Fallout 3 - Yet Another Roundup

I'm not even going to attempt to catch up on Fallout 3 but here's a small collection of some of the better or more interesting articles over the last couple of days (some courtesy of NMA - thanks).
First, A blog at Wired caused a little controversy, declaring the look was right but the writing missed the mark:

The key problem with the game though is in the writing. It really feels like someone wrote a fanfic based on the Fallout universe and somehow got the funding to create a game based on it. Though the story and characters are suitably gritty and conflicted, none of them are terribly likeable and the entire thing simply feels like it's trying too hard to adhere to the tenets of its predecessors.
I predict a heavy backlash from long-time fans. At best Fallout 3 will be the blacksheep of the series: An oddity played only for completion's sake by those who absolutely adore the original games.
Luckily for Bethesda, the game will sell tons of copies to those gamers less in love with the series' past if only for its gorgeous graphics, entertaining gameplay and ridiculous levels of gore.

Click to expand...

As a counterpoint, on the Qt3 forums, game writer Tom Chick questions if you can assess the writing after 30 minutes:

Man, that's really disappointing to read that stuff on Wired. I had my thirty minutes with the game today and it was over like *that*. I barely had time to meet a few characters, dig the combat against a couple of molerats and dogs, and do a little perking up, all the while tuned into a crackly broadcast playing some Billie Holiday. Based on these preliminary bits of awesomeness, I couldn't even begin to comment on the quality of the writing. Because pretty much all I've seen are a few dialog choices.

It's a mystery to me how Earnest Cav. can make pronouncements like he's made based on the thirty minutes of time we get at E3. That's a pretty sad smear job.

Click to expand...

Back to actual previews...Rock, Paper, Shotgun are really excited about the VATS system:

That it feels like Oblivion is a pretty important thing to note, I think. Because as a result (and I have to note that I played this with an Xbox 360 pad, not a mouse and keyboard) I didn’t like the real time fighting any more than I did in Oblivion. In fact less, because there was a great and immediate satisfaction to using Oblivion’s bows that the guns of Fallout (or at least, the ones from the early game) don’t have.
But that’s where the V.A.T.S system comes in. It is incredible. I refuse to believe anyone is going to play the game using real time combat when V.A.T.S is available. You see, V.A.T.S. turns every battle into an amazing cinematic event, and not in a lame way like a Final Fantasy game or something. The minute you spot an enemy, you choose your position to attack from, enter V.A.T.S mode, select the body part et cetera (classic Fallout stuff, you know the drill) and watch what happens. The cinematics are generated on the fly and delightfully satisfying. While shooting an enemy stalker (damn, er, just enemy) who is miles away with a pistol is a boring exercise in shooting at a dot, in V.A.T.S you’re able to watch as your bullets batter him with a pounding velocity, crippling his body parts or exploding his head [“or her head, obviously.” – Equal Opportunities Ed.]

Click to expand...

Worthplaying has a nicely detailed article:

<font color="#000000">After a brief exploration of the school, I ventured back to the comparatively brighter wasteland, and after a short trip, I encountered the game's first town. It was a small town, as these things go, but it absolutely packed to the brim with sub-plots, sadly few of which I got to explore. The most interesting of these was the Children of the Atom, a cult-slash-church that worshipped an unexploded nuclear bomb located in the center of the town. I had a few options for what I could do with these fellows, including tinkering with the bomb itself. My explosive skill wasn't high enough, though, so I didn't get to see if it was possible to set it off or simply disarm it. Beyond the many sub-plots, there were simply a ton of areas to explore in the town. I was able to venture in any house I could see, and I discovered a lot of areas that I'd want to explore if I had greater stats, such as a mysterious locked house that required a Lockpick skill substantially higher than even a 10t...More information.

Click to expand...

"As a counterpoint, on the Qt3 forums, game writer Tom Chick questions if you can assess the writing after 30 minutes:"

I love the Qt3 forums. I can't decide if my favorite part is their ever more desperate attempts to put down NMA in order to convince themselves that they are somehow less nerdy and obsessive about games or their slagging off the Wii because it is dumbing down console games. And they say Americans don't get irony.

