Fallout 3 Fundamentals Released via Game Informer 135
CVG is carrying details out of the newest Game Informer magazine, which has a huge feature on Fallout 3. The relatively spoiler free information gives us hints at some of the biggest elements of the game, such as combat, character creation and growth, and the possibility of multiple endings. " Fallout 3 kicks off with your birth and your mother's death in a vault hospital. This is where you get to create you character as your father (voiced by Liam Neeson) hands you over to the DNA analyser, before removing his mask to reveal similar traits to the ones you picked ... Fans will be pleased to hear that the Karma system is making a return, and there are 9-12 possible endings based on your actions. If it's even half as good as Oblivion, this should turn out to be something very special indeed."
I won't hold my breath..... (Score:1)
Re:I won't hold my breath..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I won't hold my breath..... (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, the interesting and meaningful parts of a game aren't things as prosaic as the game's camera setting. Fallout was define by its diverse freedom of choice, dark but wry humour, strong story and NPCs and fantastic setting. The camera and combat system in Fallout Tactics was precisely the same as Fallout 1/2, but it wasn't even the palest shadow of either of those titles. Clearly, the combat/camera system alone isn't what defines Fallout. As long as Bethesda brings those quintessential Fallout thematics and aesthetics to Fallout 3, I think it will carry the torch of the Fallout legacy very well.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet I still hate MetroidPrime with passion, while I love the 2D ones. There definitively was a lot that got lost in translation, the however majority didn't seem to care.
I however wouldn't worry much about Fallout3, if it turns out ugly, one couldn't have done anything anyway and if it turns out good, then well, we have one more great game. So lets appr
Re: (Score:2)
Diablo on the PS1 was the same Diablo as on the PC.
Deus Ex on the PS2 was the same game.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
De
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't referring to Invisible War, I was referring to the original, which had a PS2 port. (with mouse and keyboard support)
I think that was part of the problem with Invisible War, it was designed with the Xbox in mind and not the PS
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
HOWEVER, agreed that the game should not use Oblivion (or any of TES games) as a benchmark for what F
Re: (Score:2)
Baldur's Gate proved that they can be very closely related, though. Turn-based can be real-time that automatically pauses every time you finished your move and can start your next one.
Ahhh, GI, spouting shit like normal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah. Frigging Amazing. I was friggin amazed they released it because the camera was so bad. And then friggin amazed that they brought the same shitty camera system into Donkey Kong Country.
Re: (Score:2)
DKC was for SNES by the way. You probably mean DK64.
Re: (Score:1)
And yes, they eventually improved upon it, but I thought those first couple iterations were awful.
Re: (Score:2)
DKC games were amazing, at least the first two. And the music was sooo good. Maybe the next Banjo game will bring Rare ba
Re: (Score:2)
But it turned out to be one of the best games of the year, if not the best. It stayed true to the original Prince of Persia 2D games while re-inventing itself with a much smarter story and nearly-flawless conversion of the same running-and-jumping gameplay to 3D.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, it's an incredibly stupid thing to say. I can come up with broad similarities in both games that I'm sure you'd want to see in Fallout 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, it's an incredibly stupid thing to say. I can come up with broad similarities in both games that I'm sure you'd want to see in Fallout 3.
how about a car analogy?
Re:Ahhh, GI, spouting shit like normal (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of the beauty of Fallout was the Action Point-based combat. It forced you to stop and think about what you were doing every "round." This sounds like a major step downward to me - a token AP system to appease the fans, while having a real-time system to draw the Oblivion-FPS crew.
That said, I do understand why they need to do this. Unfortunately, computer gaming in general and especially RPGs are on a downward trend as far as sales go. You have a couple of big names - Oblivion, Neverwinter Nights - and a bunch of smaller names that just get ignored. Why would a smaller company waste time on that when they could make a console game, where RPGs still enjoy a large following?
Bringing it around full circle, Fallout was a big brand back in the day, but by this point, I don't doubt that it will have been built up so much by people when it comes out that it will inevitably disappoint a large number of people. Better to just ignore all the hype until the game comes out.
Re:Ahhh, GI, spouting shit like normal (Score:4, Interesting)
Game mechanics have to change with the times
Having the kind of graphics engine they will, that jarring effect will be even more pronounced if they had gone with the classic AP system.
