Fallout 3 - Creation Kit and DLC

Thaurin said:

The Grand Theft Auto series comes to mind. Didn't the core gameplay change radically when it went to 3D?

Click to expand...

Not really. In fact, I find this one of the strangest examples people keep coming up with: the helicopter view of GTA I/II is clearly badly suited to both driving and gunning, both gameplay elements are nerfed (especially shooting) due to the awkward camera handle. A camera shift was necessary to keep the same gameplay and simply make the game more playable.

Camera view is a function after all, not some inherent core gameplay philosophy. You pick whatever camera view fits gameplay best; Diablo as a series is bird's eye view because that fits the combat bet, just like Fallout's TB is best complimented by its bird eye viewpoint. RTSs are bird's eye for the same reason. But any game with real-time run'n'gun action is better off with over the shoulder or first person gameplay - which is what happened to GTA.

Really, I can never quite wrap my head around this example. If there is anything essential that changed between GTA II and GTA III it is that the game became simpler - quests were repeatable ad infinitum and the system of limited lives was removed, thus making the game significantly easier. That's a pretty big gameplay change.

And yes, the setting has changed from the light-hearted nature of GTA to the "more real" atmosphere of GTA IV. I do believe fans and critics have noted and sometimes criticized that point.

At that point it becomes a point of contention really - it is ridiculous to say any change to a franchise means the sequel is "not true", it is equally ridiculous to say any game is a proper sequel as long as it has the name with a new number behind it. And that does mean it becomes a point of argument by default, and I'm fine with someone disagreeing with me on Fallout 3 being "true" to the franchise. But if you want to argue the point (and I don't say you have to), I think it's better if you come up with actual pro and contra arguments showing where Fallout 3 fits the original core design. I think that's what Hedek was noting earlier; it's a bit odd how people just try to dismiss this argument wholesale. You don't have to care about it if you want, but it seems a bit weak to just dismiss it without giving the contra-position due time.

Hedek said:

I don't understand why saying Fallout 3 is not a sequel to Fallout 1 & 2 and that Bethesda shouldn't have called it that way is causing such disagreement. I'm stating an opinion, and forums are the perfect place to do it. I'm not even saying F3 isn't a great game and that people shouldn't buy it.

Click to expand...

Yes you were stating an opinion, just as we are. Nobody was being negative towards you, it's just a different opinion.

Hedek said:

No one so far has given any solid argument why Bethesda was right to call it that way, apart from the "they own it, they can". Yeah so what? If I'm rich enough I can buy a Van Gogh, piss on it, and tear it with my kitchen knife. Just because the law doesn't forbid it, doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do.

Click to expand...

No one has given a solid argument on why it shouldn't be called FO3, other than pretty much just saying "it's too different!"

Hedek said:

I am merely arguing that the name is not adequate. And that everyone would have been better off with a different name: the press (even better reviews due to not comparing it to F1&2) and long time fans. And most F3 customers never bought F1&F2 so they wouldn't care.

Click to expand...

Why would everyone have been better off with a different name? The reviews have been very positive so far, as positive as it deserves. It's only a very small minority that are complaining about the title. I'm an old-time fan of FO 1&2 as well, and I have absolutely no problem with FO3's title.

Hedek said:

Agreed, the comparison was weak, but most comparisons are. I was merely trying to counter the statement that "sequels to anything are seldom very much like their predecessors".

Click to expand...

When was that statement made?

Brother None said:

I think it's better if you come up with actual pro and contra arguments showing where Fallout 3 fits the original core design.

Click to expand...

That's just it. I think a sequel doesn't really have to exactly fit the original core design. Right, if they made Fallout 3 into a beach volleyball game, it'd be something else. I guess, to me, the way they made Fallout 3 is similar enough to be called a sequel. I'm not as anal about some of the things as some of the stuff I've read from hardcore Fallout fans. It really all comes down to that.

Besides, I don't care too much. That may come into play. No problems here calling it a sequel. I'm having fun playing the game. I'm not sad that "Fallout is now officially dead" or somesuch. I'm not offended by the contents of the DLC, if the DLC is fun to play. Reading some boards, you'd think that the Bethesda team got regular death threats (and they probably do, too). Oh, wait. Sorry, we weren't talking about that, were we?

JDR13 said:

Yes you were stating an opinion, just as we are. Nobody was being negative towards you, it's just a different opinion.

Click to expand...

Of course. What bothered me, though, is the amount of people telling me "I disagree" but without saying why.