I'm not sure why, exactly, but I'm nauseated every time I visit QT3. Strange that I keep going there, then, but still.

They seem to have an unspoken cult-like fondness for all who support profit focused game development, and like to put down everyone that tries to suggest that developers can still do some things the old way, without necessarily ruining themselves.

I've never met him, but Tom Chick just has an aura of unjustified arrogance that makes me want to damage his health, but for some reason he's gathered an abundance of ass-kissers over there. Maybe it's his writing style, which does show some measure of intelligence and wit - but sadly smacks of poorly veiled conformity in the guise of an edgy attitude regarding the gaming industry. I'm sure he's a sweety pie in reality, though, as are we all

I much prefer the jaded fanatics over at NMA, as they don't make me feel queasy. Instead, they rather amuse me

DArtagnan said:

I'm not sure why, exactly, but I'm nauseated every time I visit QT3. Strange that I keep going there, then, but still.

Click to expand...

That Fallout 3 thread is great, they are even turning on each other now. Poor old Desslock.

"Profit-focused game development" is bad?

Sheesh, are you proposing some radical new theory of the distribution of capital and the means of production? A scientific theory perhaps? Is a revolution in order?

People who make games like to be paid for what they are doing. It lets them have fancy stuff like houses and cars and buy food and support families. It's hard to pay people if you're not looking to make a profit.

<apologies for the doublepost, hit the submit button by accident>

And since when is it ok to call out peoples freaking forum posts as OFFICIAL COMMENT! If Tom Chick wants you to use his forum posts as press releases then I'm sure he'll let you know.

Kalle said:

"Profit-focused game development" is bad?
Sheesh, are you proposing some radical new theory of the distribution of capital and the means of production? A scientific theory perhaps? Is a revolution in order?
People who make games like to be paid for what they are doing. It lets them have fancy stuff like houses and cars and buy food and support families. It's hard to pay people if you're not looking to make a profit.

Click to expand...

Yes yes of course you're right. The problem isn't Bethesda trying to make profits, everybody is. The problem is deciding to buy the Fallout franchise when no one asked/forced them to. They did it just because Oblivion brought them enough cash to do it. And by doing so they prevented less rich developers who were also interested in buying the franchise, the catch is among those devs there were actual developers who were behind Fallout 1 and 2 so yes I believe they would have made a much more faithful Fallout 3 if only because they've already proved their writing skills.

And now Bethesda is turning that game into the only thing they are used to make : a FPS/action RPG hybrid. They could have made a great game creating their own post-apoc setting, it's not like Fallout had exclusive rights on such settings. But no they chose to make a sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 and by deciding so, other attempts at making Fallout 3 were canceled. So if Fallout 3 turns out to be just nice graphics nice guns and lots of mutants which only purpose is to be shot at, they'll deserve all the criticism the industry can produce, if only to teach other devs not to mess up deep and smart franchises in the future.

But as you said, it'll sell by the millions, and that's the only measure for quality and a "job well done". Well from a strictly financial point of view it'd still be dumb as they would have been able to make more money selling the same amount of copies had they not spend money buying an existing franchise.

Who said it was an official comment? I offered it as a counterpoint to Wired because I couldn't find anyone else talking about the writing quality. Qt3 is hugely popular - are Tom's comments there meant to be private? I think that's way too precious.

By the way - I like Tom and mostly like Qt3. One of the best games journalists out there in my opinion, although it's a shame it's impossible to talk about RPGs there.

Edit: Just noticed NMA linked his comment, after spotting it here. Everyone is entitled to see it their own way but I wasn't using it in any anti-Tom Chick or even anti-FO3 way. In fact, I was trying to present a balanced view from someone I give credence.

