Fallout 3 - Preview & Interview @ Crispy Gamer

Headlined The Summer's Best and Worst Demo: Fallout 3, Crispy Gamer (a site with some of the best writers in the business but the one of the worst layouts) has a preview based on the standard half hour's play. The piece is critical of the similarity between FO3 and Oblivion and also the demo itself, but doesn't have much room for actual gameplay commentary:

I was also free to wander the countryside, tuning into a couple of available radio stations while (hopefully) evading a few roving bandits and getting into the occasional scrap with an animal, which would be a great opportunity to learn how the semi-turn-based VATS combat system works. Fallout 3 is all about freedom, and the demo certainly got that across.

So why am I so unsatisfied?

Maybe it's that this demo did little to show how Fallout 3 is truly different from Oblivion. Ok, the lock-picking mini-game is slightly different (and better) but the dialogue trees, skill breakdowns and overall feel seem so much like Oblivion, at least in this early stage of the game, that the untrained eye could mistake it for a mod.

They also have an interview between a different writer and Pete Hines, with some interesting questions:

Crispy Gamer: In a way, the game seems like it's going to be a first- or third-person shooter but with deep RPG elements. Am I wrong?

Hines: It is a deep RPG with shooter elements. How to handle combat doesn't define the game. Just because you're holding a gun and shooting at things doesn't make it a shooter, although some people are going to see it that way, which is okay. If you decide to play the game because it looks like a fun shooter, we don't mind. Whatever reasons you have for giving it a try, we hope there is enough compelling gameplay to make you want to keep playing. You may not buy it because of the quests or dialogue, but if you play the game and end up really enjoying the game for those things, where's the harm in that?

Ultimately, what makes Fallout 3 somewhat unique is that the game is all about what your character can do, which is decided by you. What you want to be good at, what kinds of things you want to do. Those choices will affect your overall experience and how you decide to play the game, but there's nothing wrong with getting in a big fight with some Super Mutants and having a great time running around blowing things up. Many really good RPGs have quite a bit of combat to them, so we might as well make that as fun as it can be.

…and some silly ones if you read to the end.
More information.

Silly? I think you're being to easy on the interviewer. The questions were repetitive and fairly pathetic. I'm betting that Hines spent some "quality" time with the Fat Boy after a day of such interviews. I am unfamiliar with the site, but I really hope that the business has better writers than this?

Huh? I liked the interview. At least it asked a lot of questions that I haven't seen asked in 30 other interviews already.

I really don't like what I'm seeing\hearing about this VATS system so far. I think it's nothing more than a lame attempt to convince old-time Fallout fans that F3 is still Fallout. I don't see how slowing combat down to a pseudo turn-based fight is going to be fun in a first-person crpg. I envision many people never even using the VATS unless it's completely necessary.

Im thinking VATS as paused bullet time (instead of slow motion). And I do like bullet time in FPS games.

I dont think Ive read a single thread about fallout3 that didnt have negative comments. Every thread about it always turns sour. Looks like the game is a major catastrophy in the making. Hopefully bethesda will take it as a lesson to be learned.

Fallout 3 will be a super smash super hit, loved by 95% of the players. Of course, there will be loads of whining on various forums, but that's to be expected.

The only reasons I don't like Oblivion is because:
A) The hype is just too crazy.
B) It takes away some of the focus of other, better RPGs.

That said, I did enjoy it quite a lot, and I'm sure I will enjoy Fallout 3, but its hype and overall exposure will annoy me (like Oblivion).

Bethesda has never made non-ES games that have the game mechanics of ES. Even the derivates of ES battlespire and redguard (with quality dialogue and npcs) were different allthough shared the ES lore. So I wouldnt make the comparison that Fallout3 must be just like Oblivion.

But that doesnt mean that F3 cant be a bad game. It can fail in its own too.

As for hype I agree with that especially with console games. In example metal gear solid 4 or halo3 getting 100% reviews while they are mediocre at best. But its all about advertising money.

Originally Posted by Maylander
Of course, there will be loads of whining on various forums, but that's to be expected.

I have never seen this much of it been made about any other game. Fallout3 is surely a special case.

Originally Posted by zakhal
As for hype I agree with that especially with console games. In example metal gear solid 4 or halo3 getting 100% reviews while they are mediocre at best. But its all about advertising money.

Don't know anything about MGS 4, but Halo 3 is far from mediocre imo, I just hope we don't have to wait 2+ years to get a PC version.

I'm personally really looking forward to FO3, even if it just ends up being for the exploration and not much else.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Don't know anything about MGS 4, but Halo 3 is far from mediocre imo, I just hope we don't have to wait 2+ years to get a PC version.

I played the co-op campaign through in two nights on hard difficulty. It was okay for a co-op game but othervice I didnt find it that great imo - more like a forgettable experience like the first halo imo.