You morons whining about how it won't be exactly like your precious original fallout annoy the hell out of me. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" you say - but a lot of it WAS broken by today's standards. It's still extremely entertaining to dust off and play, but it still has gameplay flaws: just like every other game out there. It was a fantastic game, one of the best, but even the best have faults. Remember that.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The only reason the original Fallout game mechanics have been tossed completely out the window is that the rights to the franchise were sold off. Black Isle's vision of Fallout 3 [wikipedia.org] sought to preserve the core gameplay while updating the engine.
Saying that every game must be a real-time FPS hybrid for the sake of modernity is strange considering the FPS predates the isometric turn-based CRPG. The true, primary reason behind the switch is that command-heavy, isometric
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Ahhh, GI, spouting shit like normal (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, for the most part I'm not sure game mechanics have really developed at all in the sense you describe. We have come up with some entirely new ones, and mixed and matched old ones in innovative ways, but for the most part we're dealing with the same pool of game mechanics with more developed UIs, AIs, and graphics.
This one might surprise me, you never know. But I'd still like a game -- even one in a different setting, so long as the setting was also good -- that made evolutionary developments to the old turn-based action point system. Hell, Fallout Tactics was unpopular, but it had a kind of hybrid real-time and action point system that wasn't so bad. From what I've seen preliminarily here, this will likely have game mechanics that I generally do not enjoy.
Now, let me take a moment to strawman attack you
When you call people morons for having the opposite preference in game mechanics to you, I am reminded of the forum complainers and even "professional" reviewers who complain that the Civilization series hasn't modernized to include such developments as "real-time". You see it every now and again -- "wow, Civilization is a great game, but you know what would make it better? Making it into a StarCraft clone!" It baffles me because Civilization doesn't seem to me to be very much more related to an RTS than either is to an FPS.
In the same way, I find your claim that this is simply a development, a fixing of a broken system, to be ignorant of the fact that people may not prefer the exchange for a different broken system (you yourself admitted that all games have gameplay flaws). The argument would make sense only if the system were fundamentally the better (or the same) in every conceivable way (or very, very nearly so). Again, hypothetically we can imagine that this might be so when the game is released. I just have sincere doubts.
I liked the big battles and the way that all played out, and if I'm a moron, that's not the reason I'm a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, I am not so sure about that. The same combination of an AP-based combat and superb storytelling (art and all) was seen in another kick-ass game: the original UFO. If you think about it, the combat systems are nearly identical. What they are doing is certainly a big loss, if not for the Fallout, then for me personally. I never liked real-time tactics; Gears Of War is the only exception so far,
Re:Ahhh, GI, spouting shit like normal (Score:4, Insightful)
Nevermind these people seemingly find nothing of redeeming value in the Fallout universe itself, instead acting like it was purely the game mechanics that made the game what it was. Why they would care about a continuation of said universe in a true-to-it's-roots (So far so good on that) manner?
True fans will judge the game on the proper merits after having a chance to give it a twirl and see how Bethesda did. The rest will simply bitch that it's not simply a rehash of the game system they enjoyed back when it was judged the best way to experience the game world.
P.S. -- Am I the only one who played Fallout Tactics without the classic obvious turn-based system and actually found it more enjoyable to have more of a sense of urgency? Continuous Turn-Based for the freakin' win.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Party like it was 1997 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But you know that already I'm sure, just chose to ignore it so you could bitch about something
Hint: When tearing down stupid statements, stick to the stupid parts...there's no need to invent your own
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ahhh, GI, spouting shit like normal (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, if Fallout 3 has a wide open world where you explore a vast world mostly on your own, where you quest at your own pace, and where you can play using stealth/violence/etc at your own discretion, then it will have failed as a Fallout game?
Seriously, Fallout and Oblivion are very different games (c.f. their combat systems, for instance), but they have many, many similarities in structure and game flow. Why will being "remotely" like Oblivion ruin Fallout 3 when Fallout 1 and 2 are already "remotely" like Oblivion as it stands?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You teach those opinionated bastards a lesson!
(In other words, try to learn what subjectivity is and you might just make another comment on
Re: (Score:1)
ravenshrike is right; comparing F3 to Oblivion, and pretending the latter was perfect is a lame and blatantly obvious attempt to benefit from all the hype. It adds nothing to the actual content of the news entry. Besides, any competent journalist should know that such comparison will piss off many Fallout fans.