I don't understand why this "chick" get pissed because someone don't like the game, also talk bad about other journalist and making accusations to nma and rpgcodex is just childish, telling that just 30 minutes is not enough to see how good or bad is a game, then why he don't make criticism against the 12312313 reviews that say FO3 is awesome, i think those previews go in the same sack no?.
________
Art car

Turok said:

I don't understand why this "chick" get pissed because someone don't like the game, also talk bad about other journalist and making accusations to nma and rpgcodex is just childish, telling that just 30 minutes is not enough to see how good or bad is a game, then why he don't make criticism against the 12312313 reviews that say FO3 is awesome, i think those previews go in the same sack no?.

Click to expand...

Because he is a graduate of the Harry Knowles school of journalism along with every other computer game reviewer out there. These people aren't professional journalists, they are just a group of enthusiastic gamers who got together to talk about, and earn a living from their hobby.

Nothing wrong with that, you just have to keep in mind that the title of 'journalist' is a self appointed one and is not something to be taken seriously, because just as the movie studio's learned that they could influence Harry Knowles by pandering to his ego with exclusive interviews and set visits, the game studio's learned the same thing about game reviewers.

Kalle said:

"Profit-focused game development" is bad ?

Click to expand...

Museums are profit-oriented, too.

Yet fewer people go into museums than into ... let's say a food shop. Or into the latest football game. And that, although - or rather: because - Museums are rather demanding.

What's actually bad is the optimization of games into best-selling. It's as if suddenly everyone things : "W00t ! Lets's make a newspaper like the SUN, because it SELLS !"

THIS is bad.

Hedek said:

Yes yes of course you're right. The problem isn't Bethesda trying to make profits, everybody is. The problem is deciding to buy the Fallout franchise when no one asked/forced them to. They did it just because Oblivion brought them enough cash to do it. And by doing so they prevented less rich developers who were also interested in buying the franchise, the catch is among those devs there were actual developers who were behind Fallout 1 and 2 so yes I believe they would have made a much more faithful Fallout 3 if only because they've already proved their writing skills.

Click to expand...

Since this is a thinly veiled reference to Troika let me just say that I am hardly disappointed by the fact that the people who in three attempts never came close to the bar set by Fallout and managed to completely ruin the potiential of a decent Vampire game will have nothing to do with Fallout 3.

As for the ridiculous claim that no one asked them to buy the Fallout license, why the hell should they have to ask for permission? And who should they ask? The fans, and I'm using the term very loosely here, are not freaking entitled to the franchise unless they actually pony up the money to buy it.

And lets not forget that maybe, just maybe, the guys at Bethesda played and liked Fallout and didn't want to see the franchise languish in obscurity. Maybe Bethesda won't make the Fallout 3 you want to play but they're one of very few developers who have the financial muscle to make their vision of Fallout into reality. For all we know the Fallout franchise would have languished in obscurity if not for Bethesda, only brought out when Interplay wanted to stamp it on shovelware like Fallout:BOS.

And now Bethesda is turning that game into the only thing they are used to make : a FPS/action RPG hybrid. They could have made a great game creating their own post-apoc setting, it's not like Fallout had exclusive rights on such settings. But no they chose to make a sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 and by deciding so, other attempts at making Fallout 3 were canceled. So if Fallout 3 turns out to be just nice graphics nice guns and lots of mutants which only purpose is to be shot at, they'll deserve all the criticism the industry can produce, if only to teach other devs not to mess up deep and smart franchises in the future.

Click to expand...

Other attempts? The only attempt I know of died with Interplay. No one else is gonna start developing a game unless they have the rights already sorted out. Anything else is a waste of time and money.

And I don't mean to be insulting but did you even play Fallouts 1 and 2, or did you just play without killing anyone or something? The Fallouts I remember had me gunning down hundreds of mutants. Random encounter, 5-7 Super Mutants, rinse, repeat. The mutants who wanted to talk could be counted on one hand. The purpose of practically every creature in Fallout 1 and 2 was to be shot at for crying out loud.

Well from a strictly financial point of view it'd still be dumb as they would have been able to make more money selling the same amount of copies had they not spend money buying an existing franchise.

Click to expand...