JDR13 said:

No one has given a solid argument on why it shouldn't be called FO3, other than pretty much just saying "it's too different!"

Click to expand...

Well in the end it all comes down to what meaning we give to the word "sequel". If we can't agree on the meaning of that word, both opinions will be right. So I tried to explain that for me, a sequel isn't a sequel just because it's printed on the box. Movie sequels usually continue the story or reuse the same characters. In video games, there's at least one element of continuity although that element can vary:
- same gameplay but tells the story of different characters: KOTOR2
- same gameplay, same characters, continues the story: Baldur's Gate 2.
- same gameplay, different story, different characters: Fallout 2
- same characters, different gameplay, continues the story.
- same characters, different gameplay, different story,
etc.

Fallout 3 neither continues the story, nor has the same gameplay, and the characters are different. The only thing in common is the setting and atmosphere. (and even then I could argue that Bethesda's failed to recreate Fallout's atmosphere, most dialogs are either childish, or surprisingly rude, or better yet, both. And I miss Junkyard's rivalries for control of the city, I miss VC/NCR/Redding's/New Reno's political ties).
But Fallout Tactics also had the same elements in common with Fallout 1&2 so in that case does it deserves to be called Fallout "3" as much as Bethesda's Fallout 3?

So while I can understand why Bethesda's decided to buy and revive the franchise -the Fallout setting and atmosphere are indeed among the best in the industry- making a new game in the same setting and atmosphere isn't enough for me to call it a sequel. It only means you're making another game in the same franchise, a la SW Jedi Knight and SW The Force Unleashed.

Of course you can disagree with me, but that would mean you give a different meaning to the word "sequel". And when people give different meanings to the same words, any debate becomes moot.

Now if you prefer a video game industry where developers and publishers can feed as with as much PR and marketing stunts as they like, where words have no meanings, where gamers are bound to accept whatever they throw at us, and where reviewers will be ecstatic no matter what as long as the graphics are great, where as long as the console crowd buys en masse any criticism is pointless, then it's your choice. I like to believe that we can still help developers improve despite being a "minority".

While the crowd will still buy anything that looks good, I'm sure even them won't mind it when games are even deeper, subtle, and well-thought.

JDR13 said:

Why would everyone have been better off with a different name? The reviews have been very positive so far, as positive as it deserves. It's only a very small minority that are complaining about the title. I'm an old-time fan of FO 1&2 as well, and I have absolutely no problem with FO3's title.

Click to expand...

Because most reviewers are ignorant blind and tasteless? Ok I know that statement was absolutely stupid but it felt good to say it ;-) More seriously, just as with Oblivion, give it a few month, or better, when they'll be reviewing Bethesda's next game and all of a sudden they'll be finding tons of flaws in F3 to describe how that new game is better, flaws that for some reasons were never mentioned in their initial F3 review.

JDR13 said:

When was that statement made?

Click to expand...

xSamhainx's message, 2nd page, 1st post.

In many games the theme or the setting is enough to claim a sequel. One example is Predator 2, which is set in a different timeline, with different characters but with a returning monster.

Fallout refers to a setting, specifically "the residual radiation hazard from a nuclear explosion". The Fallout universe have lead to several products, such as Fallout the Roleplaying Game. Fallout 1 & 2 is not called "Fallout: The Adventures of the Vault Dweller".

F3 have a large amount of reoccuring themes, including returning characters.

Indeed, "Fallout" is a setting. In the video game industry several words are used to refer to the same thing: "setting" "intellectual property" and "franchise" (Forgotten Realms, TES, Star Wars, etc.)
So any game taking place in the Fallout setting indeed deserves to have "Fallout" mentioned somewhere in its title (i.e. Fallout Tactics, Fallout BOS) even if said game is very different from the first game released in that IP/setting/franchise.

"Fallout 1 & 2" is a specific series of games inside that franchise. Both games have several defining elements in common and that set them apart from other games released in that IP/franchise/setting.

There's no questioning Bethesda's Fallout 3 is a game belonging to the Fallout IP/franchise/setting. But does it share the defining elements of the Fallout 1 & 2 series? I don't believe so. Does it deserve to be called Fallout 3 I don't think so.
Why do I care that Fallout "3" not be called so, because I like to think it forces developers and publishers to some discipline, and ultimately that helps them be more honest, make better games, respect their customers and respect the work of other developers.

What I think happened with Bethesda when they decided to buy the franchise is that they honestly believed they could do a sequel to Fallout 1&2. Perhaps they were overconfident, or perhaps they don't give the same meaning to the world "sequel" as me. But judging from their definition of that word in practice from TES I to IV, they definitely do give it the same meaning.

