII had a nice approach to alleviating that by not ne
          • by _xeno_ (155264)

            Sure, strategy *helps*, but, when in doubt, you wander around and kill things to gain levels.

            I'd argue that that's the "right" way to do it. By using smart strategies, you can defeat enemies more easily than by simply spamming "Attack." However, if you can't find a working strategy, you can always get through challenges by leveling to the point where the challenge becomes something you can handle.

            It's kind of an automatic difficulty setting - if a challenge is too hard, you can make it easier by levelin

          • I don't know about that. Since FF IV power leveling has been just one of many strategies, the least elegant of them anyway. In these games (with exception of XI) you'd notice:

            * Many enemies or bosses had clever ways to defeat quickly which were fun to discover and talk about with other players.
            * You can beat the 'interesting' enemies or bosses even at the lowest levels.
            * Some foes which you really couldn't beat unless you leveled significantly and discovered key items or skills. These foes were generally no
        • by 7Prime (871679)
          FF12 didn't emotionally grab me, either... but ya know what? In the grand scheme of things, I think that was probably a good thing, and an actually fairly gutsy thing for Square to do.

          As of late the FF games have been becoming more and more mellodramatic, with cheesy un-explainable romances (FFX), and unrealistic dialog, bathed in an overall psuedo-realistic format. I think it was wise for Square to step back a little bit, and concentrate on other aspects of the game. The dialog that was there was actually
      • by OmegaBlac (752432)

        Sure, FFXII's story was a bit light, but the combat system was the best ever seen of any jRPG.

        Best ever? The combat system in FFXII was good and has alot of potential--hopefully Square-Enix can improve this in future titles--but IMO, it was not deep enough. For example, how can I get a character to continue to steal until they get certain item and then stop and switch to attacking? Or to steal only once from a certain monster for the whole battle, even if that monster has less then 100% health. The pr

        • by shimpei (3348)

          For example, how can I get a character to continue to steal until they get certain item and then stop and switch to attacking? Or to steal only once from a certain monster for the whole battle, even if that monster has less then 100% health.

          I can't dig up the source right now, but I remember the developers saying in a Japanese interview that this omission is deliberate. It'd have been trivial for them to add "Monster holding treasure" as a gambit target, but they chose not to make the game not too easy. Y

        • ...then I realized that most of the gambits I thought I needed you didn't really need anyway.

          Ally: KO? Useless.
          Ally: status? Mostly useless

          Doing an Ally: name or Ally: Any with buffing/healing actions does it on demand anyway.

          Those precise actions become useful later when you want to do things like auto-berserk a single character and then buff them or lure+reverse them later for particular nasty optional boss fights.
    • by brkello (642429)
      After the last two Final Fantasy games, it's obvious that at the very least Square-Enix doesn't care about Final Fantasy any more.

      After your first sentence I could tell you have no clue what you are talking about.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by blendo75.5 (1058006)
      I enjoyed FF XII but I'm not going to spend what will likely be $660 to play XIII, especially since there will be versions released on every other console ever made (except the 360, apparently). I think Square lost sight of what makes FF a good game, for me it was never about the graphics. Final Fantasy XII will no doubt have beautiful graphics but the chances of it being a good FF experience are slim to none, probably due to too much energy being put into the graphics.

      In the PS1 era I think people were s
      • by Canthros (5769)
        The FF series has always have usually pushed the graphics pretty hard, actually. I agree that I don't think it's as big a selling point as it used to be, but it's always been a big deal for the series.
      • I enjoyed FF XII but I'm not going to spend what will likely be $660 to play XIII, especially since there will be versions released on every other console ever made (except the 360, apparently). I think Square lost sight of what makes FF a good game, for me it was never about the graphics. Final Fantasy XII will no doubt have beautiful graphics but the chances of it being a good FF experience are slim to none, probably due to too much energy being put into the graphics.

        In the PS1 era I think people were sho
    • by Sciros (986030)
      Yeah I'm sure not nearly enough people here have read FFXII bashing every time the series is brought up. The game has sold a LOT of copies, so to say that FFXIII wouldn't help sales is absurd. Some consider FFXII to be the best of the series.

