Fallout 3 - More Editorials

Dhruin

SasqWatch
Joined
August 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
Both NMA and RPG Codex have Fallout 3 editorials on offer today. First up is NMA with a piece called Fallout 3, who is this for? Here's their newsbit as an introduction:
The recent bout of Fallout 3 news has elicited many varied responses. While it's quite a bit too early to make definite conclusions about anything, the outline of Bethesda's Fallout 3 is becoming more and more clear. And as this outline becomes more clear, the pertinent question offers itself; who are they making this game for, exactly?

NMA's Brother None dives into the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is PR-double speak to get to the bottom of what Matt Miller was talking about when he said that if "you are a fan who is adamantly against some significant changes to the way gameplay occurs in the Fallout series" you'll hate it, while if you're "a fan of the Fallout universe, of the unique look of the world, of the moral ambiguity, of the dark and often violent humor, and the invigorating branching story paths" you should be well pleased.
Meanwhile, RPG Codex follows up the article from Vault Dweller with one from Section8 titled Calling Fallout 3 into question(s):
Has anyone who enjoys first-person shooters ever found themselves wishing they could pause the game and let the computer take their headshots for them?

Conversely, has anyone who enjoys turn-based tactics ever longed for a first-person shooter mode between turns?

When playing a hybrid FPS/RPG, such as Deus Ex or System Shock 2, does anyone find themselves wishing character skills were an alternative to their own rather than player and character skill complementing one another?
More information.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
Note; I wrote this editorial hoping to hold a tone that wouldn't offend everyone outside of NMA, i.e. not the same tone as our forum. It still has some bias, obviously, but I tried to write it without too many assumptions about what people expect Fallout to be and without any tone of "you should think this too!"

If it still reads like an extremist offensive piece to you, then I probably failed, and I apologize.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
It didn't read like an extremist piece, I was espcially interested in your comments about the dialogue tree and have came to similiar conclusions about what he meant when he said it would be more like Oblivion. That is what I hate most about Oblivion, the stupid cookie cutter conversations. Also for the love of god please don't have the same person voicing mostly all of the NPC's.

Anyways just wanted to say nice article.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
"if "you are a fan who is adamantly against some significant changes to the way gameplay occurs in the Fallout series" you'll hate it, while if you're "a fan of the Fallout universe, of the unique look of the world, of the moral ambiguity, of the dark and often violent humor, and the invigorating branching story paths" you should be well pleased. "

Sounds good to me. I'm all for trying to put some changes into games as a series progresses. If they didn't change anything the game series would not evolve, and I might as well just go and play the original games. Sometimes changes are for the better, sometimes for the worse - but that's a risk I'm willing to take and part of what makes gaming exciting for me. And after all it *is* just a game - if they fail in some aspect it's really not the end of the world :)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
453
Kharn (brother none) -- As I've commented on your editorial over at NMA, it is a really nice read :) It does highlight the problems with both the combat, the dialoque and as well with the setting.

The problem as I say it, and I know that NMA, D&C, and the Codex) agree, the setting is changed - way too much. Beth seem to think that Fallout's setting only was violent and dark. Brother None's fine editorial explains why this is not so.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,147
Location
Denmark, Europe
If they didn't change anything the game series would not evolve, and I might as well just go and play the original games.

True. Have you tried Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel for consoles? I hear it evolves the gameplay of Fallout quite nicely and doesn't feel stale or a poor revision of the series -- at all.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
234
Location
Lisbon
True. Have you tried Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel for consoles? I hear it evolves the gameplay of Fallout quite nicely and doesn't feel stale or a poor revision of the series -- at all.

Meaning exactly what? He wrote:

Sometimes changes are for the better, sometimes for the worse.

He didn't write, that changes are always for the better.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
720
Location
Denmark
Everything I've seen so far from Bethesda's Fallout 3 looks good. I guess they're making the game for me. Please note that I've been around as long or longer than anyone here. I'm an old timer from WAY back. The difference between me and the NMA/Codex crowd is that I was able to move on from the past and they can't. There is a zero percent chance that Bethesda will cater to anything that NMA wants. This is all good. I really don't need Bethesda to relive my gaming past. If I want to do that, I fire up dosbox and go at it, or if I really wanna go back to my roots I fire up Vice64 or one of the Apple emulators. Games have evolved. You either change too, or join the dinosaurs.