Buying up an existing franchise buys them a fanbase and name recognition (which in this case is of somewhat dubious quality, PR-wise) and they also buy the rights to use the art and lore which saves them the time and effort of starting from scratch.

And maybe Bethesda are a bunch of Fallout fans. That's a pretty compelling reason to start a project.

The only "right" developer of Fallout 3 would have to be Obsidian, since Black Isle went down with Interplay, and I doubt they would've done it. They seem to have more than enough on their hands for now. Besides, they probably don't even have the money to buy the Fallout lisence at all. Also worth noting is that the actual designers behind Fallout no longer work with single player RPGs at all.

Other than Obsidian, I feel Bethesda is as good as any to do it - any other company would be in the exact same position Bethesda is: Fans of the original series, but without actually being the original developer.

I think it's fair enough to write a negative preview, it's way out balanced by the positive ones at this time. There is far too much of this 'awesomeness' previewing going around I'm just getting too old for that (most of the time).

Nobody really likes people being negative about their 'thing' but the reality is that peoples tastes differ so they don't have to, and you don't have to care.

Dhruin said:

Edit: Just noticed NMA linked his comment, after spotting it here. Everyone is entitled to see it their own way but I wasn't using it in any anti-Tom Chick or even anti-FO3 way. In fact, I was trying to present a balanced view from someone I give credence.

Click to expand...

I would've liked to use it much the same way, but he invalidated his own opinion by grouping anyone negative in with NMA, thus dismissing the opinion. That's just not valid criticism, anymore than a bunch of kids screaming all gaming journos are corrupt is.

Maylander said:

Other than Obsidian, I feel Bethesda is as good as any to do it - any other company would be in the exact same position Bethesda is: Fans of the original series, but without actually being the original developer.

Click to expand...

They could have hired original developers.

They did not want to, though.

Brother None said:

They could have hired original developers.

They did not want to, though.

Click to expand...

Hey, here's a thought. Lets say the sacred original developers over at Troika got their hands on a premier RPG license for Vampire: The Masquerade.

They would then proceed to release a game that was buggy as hell, half-finished, and just make the last third of the game into a crappy action-RPG with endlessly respawning enemy troops. Would you wish that on Fallout?

And speaking of unfinished games, lets not forget the sacred original devs now at Obsidian! Enjoy that KOTOR2 ending? Did it make sense to *anyone*? Thought not.

And this is the point where people start crying out in their defense "they didn't have enough time!, they didn't have enough money!". Which is true. But what makes you think they would have had that time or money on any project, even Fallout 3?

Whatever made the magic happen at Black Isle, whatever crazy alignment of planets or whatever, it's gone now. Black Isle is dead, never to return. I was sorry to see them go, but I moved on and so did everyone who worked there. If you judged developers out there on their current merits instead of what they did ten years ago you might not feel so damn angry at Bethesda.

Kalle said:

And speaking of unfinished games, lets not forget the sacred original devs now at Obsidian! Enjoy that KOTOR2 ending? Did it make sense to *anyone*? Thought not.

Click to expand...

Do not blame Obsidian for LucasArts.

JemyM said:

Do not blame Obsidian for LucasArts.

Click to expand...

Out of interest, why not? I don't know the background to this one, but did LucasArts suddenly cut short the pre-agreed time/financial budget that Obsidian had to make this game? Or was it just the case that Obsidian couldn't do it in the agreed time?

Kalle said:

Hey, here's a thought. Lets say the sacred original developers over at Troika got their hands on a premier RPG license for Vampire: The Masquerade.
(etc)

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but was any of that in response to me?

Maylander said "but without being the original developer". I point out at this point that Bethesda has had at least one application from an original developer, but wasn't interested.

I have no idea why that set off some kind of Troika spiel, but whatever.

kalniel said:

Out of interest, why not? I don't know the background to this one, but did LucasArts suddenly cut short the pre-agreed time/financial budget that Obsidian had to make this game? Or was it just the case that Obsidian couldn't do it in the agreed time?

Click to expand...

Their time was cut I believe.