      It sounds like you only played the game for about thirty minutes. The tutorial is a prologue; you're not playing with main characters there. And "jumping to some characters you've never met"???? HAHAHAH it's the beginning of the game! Where did you expect to meet them b
    • by skobar (890726)
      I do, and a lot of other peeps do. You must be in the minority because almost everyone I talk to still loves the final fantasy series and it will probably make them buy a ps3 just because of it.
    • by Psmylie (169236) *
      By "Everquest Clone", do you just mean MMORPGs in general? Because, you know, certain similarities are unavoidable. I don't know, I think FFXI stands pretty well on its own. Hundreds of thousands of players would agree with me.

      You didn't like FFXII? Fine and dandy. Sell your copy, if you haven't already. You're not required to like it, and FF fans in general (like myself, obviously) won't miss you. But saying that the franchise is dead? Millions of copies sold would seem to indicate that you are wrong.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DrEldarion (114072)
        ... and MMORPGs are just MUDs with graphics, and MUDs are just RPGs that are text-only and online, and then we're back to the single-player RPG again. It's all a big loop, and everything is derivative of everything else. Saying a game sucks because it's too similar to other games is like saying a story sucks because it's similar to stories that have been written hundreds of years ago. Sure, you may not LIKE it, but you can't judge something solely on originality, because there really is very little of it in
    • Yeah, I know, there are some twists concerning that last statement in the story, but the concept of the first several minutes of a story is to hook the audience. Introducing a whole slew of characters and then *killing every last one of them* (even if it later turns out they miraculously survived) does not create a compelling story. Especially when the main character they randomly dump on you turns out to be, hands down, the most annoying Final Fantasy character I can recall.

      Did you happen to skip FFX? Beca
  • by aadvancedGIR (959466) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @11:42AM (#19411567)
    I really wish they just won't make a STALKER with hookers but rather a RPG with rich content. Seeing NextGens in the platform list is not IMHO good omen.
  • I hope they don't mangle the PC Fallout 3 UI to match what would look good on a console (like they did in Oblivion) - or at least make the UI moddable. Inventory/spell management was a giant pain in vanilla Oblivion (huge icons/font). Off topic, but I have the same worries about how Bioshock will feel on a PC as well...
    • Another thing I'm worried about is minigames. The lockpicking minigame in Oblivion was pure torture on the PC, and even finding the mouse pointer so that you could click auto attempt was annoying! The persuasion minigame didn't at least penalize mouse users, but it was pretty pointless and broke immersion. So hopefully Bethesda learned their lesson, and does not have any minigames in FO3.
  • Not that I didn't like Oblivion, just that it wasn't so much an RPG with such a linear story. Fallout was great because there were so many different ways to complete the game, or even many of the quests. Oblivion was more FPS than RPG because the decisions you make have little to no impact on the outcome of the game. So please Bethesda, don't ruin such a great game franchise!
  • truly excellent? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by brkello (642429)
    How in the world was the Fallout trailer excellent? It was a camera panning out to show a devestated city. It could have been a trailer for any generic post-apocalyptic game. Really, I understand being a huge fan of a game but that probably ranks as one of the most boring trailers ever created.
    • by eddy (18759)

      It was excellent if you were worried that they wouldn't understand the franchise AT ALL The trailer was basically a homage to the series.

      p Now, it remains to be seen that they can actually implement it. I'm afraid they know very well that the game won't live up to the ideals, and they just wanted something out there to placate the masses (how ironic!). That it's being targeted at consoles isn't encouraging at all. Remember, this is a game where you expect to be able to -- if you so please -- murder childr

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Nephilium (684559)

        Don't forget, you could also become a porn star, get married, and sell your spouse into slavery...

        Something tells me if this goes to consoles, we'll have a brand new franchise for people to say how horrible it is, and how it corrupts 'teh children!'...

        Nephilium

        • claims they are producing a "Post-aocalyptic murderous rampage simulator" that is teaching our our children how to brutally slaughter innocent supermutants, hideous aliens and horrible genetically enginereed kiling machines.