Talking about co-op system shock2 alone is way better than 100% halo3 ever was. But ss2 failed and the series died - one reason they say is lack of advertising even though the game was awarded high all around.

Originally Posted by zakhal
Bethesda has never made non-ES games that have the game mechanics of ES. Even the derivates of ES battlespire and redguard (with quality dialogue and npcs) were different allthough shared the ES lore. So I wouldnt make the comparison that Fallout3 is just like Oblivion.

But that doesnt mean that F3 cant be a bad game. It can fail in its own too.

As I recall, Battlespire had pretty much the same game mechanics as Daggerfall, with a few alterations to match the different style of play.

Also, it was a horrible game that ran like a dog on even the most powerful systems at the time of release.

Redguard was a decent adventure game with some clunky mechanics, but it's possibly the most wholesome game Bethesda has made. I don't recall any huge design flaws like those present in everything else they've done.

I haven't seen anything yet that would make me think Fallout 3 will fail or be a bad game, it just doesn't strike me as being very much like the previous Fallouts. Also, I think it's unfortunate that - as powerful as the Gamebryo engine is, and as talented as Bethesda artists are in some respects - the animations still seem quite poor and appear especially jarring in contrast with the otherwise excellent aethetics.

Mostly, I expect the story and NPC dialogue to be disturbingly stale and mediocre in much the same way those aspects were in Oblivion. I've never liked their approach to those things, and there's something particularly demanding about writing for a Fallout game (or any post-apoc game with a measure of philosophical underpinning) - that will require a VERY different level of talent than what I've seen from Beth so far.

No, I think it will be a decent game with some entertaining violent gameplay and reasonable RPG mechanics, but ultimately I don't see it doing much more for me.

However, it'll still be a smash and sell a zillion copies from hype alone, and as long as it's not a crappy game - word of mouth won't be able to hold it down.

Originally Posted by zakhal
I played the co-op campaign through in two nights on hard difficulty. It was okay for a co-op game but othervice I didnt find it that great. Talking about co-op system shock2 alone is way better than 100% halo3 ever was.

Wouldn't know anything about co-op, as I've never tried it, but comparing Halo 3 and SS2 is like apples and oranges, they are two totally different experiences.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
As I recall, Battlespire had pretty much the same game mechanics as Daggerfall, with a few alterations to match the different style of play.

Battlespire didnt have two of the worst game mechanics of ES series/daggerfall - the hated ES dialogue and the randomized dungeons of daggerfall. Othervice it was a different game - allthough buggy as hell. I did have a liking to its leveldesign especially after playing through the insane dungeons of daggerfall.

Redguard was a decent adventure game with some clunky mechanics, but it's possibly the most wholesome game Bethesda has made. I don't recall any huge design flaws like those present in everything else they've done.

Redguard did have good dialogue and plot. Thats somthing that ES series lacked.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Wouldn't know anything about co-op, as I've never tried it, but comparing Halo 3 and SS2 is like apples and oranges, they are two totally different experiences.

The thing I liked most abt halo3 was the co-op (somthing that especially modern pc games seem to lack) and thats what other people too say is the best thing about it. As a singleplayer FPS I wouldnt rate it that high.

System shock2 was fps too even though it had rpg elements but especially as a co-op experience its the best I have ever seen.

Originally Posted by zakhal
.
The thing I liked most abt halo3 was the co-op (somthing that especially modern pc games seem to lack) and thats what other people too say is the best thing about it. As a singleplayer FPS I wouldnt rate it that high. System shock2 was fps too even though it had rpg elements.

SS2 may have been a fps, but it was about as similar to Halo 3 as white is to black. SS2 was all about the atmosphere and story, while Halo 3 was pure action. Halo 3 was also damn good for a console game, although I think a PC game wouldn't have been too bad either considering the lack of many quality fps in 2008.

Originally Posted by zakhal
Battlespire didnt have two of the worst game mechanics of ES series/daggerfall - the hated ES dialogue and the randomized dungeons of daggerfall. Othervice it was a different game - allthough buggy as hell.

Well, the entire point of Battlespire was that it was a big linear dungeon crawler ala Dungeon Master and Ultima Underworld, so I think it's sort of implicit that there were no randomized dungeons.

But as for the character and combat systems (pretty huge parts of any ES game I'd say) - they were largely the same. In any case, we can agree that they shared many mechanics, right?

Redguard did have good dialogue and plot. Thats somthing that ES series lacked.

True.

The thing I liked most abt halo3 was the co-op (somthing that especially modern pc games seem to lack) and thats what other people too say is the best thing about it. As a singleplayer FPS I wouldnt rate it that high. System shock2 was fps too even though it had rpg elements.

Halo 3 is just another braindead shooter with excellent production values. You can turn even the most bland shooter into an enjoyable experience by adding cooperative mode. The same can be said for all the Halo games.