Re: (Score:2)
And what exactly am I fanboy of? Please explain, because the last time I checked I thought Oblivion was good but not great, and I have never played Fallout in my life. Please, please extrapolate on how my attempt to bring some moderation to the conversation was fanboyism.
Ah, another Oblivion hater (Score:1, Interesting)
The problem with Morrowind and Oblivion is that they are of that rare breed, the western RPG... or are they?
Morrowind and Oblivion allow the player to travel anywhere anytime BUT are at the same time on rails.
This is an odd mix of western and japanese style RPG.
A typical Bioware western RPG restricts where you can move at certain time BUT typically gives you a certain amount of freedom to choose your alignment.
A typical japanese RPG gives you a named character to play with a pre-defined background and you f
Re: (Score:2)
However, as Obscuro's Oblivion Overhaul shows, the game could have been made open ended without being 'weird' about it. I admit that when I'm thinking of Oblivion, I'm always thinking of the game with OOO installed...which isn't fair as at this point, the bulk of people that have played Oblivion have no idea what this is as it isn't available on consoles, only on PC. Vanilla Oblivion while good, i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Many do in fact have more then one ending. The games that do that typically have several branch points where your action top that point, or a choice you make at that point determines the path you go down.
Sure the whole thing is still completely on rails but more then one differeing ending is not unheard of.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't agree with what they say, therefore they're "spouting shit?" Please.
If it's remotely anything like Oblivion, except for the fact that it's first person, it will have failed miserably as a Fallout game.
They didn't say "like" Oblivion, they said "as good as" Oblivion.
Take this following sentence for example: "If it's even half as good as Unreal Tournament, this should turn out to be something special." Does that imply that Fallout will have a disembodied announcer
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, it'll have failed as a small name computer RPG that's ten YEARS old this year.
My god, what will Bethesda do?!?
I guess they'll just have to, you know, make a really kickass modern CRPG, of which Oblivion is considered one of the best examples of. The guys at NMA-Fallout blubbering nonwithstanding.
THE HORROR! The next thing you'll know, Nintendo will start making THREE
Re: (Score:1)
Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop comparing it to Oblivion. A lot of people hated it and a lot of people liked it. I'm hoping Bethesda has enough sense to realize that they're making a sequel to a game that they didn't create, not a sequel to a game they did make. These should be two distinct games, not a post-apocalyptic Oblivion. It should be good compared to Fallout 1 and 2, not Oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stop (Score:5, Informative)
"Internally, we're a bunch of Fallout geeks. There is nobody [here] who hasn't played that game and enjoyed it. I have that game on my laptop, I take it with me and play it. But it's definitely different, because it's not really considered ours, the franchise. We didn't start it. There is a little bit of that sentiment out there that we have to prove that we're worthy to be the guys to make Fallout 3. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, because we have very high expectations for ourselves."
So, yes, they have acknowledge that it's not a series that they created, and that they have a lot to live up to.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be frank: I never liked the mechanics in fallout. It pretty much made a few builds unbeatable, and that was all there is to it. If you decided to go any way other than pure ranged combat, you had to be an expert in running like hell, b
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
You don't play real pen-and-paper RPGs in real-time, and the original D&D was based on a tabletop wargame. So yeah, there are going to be a lot of fans of turn-based game mechanics attracted to RPGs. Lashing out against those attracted to CRPGs because of the tactical combat aspect is a bit backwards.
And
Re: (Score:1)
He's totally wrong, of course. A good single-player role-playing game like Morrowind (not to be confused with roll-playing games, like e.g. Neverwinter Nights becomes in single-player mode) does permit roleplaying of a genuine sort, if admittedly limited in scope.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. I played through and had a very good time with a purely melee character in both Fallout games. Lots of AP + a Super Sledgehammer is surprisingly effective.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: Pete Hines: "Internally, not really. Internally, we're a bunch of Fallout geeks. There is nobody [here] who hasn't played that game and enjoyed it. I have that game on my laptop, I take it with me and play it. But it's definitely different, because it's not really considered ours, the franchise. We didn't start it. There is a little bit of that sentiment out there that we have to prove that we're worthy to be the guys to make Fallout 3. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, because we have very high expectations for ourselves. The standard that we hold ourselves to, the kind of games we expect to make in terms of quality, we have a very high level of expectation. There's really nothing like the people from the outside expecting more than we expect ourselves."