          Cue Bethesda's respons : "Yeah, what of it?"
      • You honestly think that the PS3 and 360 are aimed at children? Considering that the best sellers on both these consoles' predecessors weren't exactly child-friendly (like GTA (killing random passerbys for the hell of it, having sex with prostitutes) and Halo) and the current hits (like Resistance and Gears of War (where you can chainsaw your opponent while he's on the ground and have blood splatter all over the screen)) are also quite gory, I wouldn't say so.

        So they'll give it an "M" rating and be done with
    • by Bigboote66 (166717) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:40PM (#19412579)
      The trailer's exciting to Fallout fans because it is in line with the intro movies from the first two Fallout games ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=WkBNKa2KXZE [youtube.com] , http://youtube.com/watch?v=e3PXiV95kwA [youtube.com] ). There's a lot of fear in the fan community that Bethesda will "ruin" the franchise; this trailer is Bethesda's way of saying that they're on the same page as the fans. Whether or not they follow through on the promise is another matter.

      Also, the trailer is just plain good from a production/drama standpoint. It's a teaser trailer, which, pretty much by definition, is not meant to show you an MTV-style montage of game footage (those trailers are the most boring to me), but just let you know, "The game exists, we're working on it, here's something to let you know how excited we are about the movie." Compare this to teaser trailers from movies like "Strange Days" that featured nothing but an extreme closeup of Ralph Fiennes talking for 2 minutes.

      -BbT
      • by Eideewt (603267) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @04:02PM (#19415709)
        As a Fallout fan, I found it more worrying than exciting. The constant thing in the intro movies for Fallout, Fallout 2 and even Fallout Tactics was the human element, and this trailer here was the total opposite. The Fallout intro had the soldiers shooting the guy and laughing, followed by a soldier in front of the flag, commercials (buy war bonds!) and an account of the war. Fallout 2 had a film about leaving the vault, with short-sighted advice ("line up in an orderly fashion", "wear dark glasses") and, of course, vault dwellers going out to meet the rest of humanity and getting gunned down as they wave. Fallout Tactics had some BoS guys zooming across the desert in their truck, listening to music and stopping for a magazine. You saw this view of human nature throughout the games as well (Fallout Tactics less than the other two, but it was a different kind of game).

        The Fallout 3 trailer was completely missing that human element. It had the old-timey music and the bombed out city, followed by scary music and a robotic guy in armor. Without the "this is what we are, and we'll be the same no matter what world we live in" attitude, I am not at all reassured that Fallout 3 will live up to its predecessors. I don't expect a game intro level of quality from a teaser trailer, but I did expect to see the above. If the armor suited guy had been doing something human (polishing his helmet or pissing, perhaps), and they had delayed the scary music and view of the city until after he had shown up, I would feel a lot better.
        • That is the best reason I've ever heard for not liking the teaser. No one I've ever seen has been so articulate or so damn reasonable. Congratulations.
      • I'm a big Fallout fan and I'm decidedly unexcited. This trailer shows no gameplay and doesn't lay to rest any of my fears concerning dialog, meaningful choices with consequences, good story, good game mechanics etc etc etc. Yeah, the setting and feel is important, but it's only a part of it. If they only get that right and none of the rest, basically it wouldn't be more than a STALKER clone.
    • by westlake (615356)
      It was a camera panning out to show a devestated city. It could have been a trailer for any generic post-apocalyptic game.

      The teaser echoes the unforgettable intro to Fallout One.

      It is precisely what every fan of the original has been praying for.