I hope the NMA folks don't get mad at me because I find them amusing. All this time and energy wasted for nothing. Gather your cronies and make your own game. That's the one thing going for Vince/Codex vs. Kharn/NMA. At least Vince is doing something useful too, instead of only polluting the internet with vitriol. C'mon NMA gather up all your money and become a developer. Put the hurt on Bethesda by developing a better game than they can.

P.S. I'm not sure if Nostromo from comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg fame is a member of NMA. If not, you should recruit him.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
8,821
I thought the article was well written and that the question Who is this for? shines a glaring spotlight on the feebleness of Bethesda's approach on just about every front.

They're taking the middle of the road on everything. I have no doubt the game will sell, it's just a shame they didn't try to do something new and wonderful instead of "Oblivion with Guns". Until the Game Informer article I thought that 3-word description was too harsh, but I don't anymore.

One of the developers from Age of Decadence referred to Real Time With Pause as a "fence-sitting abortion", a method combining the worst of both worlds. I think that will be an accurate description of their VATS combat system if the current iteration makes it to the final cut.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,470
Location
USA
Both very interesting articles with valid points and questions. I'm not a Fallout aficianado, but I did play and enjoy the games and since this whole controversy began, those are the questions I've been asking myself: Why did Bethsoft pick this title and who is it for? These editorials do a reasonable job of showing perplexity without going too far into bitterness.

Much of the charm or draw of Fallout is the Black Isle perspective. I'm not knowledgable enough to know everyone who contributed to the games, but they were none of them the kind of game developers who have taken over the mainstream now. Just like Britney Spears is not Marilyn Monroe. If you loved Norma Jean in 'Some Like it Hot', a remake with Britney in the lead might well turn your stomach.

I kind of agree with crpgnut here--maybe it's time for the hardcore fans to walk away from all this and instead of feeding the Beth machine with their negative attention, support someone who can make their own kind of game.

Just my 'mistress of the obvious' .02$
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
I also thought the article was well titled. Brother None might be interpreting Matt Miller's comments exactly they way they were intended. Miller thinks some Fallout fans will like Fallout 3 and some will not. He may have meant the fans who won't are the ones over at NMA and The Codex, and that would suck. In a perfect world, sequels would be made especially for the hardcore fans.

On the other hand, Miller may read this article and regret his statement, wishing he'd worded it differently. For all we know he may really expect those fans to be split, and that's not so bad.

IMO, it's too early to come to any real conclusions. This is good analysis, but there's just not much to consider yet. Let's hope Bethesda thought long and hard about Fallout 3 and that it turns out to be an awesome game.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
True. Have you tried Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel for consoles? I hear it evolves the gameplay of Fallout quite nicely and doesn't feel stale or a poor revision of the series -- at all.

Yeah, as a matter of fact I did - and it sucked! Despite what you might think I'm actually quite an old-timer PC-gamer, but contrary to many here I was (and still am) willing to give a console version of the series the chance before dismissing it. It sucked, that was too bad - but I guess I'll live... It's not like anyone forced me into playing BOS for hours or something..

PS. I'm from Denmark - I understand sarcasm perfectly well :)

- Kasper
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
453
I would like to reprint something, a question from the recent "Gaming Fringe Cults" article from the Escapist. This question didn't make it to the article, but is interesting nonetheless.

Joe: What would you like to see in a sequel?

Brother None: The same thing I saw in the originals, but evolved. Fallout was designed as a pen and paper emulation with a 50s post-apocalyptic retro-future setting folded around it. Those design constraints really aren't that constricting, and there's a lot of room for improvement from the original Fallouts, in combat, but also in quest solution paths.

Fallout needs and deserves to evolve after 10 years. I just don't want that evolution to be ill thought out, because that would be exactly the opposite of how Fallout was originally designed. Don't make it real-time "just because", make design decisions that make sense within the original design, and you can make a game that's modern, evolved, great ánd loyal to the originals to boot. Kind of like Batman Begins to the original Batman.

Silencer: Definitely, at least what I saw in the first game. I want sunburnt wasteland. I want bottle caps. I want to be sure that once in the game, I will find something new round each street corner. I want the game to present tasks to me that will amount to quite more than dispatching enemies and taking their loot, and that will reward me and affect the game world in more ways than just increasing my Guild Rating or whatchacallit. I want to see a game where I can start out and develop my character in ANY way possible, the only limitation being my design and no artificial "monks can't use armour etc." constraints.

I want to see something that is a reasonable and integral extension to that was originally conceived and introduced to us in 1997, because there's a lot of good design that can be based upon.