The notion that all Bethesda devs have played and loved Fallout is highly questionable, considering that in 2004, one Bethesda developer registered as HayT on the Something Awful forums stated:
Quote: I also need to find time to play through Fallout 2 now, which is a game I never got to. Don't know when the hell that's going to happen, as I'm a little behind on work as it is.[43]
You're trusting their marketing geek? He's in fucking marketing. And public relations. You should automatically take what he says and assume it's at least 75% bullshit.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not Fallout 3 is what NMA wants it to be - or bears any real resemblance to the previous titles in the series - is irrelevant to me. I want Fallout 3 to be enjoyable to me, not the rabid 0.01% of the community who think they know *EXACTLY* what Fallout 3 m
Personally (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it stick with the "classic isometric view" of the other Fallout's? No, it doesn't. Is the gaming world the same as it was back then? Far from it.
If they pull this off right, think of how insane it could be. Imagine having gone through fallout in first person. Imagine going through New Reno in first person. Imagine experiencing the crazy and insane things you went through in fallout, but through the eyes of the protagonist.
Personally, I feel there is MASSIVE potential here for drawing you into the gameworld. I think there is a great opportunity to make you feel like you are surviving in a destroyed and shattered world, instead of "just playing a game"
Fallout 1 & 2 are classics that can never be duplicated. I say let Bethesda try to modernize it.
So long as they don't re-invent it and they just "modernize" it, I forsee this potentially being a game worthy of the "classic" status. Don't be so quick to judge, approach it with an open mind.
I can't wait to come face-to-face with a mutant with today's graphic and animation technology.
It's not first person (Score:2)
From TFA:
The long-awaited sequel runs on an evolved version of the Oblivion engine, although Bethesda says it's reworked the third-person view because of negative feedback from its last role-player.
I'm hoping it's 3rd person. If it weren't the elder scrolls team making the game, I'd be more in favor of it. 3rd person is part of what gives Fallout its flavor. Having gone back and played the Fallout 2, I'm amazed at how little time I spend walk around compared to a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
>"modernize" it,
Going from isometric to first person is NOT 'modernize'. It's a change, that's all.
First person is certainly not a necessity for many games. That annoys me when games use it when it doesn't bring that much to a game.
Plus, there is another problem: I don't play FPS because they make me sea-sick (except FarCry because it mostly takes place outdoors), and I've heard many people complain about the same pb. Making the game 1st person will pre
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with the maturation of the games industry. I think Fallout works BEACUSE of the isometric view. Blizzard, for example, is smart and they're keeping Starcraft 2 isometric view because they know it is what made that game so good. Konami has tried to make the Castlevania series in 3D and has failed horribly. Castlevani
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even name a major RTS title made in the last ten years that was anything else...I mean, you have those crazy RTS-action hybrid games, but those again are not plain ol' RTS...
Apples to oranges...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, Fallout 1 & 2 will remain two of my favourite games for all time. They were massive achievements in game design, one which will likely never be equaled again.
Which is EXACTLY why I'm glad Bethesda isn't making "just another isometric Fallout". I think as the gaming industry has matured, the games should mature along with it.
Beyond that, Bethesda will inject
Re: (Score:2)
When all you have is a hammer ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the difference between "Oh crap - my guy is being shot at!" and "Oh crap - I'm being shot at!"
I too liked the old game, but I think what made it great had more to do with the ambience, the mood of it, the feel of the environment, the people, than with the engine. Most of all, it had a very strong theme of contrast and conflict - death and survival, destruction and rebuilding, gloom and hope - that started from
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
^special^crappy^
Oblivion was a very pretty game, with very bad game design.
The entire world would scale to match the level of your character. So as a 1st level character, you can go into the Arena and kill the reigning champion with the same amount of difficulty as you would at 20th level. Maybe even easier... if you leveled your character in non-optimal ways (especially if you didn't go through the mind-numbing process of repeating actions for 10 minutes to maximize your stat gains) your character would be less powerful at 20th than at 1st.