So judging from their OWN standards of what a sequel usually is according to THEM, they failed to do a proper sequel to Fallout 1 & 2 worthy of being called Fallout "3". To respect their customers and to respect the work/creation of the developers of F1&2, they could have chosen to rename their game. They decided to stick with it. Why? I can't tell I don't work at Bethesda.

Is it really important? does it matter at all? In the end, of course not, but as little as anything else that can be said on this website or any other gaming website. Except when the talk is for instance about Funcom laying off most of its staff in the US.

So people can't just dismiss my opinion and tell me "who cares if it's called Fallout 3 just get over it already, they own it they can do whatever they want" and at the same read/post anything else on a gaming website. Because if that's not worthy of your attention then almost anything else that you can read/find here isn't as well.

Hedek said:

Fallout 3 neither continues the story, nor has the same gameplay, and the characters are different. The only thing in common is the setting and atmosphere. (and even then I could argue that Bethesda's failed to recreate Fallout's atmosphere, most dialogs are either childish, or surprisingly rude, or better yet, both. And I miss Junkyard's rivalries for control of the city, I miss VC/NCR/Redding's/New Reno's political ties).
But Fallout Tactics also had the same elements in common with Fallout 1&2 so in that case does it deserves to be called Fallout "3" as much as Bethesda's Fallout 3?

Click to expand...

Continuing the story, having the exact same gameplay, or having the same characters does not make a sequel, those are optional components. I would argue that FO 3's atmosphere is actually better then the prequels, but that's just a matter of taste.

Fallout Tactics was a squad based tactical combat simulator. I'm just glad they didn't call that one "FO3", because then you'd really be bitching.

Hedek said:

Of course you can disagree with me, but that would mean you give a different meaning to the word "sequel". And when people give different meanings to the same words, any debate becomes moot.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean that, and that statement is an age old cop out. In other words- "You have a different definition, so there's no possible way my opinion is wrong".

I'm not saying it is or it isn't, it's just an opinion after all...

Hedek said:

Now if you prefer a video game industry where developers and publishers can feed as with as much PR and marketing stunts as they like, were words have no meanings, were gamers are bound to accept whatever they throw at us, and where reviewers will be ecstatic no matter what as long as the graphics are great, where as long as the console crowd buys en masse any criticism is pointless, then it's your choice. I like to believe that we can still help developers improve despite being a "minority".

Click to expand...

Sure there are PR and marketing stunts, but that's in every industry, and always has been, that's something that you simply have to accept. There's also no need to lump all the reviewers together either, there are good ones and bad ones. If you've been gaming for any decent length of time then you should know by now which critics\websites to avoid when looking for a good review.

I understand your point about the "console crowd", but unfortunately that is not going to change anytime soon. That demographic is overwelmingly dominated by younger and more casual gamers than the PC crowd, and there is nothing we can do about that.

Hedek said:

xSamhainx's message, 2nd page, 1st post.

Click to expand...

I see, I thought you were implying that I had said that. While I might not agree with him 100%, he makes a very good point when he says -"More of the same would often be called, well - "just more of the same". "

JDR13 said:

No, it doesn't mean that, and statement is an age old cop out. In other words- "You have a different definition, so there's no possible way my opinion is wrong".

I'm not saying it is or it isn't, it's just an opinion after all...

Click to expand...

If I say that A = B + C. Any x = B + C then x=A . If I succeed in proving x = B + C then indeed there's no possible way my conclusion is wrong. What can be wrong, however, is my definition of A.
So if you agree with me that the meaning of "sequel" is "same gameplay OR same characters OR continuation of story", and that you agree that Fallout 3 has neither of the three, then indeed there's no possible way you can say my opinion is wrong.
What happens if you disagree with me in that case, is that you actually disagree with my definition of "sequel".
So what I meant by "when people disagree on the definitions any debate becomes moot" is that it becomes a totally different debate, we'd no longer be debating about Fallout, we'd be debating about "what a sequel is".

That's the reason why when people are drafting contracts or treaties, the first talks are devoted to agreeing on general definition and only then can they start talking about their actual deal.

JDR13 said:

I understand your point about the "console crowd", but unfortunately that is not going to change anytime soon. That demographic is overwelmingly dominated by younger and more casual gamers than the PC crowd, and there is nothing we can do about that.

Click to expand...