Brother None made a good comparison to the Batman movies. I would also like to point out, that while Terminator 3 had occasionally taken a humorous jab at the original, it also had preserved a key element of the setting, namely Arnold. And time travel. And Skynet. And... Even though obviously there was a world of difference to the 80s movies.

But no female cyborgs, please.

Sander: A game that keeps the primary design goals of the original game, its humour, its canon and its feel.

That's not to say that I want a rehash of Fallout, but it does mean that there are many things that I feel are essential to a Fallout game that they cannot drop. Things like the combat system, the art style, the viewpoint (at least when in combat) and the free-roaming style, with many choices and appropriate consequences, were all part of the essential, basic design of the game.

And, of course, I want the sequel to be a good and fun game to play.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
10

So you're saying you win and I lose because I don't adapt my gaming tastes to whatever the industry fancies to shovel at me? Ok, that's a loss I'll gladly take.

IMO, it's too early to come to any real conclusions. This is good analysis, but there's just not much to consider yet.

Key points, indeed. But if Rosh's hammering on our heads has taught me anything, it's that it's rarely too early to act. We already made that mistake in "waiting and seeing" for Bethesda's Fallout 3, assuming they wouldn't be silly enough to buy a Fallout license and then turn it into a generic post-apocalyptic shooter. Let's hope we were actually right, but it looks like we were wrong.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
One of the developers from Age of Decadence referred to Real Time With Pause as a "fence-sitting abortion", a method combining the worst of both worlds. I think that will be an accurate description of their VATS combat system if the current iteration makes it to the final cut.

You mean like in baldurs gate or icewind dale series where you paused the real time to cast spells/do special moves/etc? Yeah what a horrid idea. Abortion really.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
Yeah, as a matter of fact I did - and it sucked! Despite what you might think I'm actually quite an old-timer PC-gamer, but contrary to many here I was (and still am) willing to give a console version of the series the chance before dismissing it. It sucked, that was too bad - but I guess I'll live... It's not like anyone forced me into playing BOS for hours or something..

Very true. And of note, I'm nowhere close to dismissing Bethesda's attempt -- at least until more is revealed about the game. I'm just not much of an apologist of changing the gameplay and chalking it up to an idea that a game must "evolve" since evolution usually implies a survival of the fittest (which in videogame turns means adapting to whatever current gaming trends or preferences are in place to stay afloat in the market), rather than improving the gameplay. And frankly, I don't think improving is the case here.


PS. I'm from Denmark - I understand sarcasm perfectly well :)

Thank you :) Sometimes it's hard work using the right dose and applying it to the right crowd :)
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
234
Location
Lisbon
You mean like in baldurs gate or icewind dale series where you paused the real time to cast spells/do special moves/etc? Yeah what a horrid idea. Abortion really.

Probably not the best choice of words but I can understand where he was coming from. When playing these games, the impact - and challenge - of realtime is lessened by the fact I can simply freeze time whenever I want and manage things around me. It's like trying to play Unreal Tournament and then all the challenge is sucked out because I have the opportunity to pause, aim for the blindlingy fast opponent and score a headshot. Coincidentally (or maybe not) that seems to be the direction Fallout 3 is taking.

On the other hand, realtime with pause is often heralded as a better alternative to turn-based since it lets players determine when they want to pause and in theory, provides a much smoother and dynamic flow of time. Yet, the Infinity Engine games felt quite stilted in combat since I wound up depending on the pause feature too many times. I suspect when dealing with Mages and Dragons I saw more pauses than a regular TB game.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
234
Location
Lisbon
Key points, indeed. But if Rosh's hammering on our heads has taught me anything, it's that it's rarely too early to act. We already made that mistake in "waiting and seeing" for Bethesda's Fallout 3, assuming they wouldn't be silly enough to buy a Fallout license and then turn it into a generic post-apocalyptic shooter. Let's hope we were actually right, but it looks like we were wrong.

What else were you gonna do other than "wait and see"? Blow up Bethesda's HQ? Shoot Herve before he could sell off the rights to Bethesda? Buy the rights/IP with your own money? What?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,201
What else were you gonna do other than "wait and see"? Blow up Bethesda's HQ? Shoot Herve before he could sell off the rights to Bethesda? Buy the rights/IP with your own money? What?

Support Wasteland 2?

I kid. These aren't the days of old-school capitalism anymore and you know it, Mori. Letting your money speak for yourself has long since ceased to be the only consumer feedback loop available, tho' it is the most definite one. We'll do what we always do; save what we can, kill what we can't.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
Back
Top Bottom