      Fallout is one of a handful of RPGs that exist outside the fantasy framework of D&D and Star Wars. There are no generic post-apocalyptic games.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Eideewt (603267)
        Not at all it doesn't. Look at the armored guys in the Fallout intro, then look at the guy in this teaser again. I'm afraid they've got all the incidentals right, but totally missed the soul.
  • by kabocox (199019) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:08PM (#19412015)
    Follow this link http://www.square-enix.com/jp/ir/e/stock/stockhold er/ [square-enix.com] and look at entry number four. Sony owns 8.5% of Square Enix. I thought Nintendo had owned a part of Square at one point in time, but I don't recongize any of the others as being either Nintendo or MS related. If MS or Nintendo want to tell/force Square Enix to develop for their consoles, then they might want to buy a large share of that company.
    • But they do make games for nintendo consoles. Perhaps the simpler answer is:

      A) Square-enix sell most of their games in Japan
      B) In Japan, all Microsoft consoles flop horribly.

      No secret plot, just business sense.
  • by grapeape (137008) <(moc.rr.ck) (ta) (7epopm)> on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:25PM (#19412359) Homepage
    The heart and soul of Final Fantasy Hironobu Sakaguchi (The Co-Founder of square as well as the creator and executive producer of Final Fantasy 1-12) and Kensuke Tanaka (developer of Squares's online service and producer on many FF titles) are both gone and are with Mistwalker developing games exclusively for the 360. So dont worry 360 fans will get all the RPG goodness they can stand. Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey are all on the way, it will be interesting to see if Final Fantasy is more Sakaguchi or more Square-Enix. IMHO Final Fantasy without Sakaguchi is like Guitar Hero without Harmonix.

    • by skobar (890726)
      What if guitar hero 3 turns out to be great or even better than guitar hero 2?
      • by grapeape (137008)
        Then we find that a developer has been able to trump Harmonix at its own game, who knows we find the same with FFXIII. On the other hand if Rock Band is better than GHIII then we know just how insrumental (no pun intended) Harmonix was to the GH franchise.
  • Did I read the summary wrong, or is there actually going to be RE 5 on Wii? I really hope so! Especially since Konami decided that even though it was technically possible, it didn't make sense to put Silent Hill 5 on Wii (booo Konami!)
    • I saw RE 5 on Wii and read it as: RHEL 5 on Wii and was like?? They are porting RHEL 5 to the Wii with the cordless controllers?

      that is it I am going home now.
    • by mharms1 (884992)
      I think that the summary is a bit misleading. It looks like they're porting Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles and Resident Evil 4 to Wii. Umbrella Chronicles looks like a fun, House of the Dead style lightgun shooter, set in the Resident Evil universe.
  • Looks great but (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sckeener (137243) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @12:36PM (#19412515)
    Fallout came out in 1997 and Fallout 2 came out in 1998. Looks like fallout 3 is coming out for the 10th anniversary of Fallout 2. Who is the target market? 20 somethings that still have time to do solo gaming?

    Looks great and I would love to play it.

    I just do not have the time for solo games any more. The only time I have for myself is reading in the bathroom or on the bus. Maybe I could play it if it was on a handheld like a psp. Also, bonding with other would also help me justify the time, so co-op or multiplayer would be good too. My fiance and I love playing shades of gray type games...what better than Fallout!
       
  • Someone for Square Enix is definately going to be fired over this mistake of not releasing FFXIII for the 360. XBOX 360 is the current next gen console who has sold the most and continues to gain speed. Don't believe it...check out the lovely sales statistics from Austrailia (1 million games sold in 14 months, a new record for any console). Sure FF has been mostly PS exclusivebut with FFXI and the new FF on 360 plus many releases for other portable consoles recently it makes it only the next best move to

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by k_187 (61692)
      two things

      1. the PS3 is beating the pants off the 360 in Japan. 2. There are a large number of people who will buy a PS3 for a new final fantasy.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Yosho (135835)
      Here's some statistics for you: http://www.the-magicbox.com/topten.htm [the-magicbox.com]

      This year alone, the Wii has sold over three times as many units as the PS3 in Japan. It's sold over fifteen times as many units as the Xbox 360. Why would Square-Enix, a Japanese company, want to release the next entry in their largest franchise for the weakest system? You should keep in mind that the rest of the world is a secondary concern for them.
  • ...on Microsoft's console.

    Except, y'know, for the one that already exists. [teamxbox.com]

    Chris Mattern

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. - Niels Bohr

Working...