System Shock 2 is in an entirely different league - and even with a half-assed coop mode and clunky shooter mechanics, the game is a work of art. Shame they couldn't afford to hype the game like Microsoft.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Halo 3 was also damn good for a console game,

Averige console player (33000 reviews) gives it 89% (mediocre-high). Som of the critics:

the bad: level design is suprisingly uninteresting and barren, faces and some textures are terrible, art direction makes the game feel like it should be a sci fi rpg and not a sci fi shooter, pop up is bad, forge is really really gay,

Gameplay: Same old same old. Well you have the weapons, you have the stupid grunts, and you have the huge gorilla sized Brutes. And you run around shooting like a maniac as you have been SINCE 2001!!!! Dual weilding? Don't even bother… The sheilds suck. The controls though have been as good as the last two games.

Story: Ok the game is not even 10 hours long. I don't know precisly but under 10 hours. Please don't listen to anyone who says that the campaign is a nice 15 hours because…IT'S NOT. The storyline is nothing special.

Considering how much the game costed during release (70€?) I wouldnt say that its excellent for its value. You can pick a quality pc shooter for 40€.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Well, the entire point of Battlespire was that it was a big linear dungeon crawler ala Dungeon Master and Ultima Underworld, so I think it's sort of implicit that there were no randomized dungeons.

But as for the character and combat systems (pretty huge parts of any ES game I'd say) - they were largely the same. In any case, we can agree that they shared many mechanics, right?

True but what they shared was the good stuff (character and combat system is not so bad in ES). My point was that bethesda can make non-ES games that lack the bad stuff of ES series - especially the "dialogue".

The Halo games seem easy targets for criticism, as they tend to get scores approaching infinity with reviews that point out their various flaws - and in that regard they are not that different from Oblivion. They are all good games, but the hype and apparent score inflation carry them to the point of being held up as 'da bestest EVAR'! And just like the Halo games aren't even in the top 10 all-time shooters, neither is Oblivion a top-10 RPG … regardless of what the scores say.

Which all comes back to two things - the game will likely sell millions and be loved by the overwhelming majority. But how will it play to the hardcore RPG and Fallout fan? That really remains to be seen - and each new preview seems to contradict the last and offer reasons why we'll love and hate it.

Originally Posted by zakhal
Averige console player (33000 reviews) gives it 89% (mediocre-high). Som of the critics:"

Your standards must be incredibly high if you consider 89% to be anywhere near mediocre.

As far as reviews go, it's very easy to take a selected section of one and attempt to make a game look better\worse than it really is. Example….

Anyway you slice it, Halo 3 more than lives up to the high expectations set by gamers everywhere. It's solid gameplay, immense replayability, online functionality, and incredible production values will ensure its place in video game history, and it is, without a doubt, a satisfying and fulfilling close to the beloved trilogy[?].

As far as FO3 goes, I'm really going to try to stay away from reviews after it's released and just form my own opinion, which will hopefully be good…

Originally Posted by JDR13
Your standards must be incredibly high if you consider 89% to be anywhere near mediocre.

For me 89% is very well done mediocre game or excellent game with flaws (rough edges, bugs etc). Since halo3 is a very smooth experience (divine with the hype) without rough edges or bugs so it must be mediocre.

As far as reviews go, it's very easy to take a selected section of one and attempt to make a game look better\worse than it really is. Example….

I could have quoted hype too but I tried to find criticism for why the game didnt get perfect score. Also the quotes werent that bad but more like factual info ~ 10-15 hours long singleplayer game,more of the same, mediocre level design,etc.

Looking at the critique in any game usually gives up the real score of the game. Its the first thing I check in any review, because its the most important part of it.

Originally Posted by zakhal
True but what they shared was the good stuff (character and combat system is not so bad in ES). My point was that bethesda can make non-ES games that lack the bad stuff of ES series - especially the "dialogue".

Personally, I think the character and combat systems of ES are extremely poor. Ok, Oblivion had a workable melee combat system, but it's still horribly simplistic overall.

But in any case, Bethesda as a team of developers is very different today than it was back when Battlespire was released.

That said, I don't think they CAN'T make a game without certain features from ES - I mean why wouldn't they be able to?

I just don't think they're particularly talented, and I base that primarily on them never having made a great game. That's just my opinion, of course. They seem extremely confident in their own ability and I guess that's largely due to the financial success of Morrowind and Oblivion.

Originally Posted by zakhal
8X has always been mediocre atleast for me. 89% is very well done mediocre game..

As I said, standards differ…

Originally Posted by zakhal
I could have quoted hype too but I tried to find criticism for why the game didnt get perfect score. Also the quotes werent that bad but more like factual info ~ 10 hours long singleplayer game,more of the same, mediocre level design,etc.

You seem to be getting "factual info" confused with opinion. I've read reviews that praised the level design, etc of Halo 3. They're all going to say something different.