*Looks* good, but kinda concerned how it actually plays. I wish that they would have thought more about how casually nukes are injected in the game.

Originally Posted by aries100
I'm also a bit concerned about the silly humour, and Todd's vision that violence somehow is funny. Yes, violence in the tom & jerry show is funny, because violence in this series is used to portray a conflict between the two, not just used for it's own sake, like I get the feeling it is in Fallout 3 ?

Fallout and Fallout 2 were filled with silly humor and violence is funny stuff, you know that right?

I find the criticisms so far stated for this game to be very weak actually. I played FO1 and FO2 for years with all sorts of different character combos and loved it. What I liked best about the game was the concept, the feeling, and the universe that was created - not the graphics, or the combat system. And I personally don't feel that Bethesda has dropped the ball on this account. The NMA article criticizes Bethesda for not being innovative enough in their approach… what do they want in the way of innovation? Because I am sure that if Bethesda came at this project from an approach that differed radically from the core elements of the originals the NMA criticism would be that it doesn't adhere to the "core principles" of the series - damned if you do, damned if you don't. The other piece of concern from the NMA article regards the final analysis by BrotherNone that states, "Fallout 3 looks like a well-produced, very pretty, very fun game that'll provide quite a few people with a lot of hours of enjoyment. However, I don't think it's anything more than a very pretty and fun game." How is that a bad thing? It's like the NMA article authors need a life-changing event in their gaming… shouldn't a game really be for fun?

Yes, I know that there are silly humour in Fallout 1+2, however, it seems to be more subtle and downplayed than what Bethesda are doing in Fallout 3. Violence in Fallout 1+2 was also funny, sometimes, but often it was more unintentional (e.g. not to be perceieved as funny) - and that made it funny.

Originally Posted by Corwin
Welcome to the forums; nice to see someone from the beautiful city you live in!!

Thank you

Originally Posted by aries100
It seems, to me, that what brother none wrote in the NMA preview, probably is true.
Especially about the setting: it seems like a generic post apoc setting added with a sprinkle of Fallout. I'm also concerned about the BoS being knights of the wasteland and that supermutants are only seen as bad -aehm- people?

I don't know, isn't the "generic post apocalyptic setting with a sprinkling of Fallout", exactly what the Fallout setting is? Generic post nuclear world, with the 50s retro-future twist?
Visually at least, I think they have captured this well from what I have seen.

Some of the other bits are maybe somewhat worrying, especially considering Bethesdas late record on simple stroytelling, but on the other hand its still too early to tell how the writing turns out. One thing is clear, they need to up their writing considerably from Oblivion to get it right.

Voted for "can't decide". Some previews call it Oblivion with guns, others say it's a game made to fit the Fallout legacy. To me, Oblivion and Fallout are worlds apart, so I have yet to get a clear picture of what Bethesda is really making - it can't be *both* Oblivion with guns, and still true to the Fallout legacy; that is impossible.

I voted "Good, but some concerns" thanks to a combination of naive optimism and avoidance of information about the game so as not to spoil the experience when I inevitably play it. My concerns are fairly big ones (to me). While there was certainly silliness in the Fallouts, there was still an ever present gritty realism that always appeals to me in games. Some elements I've heard about in Fallout 3 seem to exceed the level of silliness I can tolerate. I'm equally disappointed with some of the elements being omitted because they are too controversial. But it's hard to blame them for that. All in all, I'm determined not to prejudge too much.

Originally Posted by Guhndahb
I voted "Good, but some concerns" thanks to a combination of naive optimism and avoidance of information about the game so as not to spoil the experience when I inevitably play it. My concerns are fairly big ones (to me). While there was certainly silliness in the Fallouts, there was still an ever present gritty realism that always appeals to me in games. Some elements I've heard about in Fallout 3 seem to exceed the level of silliness I can tolerate. I'm equally disappointed with some of the elements being omitted because they are too controversial. But it's hard to blame them for that. All in all, I'm determined not to prejudge too much.

Perfect, now I won't have to write a reply on my own! That's my reply. Well, that - the humor thing (that's one of the main reasons I liked the second so much, while it was sincere most of the time it made fun of itself in a hillarious way from time to time).

Übereil

Selfdeprecating humor might be a good way to describe F1 & F2 humor, which is much more difficult to write, more accessable and much more memorable, certinaly more so than the sort of laughing "at you" humor bethesda seems to be use.

boy do i share that sentiment Acleacius.

This will be the bestest game eva! It will get even higher scores than Bioshock, because it's Bethesda, and because reviews will be surrounded by all sides with advertisements for Fallout 3! And playing the game for more than one hour will heal cancer, impotence, and acne.

I just did a search to find a Omega Syndrome review and found one on Duck and Cover.
I noticed they had a F3 poll also and the strange thing is their results seem to mirror RPGWatch's.
http://www.duckandcover.cx/content.php?id=64

Also they had a nice pic of todd, whom couldn't seem to keep his eyes off the interviewers cleavage, during G4.
http://www.duckandcover.cx/gallery/d…lbum=79&pos=11

Certinaly seems intresting that 66% of fans are either not sure or not happy and with only 33% are positive about the game.

Funny pic—that microphone is close enough for a little head slappage.

AFA the polls, you have to put them in context, (RPG fans and people who enjoyed the original Fallouts) but I agree that even so, 66% shows that the hype isn't working for many.

Haha Ionstormsucks, certain games are MIRACLES! Some day we'll replace the entire medical community with a game from Bethesda. I can see the commercials already:

"Are you fat? Lonely? Bored? Bald? Impotent? Tired? Come on then, play Fallout 4 from Bethesda, and you'll be just like me in no time!" - Yet another famous actor signed by Bethesda.

At any rate, they do make decent games, I just don't consider them as revolutionary as the reviewing community.

Every game Bethesda has done has been about potential as opposed to realised potential. I've seen or heard nothing about Fallout 3 that would make me think otherwise.

Furthermore, ever since Morrowind, they've been focused on designing their games around their perception of what the typical console audience desires, which for a hardcore PC gamer such as myself, is not good.

So, I'd have to say the closest option is "not impressed…."

Fallout was the quintessential PC RPG, and as such, I have a very hard time appreciating Bethesda at the helm of the second sequel. It's like putting an X-Com sequel in the hands of Lionhead Studios or something. I can just imagine Molyneux: "½ button tactical combat! People don't like pressing their mouse buttons, so we make them apply only half the pressure this time around so they last twice as long before putting the game down."

Yeah, those guys know all about game design, or they wouldn't have sold millions of copies.

Funny how no one talks about bethesda's second 2006 smash hit.
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpage…0trek%20legacy

Personally when a great company like (crap what was there name again) has two master pieces in one year, it really shows how you F3 nay sayers don't have a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by Acleacius
Personally when a great company like (crap what was there name again) has two master pieces in one year, it really shows how you F3 nay sayers don't have a leg to stand on.

It's also great when people (crap what was his name again?) can differentiate between developing and publishing a game .

Originally Posted by Acleacius
Funny how no one talks about bethesda's second 2006 smash hit.
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpage…0trek%20legacy

Personally when a great company like (crap what was there name again) has two master pieces in one year, it really shows how you F3 nay sayers don't have a leg to stand on.

Master piece? The BEST score it got in those reviews was 65%!

Übereil

I'm pretty sure sarcasm was involved