That's why I like posting in gaming forums. I realize I am meaningless when I "vote with my money" so I'm hoping perhaps by expressing myself, giving arguments, and explaining my views, I can perhaps convince other people, perhaps even have a developer or two read these boards, who will in turn talk about it to their colleagues, and in turn, etc. Utopia probably but my odds are actually better that way than when I vote with my money (and it's much cheaper lol).

JDR13 said:

I would argue that FO 3's atmosphere is actually better then the prequels, but that's just a matter of taste.

Click to expand...

I very much agree with that. While I remember some areas in Fallout 2 that was kinda atmospheric (like Ghost Farm), Fallout 3 have loads of areas really worth checking out. The Dunwich House was great, but areas such as Vault 87 and 106 had really unique twists to them.

I thought F3 made sense as a sequel as it kinda continues the "new world". There was a massive change to the Fallout 1 and 2 world, due to mankind reestablishing itself on the surface, and it did refer to two different generations.

If you talk to people, specifically the Brotherhood, you can hear references to the westcoast that feels like the "new civilization" begun down there and DC is now the frontier. The ancestor of the vault dweller even recovered and used the G.E.C.K to create New Arroyo:

Hedek said:

That's why I like posting in gaming forums. I realize I am meaningless when I "vote with my money" so I'm hoping perhaps by expressing myself, giving arguments, and explaining my views, I can perhaps convince other people, perhaps even have a developer or two read these boards, who will in turn talk about it to their colleagues, and in turn, etc. Utopia probably but my odds are actually better that way than when I vote with my money (and it's much cheaper lol).

Click to expand...

In wcnews aka home of wing commander fans many players bought wing commander arena just to support the brand in hopes that a real sequel would one day emerge - even thought the game is crappy to say least:

There are plenty of consoling quotes about why bad reviews don't matter, but in this case they probably do - every person who opts not to buy Arena because of a poorly constructed review means we're another leap further away from Wing Commander 6.

Click to expand...

In all ways WC fans are the opposite of fallout fans. WC fans are supportive of the brand owner (EA) in hopes of one day getting a new wc game. Even somthing like fallout3 aka "modern" triple A sequel would be a huge thing and they would cheer for it.

As for myself I have i.e payed money to ww2ol for 5-6 years to support the development of the game. Many people have payed much more even. Of course its good if you somhow manage to find&convince developers of your interests through forums but money usually does the trick much better. Put your money where you mouth is or so they say.

Allthough I have to say that fallout fans are propably not as desperate as WC and ww2ol fans. WC/WW2OL fans have little to no alternatives while post-apocalyptic games are not limited to the fallout series.

As a fallout fan I love what bethesda has done to the fallout series. I had allready given up hope but now the series is alive & in full development kicking out sequels and other content like never before. With time well get more (and most likely better) fallout games.

Interplay blew it a long time ago so that sequel can't happen now. Fallout is a Bethesda franchise so they can build on their Elderscrolls heritage much like 40K was in Warhammer terms and Starcraft was in Warcraft terms. They didn't buy it to make a "true" sequel (though I think they made an effort to add elements of the previous games) they bought it to expand their franchise base and make profits on the Elderscrolls tech - which I suspect is well on the way with the next instalment.

It really doesn't matter what they call it I suspect plenty of Fallout & Bethesda fans knew this was the reality. Business is business.

JemyM said:

I very much agree with that. While I remember some areas in Fallout 2 that was kinda atmospheric (like Ghost Farm), Fallout 3 have loads of areas really worth checking out. The Dunwich House was great, but areas such as Vault 87 and 106 had really unique twists to them.

Click to expand...

That doesn't sound right; I mean different isn't the same as better. Dunwich is a homage to Lovecraft, and the location breathes that atmosphere, but that's not doing anything "better" than Fallout, since Lovecraftian horror never had a place in the atmosphere. I mean, I get why you like it if you like horror atmosphere, but Fallout isn't a horror game.

Heck, I'd say Dunwich is a good example of how Fallout 3 fails to consistently approach the setting just like Fallout 2 did. There are actually some fantastic Fallout moments in Fallout 3...


But such moments are sparse, and this need Bethesda has to include "cool stuff" often ruins the feel.

zakhal said:

Allthough I have to say that fallout fans are propably not as desperate as WC and ww2ol fans.

Click to expand...

More like Fallout fans are more battlescarred. Interplay tried selling us the line that "if you buy Fallout: BoS we can use that money to fund Van Buren", but it's public knowledge Herve Caen had decided to go for BoS 2 instead of Van Buren no matter what happened, and BoS' failure or success only mattered in as far as it failing means we never got BoS 2.