Thievery was even worse. If you tried breaking into people's houses (a common activity for the thief archetype), don't try to do it at low levels. All the houses in the game (even nobles' houses) are filled with nothing valuable. Because you're not high level. It's totally backwards. The way it should be designed is this: a nobles' house should be protected by high level guards. If I can defeat them, then it should have jewels and stuff in it, not apples. Because I'm 3rd level.
There are mods out there (like Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul) that fix the problem somewhat, but nothing but a total revamp of the game dyamics would make it a good RPG. A core feature that makes RPGs fun is that your character gets better over time. "Treading water", Oblivion's paradigm, is by contrast not fun.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, I completely agree. The auto-level 'feature' ruined a lot of Oblivion for me. The ridiculous grind for stats also bothered me. When I play games, I want my character to be as good as he can possibly be. When a game forces me to jump in place three hundred times in order to maximize the character potential, I start wondering why I play it. When the game also does not let me feel that my character is significantly more powerful as he grows, I stop playing it. With Oblivion, I got disguste
Re: (Score:2)
OOO is a decent start, but as you say, it still needs a massive amount of work to turn Oblivion into something genuinely good. In particular, it
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Often this will be the case even if you did level up optimally.
(Some spoilers may be contained past this point.)
E.g., remember the quest to save the painter from his own painting? The one with the painted trolls and the turpentine? Well, the turpentine does _massive_ damage to the trolls at level 1, compared to their HP, but a whole lot less at level 30.
The end fight? If you somehow managed to get that fight at level 1, he's a lot easier than when you're high level. Basically the more side-quests you do, the more you'll be at a disadvantage at the end.
The same applies to most quests where you have some helpers or must keep someone alive. While their stats _are_ levelled, their equipment is often the same at all levels. (E.g., while monster equipment is levelled, the city guards often have a fixed equipment at all levels.) At higher levels, the enemies wipe out the city guards, for example.
Thievery, hmm, actually having played a thief, I'd say thievery is just fucked up. There just isn't any good loot in houses at all levels. An engraved silver challice sells for... what? 2 coins at the fence? And that's pretty much _all_ that will be the difference between a great noble's house and a commoner's house: the commoner will have tin knives and ceramics glasses (worth 0g each), while the noble will have some silverware too.
And most of the "scenery" loot is the same at all levels, anyway. Chances are those nobles will still have a ceramic bowl (worth 0 coins) with some apples in it even when you're level 30+. Now if they have a weapon or such, that might (or might not) get scaled, but the stuff on their tables and shelves will still be worth crap.
Stuff in chests and drawers is scaled, but even there, it often scales the same for commoners too.
Often the thing that's actually worth anything in a house are the grain and bread and stuff, because they can be turned into potions. And with high alchemy skill, those sell for a fair bit of coin. But the thing is, it's easier and risk-free to go in the woods and get some reagents instead of burgling homes for it. And commoner homes often have more of that stuff anyway, if you absolutely must steal your reagents.
So this means (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire world would scale to match the level of your character. So as a 1st level character, you can go into the Arena and kill the reigning champion with the same amount of difficulty as you would at 20th level. Maybe even easier... if you leveled your character in non-optimal ways (especially if you didn't go through the mind-numbing process of repeating actions for 10 minutes to maximize your stat gains) your character would be less powerful at 20th than at 1st.
Except that the article (have it here in
Reminds me of... (Score:2)
Nothing agains Liam Neeson, however. He's one of my favorite actors.
Hopefully, not like Oblivion (Score:2, Insightful)
That sounds horrible. The combat systems sounds like Max Payne meets KotOR, not Fallout. Also, the ability to be stealthy or charismatic shouldn't be bonus ways of doing things, they should be considered there by defaul
9-12 possible endings (Score:1)
A fine mist (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Half as good as Oblivion? (Score:2)
Morrowind had giant mushrooms, insect mines, floating jellyfish, plant-castles, mongolian yurts,
hindu derived gods, cities built under giant crabs, underwater ruins, giant flea vehicles,
flying spells, etc...
Oblivion had deer, butterflies and tudor villages. No flying, nothing underwater, and a bland
European theme that was about as imaginative as the local renaissance fair.
The interface, gameworld and game play of Oblivi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Mixed feelings (Score:2, Interesting)
Slashdot is Enabling Mass Copyright Infringement (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
-Creepy, bitter Fallout fanboys [check]
Re: (Score:2)