That's reality, this isn't a friendly industry, and if you buy a crap game hoping to get a good one, all the publishers think is "hey, they're buying crap games, we should make more of 'em"

woges said:

It really doesn't matter what they call it I suspect plenty of Fallout & Bethesda fans knew this was the reality. Business is business.

Click to expand...

Pretty much, but I never felt like dismissing them out of hand before details emerged. But I don't think Bethesda has done much that surprised the Fallout fanbase - possibly their approach to quest design is a pleasant surprise.

Now we're back on peg 1, back in the mid-90s, where the trend is more actiony and more accessible games, and the moment Tim Cain decided to buck the trend by making a turn-based pen and paper emulating RPG that ended up being the spiritual sequel to Wasteland. Perhaps Fallout will get its spiritual sequel now, who knows? The setup certainly seems identical.

You picked my "horror" example (Dunwich House) and made a fuzz about it, but there are loads of unique areas very fitting to a post-apocalypse environment that are very well made and entertaining for no more reason than being unique and worth a visit.

JemyM said:

You picked my "horror" example (Dunwich House) and made a fuzz about it, but there are loads of unique areas very fitting to a post-apocalypse environment that are very well made and entertaining for no more reason than being unique and worth a visit.

Click to expand...

Seriously, what?

1. You picked the Dunwich House example.

2. I responded to that by pointing out Dunwich is a bad example but I could name a few examples that are pretty great.

And yet somehow I come out as the bad guy? Man, this is confusing.

Sorry, writing while watching a documentary... messed up the context a bit.

Brother None said:

More like Fallout fans are more battlescarred. Interplay tried selling us the line that "if you buy Fallout: BoS we can use that money to fund Van Buren", but it's public knowledge Herve Caen had decided to go for BoS 2 instead of Van Buren no matter what happened, and BoS' failure or success only mattered in as far as it failing means we never got BoS 2.

That's reality, this isn't a friendly industry, and if you buy a crap game hoping to get a good one, all the publishers think is "hey, they're buying crap games, we should make more of 'em"

Click to expand...

Even though they planned to develop BoS2 they could have still released Van Buren after that. In such case if you refused to buy BoS2 (who knows what improvements it would have) they might not have had enough funds to release VB.

It might be desperate but its either that or wait ten years or more. Allthough theres always a limit i.e the new gothic 3 addon is really streching it for me - even BoS was better.

Finally not to forget - as long as the series is alive (even with "crappy" games) it can strenghten with new fans. Such seems to be the case with fallout1&2. In the local shop its selling better than i.e mass effect, sacred2 or witcher even!

01. Fallout 3
02. Diablo 3
03. Mount & Blade
04. Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion, The
05. Elder Scrolls 3 Morrowind GOTY, The (Exclusive)
06. Neverwinter Nights 2 Storm Of Zehir
07. Fallout Collection (White Label)
08. The Witcher: Enhanced edition
09. Sacred 2: Fallen Angel
10. Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion Game of the Year Edition, The
11. Baldurs Gate Compilation
12. Assassins Creed Directors Cut
13. Diablo 2 (Best Seller)
14. Mass Effect

Click to expand...

I bet more than few of the people who bought that collection bought it because fallout 3 had a number "3" on it and they wanted to get to know the previous two!

On the topic of differences with sequels, could I just mention one of the best known series Ultima!! Can you really compare U1 to U9, or anywhere in the middle? The games changed and developed over time, but except for 9 I don't hear people debating that 4 wasn't a REAL sequel to 3 etc.

Ultima kept it's integrity by having Garriott as game Director for every game in the series. I think it's a fairly big thing for devoted fans when something they enjoy gets remade under a different vision/intellect whatever you wish to call it.

Some will like it more; some less, some not at all. There's not a lot of integrity around the business any more because publishers need to sell more and more copies to make up the costs of developing and publishing the games. I'll quote Mr Garriott here:

"That's a real concern for our industry. The time and dollars that it takes to bring anything to the table is now going up at a pace that which is growing probably faster than the market size. And so that's a real problem."

As a fan of the originals, I found the moment you left the vault in FO3 trumped the originals for just atmosphere alone....I mean it was crazy looking out over DC.

Brother None, thanks for the clear and non attacking viewpoints here, much appreciated. Do you find it distressing though that alot of members of the NMA are upset with the announcement of the GECKO, to the point they have already dismissed it or said its not worth the work to fix it to their liking?

The way I see it, if you don't like it and you get tools that can help you fix it (just see what modders did with oblivion) shouldn't you be happy?