Gameinformer magazine on Fallout 3

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:12 pm

Three days can be a lot but a magazine takes time to edit and release.

Post by **Alexander** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:10 pm

"my Fallout fan senses are picking up signs of an approaching ass raping, with no lube in sight. "

.... hehe wouldnt it be great if they included a gay-rape mode? hehe...

No seriusly what he said about the perspective and combat-style an so on sounds horrific (or "horror-eque") alright! ... for a Fallout 1-2 fan!

If they go through with what they said then... I guess we'll see them in Hell...

Post by **King of Creation** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:32 am

So this is the Gameinformer article in full:
http://nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=673

"And will be set in <i>A</i> familiar city"??!!?!?! One freaking city??!

Now, we all know that the gameinformer article is probably bullshit, and its most likely a misquote, but still. They claim Todd Howard said it. Jesus. I hate all this misinformation (if that's what it is).

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:32 pm

I wouldn't mind the game taking place in one very, very large city.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:23 pm

What very, very large city?

Mr. Teatime · Post by **Mr. Teatime** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:27 pm

The gameinformer article IS meaningless. They were just concepts and ideas. Seriously.
i agree there's a bit of misinformation about at the moment, i think because some of the mags were as eager as we were to find out information.

brillo · Post by **brillo** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:51 pm

Spazmo wrote:What very, very large city?

Wasn't part of Van Buren going to be set in Denver?

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:09 pm

Assuming anything that was going to go in VB is canon, that doesn't mean Denver was going to be a 'very, very large city'. Certainly not big enough for a whole game.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:21 pm

I think San Francisco is the coolest of all major American cities, simply because of China Town... But since China Town was the focus of FO2's San Fran, I'd say just about any other city would do (New York, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Las Vegas).

Briosafreak · Post by **Briosafreak** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:23 pm

Yeah, only a small part, like in the other games. The area would be in the outskirts of Denver, with a lot of really angry dogs living in the streets, forcing people to live in high places, at the ruined buildings. Besides the concept art we`ve seen i think the pic on the top of this article actually gives a good idea how it would look like, except we would see it from above, of course.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:31 pm

Why Denver? Denver is boring. How about Las Vegas, because the outskirts of Vegas are desert regions much like the northern California regions in FO1/2

Sovy Kurosei · Post by **Sovy Kurosei** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:39 pm

I think that the majority of the continental US would be wastelands in the Fallout world.

On the subject of Todd, I think it is pretty well known what his intentions are when he will be dealing with Fallout. It is apparent to me that he wants to make his own Fallout, a Fallout first person, real time shooter with a handful of RPG elements, ala Morrowind. That isn't to say that the next Fallout will be a bad game, but I doubt it would be the staple Fallout that we have grown up on and cherished.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:26 am

Sovy Kurosei wrote:I think that the majority of the continental US would be wastelands in the Fallout world.

I'm sorry... did you just claim that the Rocky Mountains would be an arid desert after a global nuclear war?

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:24 am

Most of Arizona was an arid wasteland before the war. Colorado is allitle more inhabitable.

brillo · Post by **brillo** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:33 am

Franz_Schubert wrote:Why Denver? Denver is boring. How about Las Vegas, because the outskirts of Vegas are desert regions much like the northern California regions in FO1/2

Without shipping other area's water in, the city itself would be the same desert. It may be fun to visit and gamble there in real-life, but I have a hard time seeing it in either FO's retro-future style, or in that style post-apocalypse. I may have just been scarred by New Reno though...

Sovy Kurosei wrote:I think that the majority of the continental US would be wastelands in the Fallout world.

I think you're wrong. The coasts, north, deep south, and high-mountain regions are all wet enough that you would not have anykind of wasteland approaching what was seen in the previous FO's. That area is already a wasteland, and honestly the FO versions don't look particularly different from the real-life versions.

Briosafreak wrote:Besides the concept art we`ve seen i think the pic on the top of this article actually gives a good idea how it would look like, except we would see it from above, of course.

Keep that hope alive brother.

Sorry, not seeing the iso viewpoint in our future. But maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

Spazmo wrote:Assuming anything that was going to go in VB is canon, that doesn't mean Denver was going to be a 'very, very large city'. Certainly not big enough for a whole game.

I think that Denver and the surrounding area is large enough to comfortably hold every single area detailed in the previous games. Most of the villages in the previous games are no larger than a block or two. They'd fit in a single city easily. And certainly given the fact that FO's set in the future (and an alternate one at that) means that whatever city they might want to set it in would certainly be big enough. I personally think Denver could be very cool. Along with Chicago and Detroit (which already looks a bit post-apocalyptic.

) Even NY would be pretty cool, though someplace with some wasteland potential around it would be better. Hell, Bethesda's near DC, they could go with a place a little closer to home....

Sovy Kurosei · Post by **Sovy Kurosei** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:30 am

Eh? My bad then. I don't know much about the geography of the US, and I thought that the entire US in FO was basically one giant wasteland with some mountains thrown in for good measure.

I can't really see why Fallout 3 should be limited to one city. Infact, I can't see too much good coming out of it. Multiple towns with their own, seperate problems is more to my liking, then one metropolis, ala Midgar in Final Fantasy VII.

If there was going to be a single city, I'd imagine it would be Manhatten, the island. It will at least give a better reason to keep the game enclosed than in the first two Fallouts, which felt a bit weird that there was this inky black stuff in the margins marked "Here be dragons!" that you could not go to. Perhaps some geographical obstructions could give a better reason to confine the player in a certain area. Like the Mississippi river to the east being one border, some mountains in the west being the next, scary stuff up north and the in-laws to the south. Something simple like that instead of being entirely arbitrary.

brillo · Post by **brillo** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:23 am

Sovy Kurosei wrote:Eh? My bad then. I don't know much about the geography of the US, and I thought that the entire US in FO was basically one giant wasteland with some mountains thrown in for good measure.

Take a look here for what that part of the country looks like now. No nuclear apocalypse needed.

Sovy Kurosei wrote:I can't really see why Fallout 3 should be limited to one city. Infact, I can't see too much good coming out of it. Multiple towns with their own, seperate problems is more to my liking, then one metropolis, ala Midgar in Final Fantasy VII.

I personally couldn't see any huge thriving metropolices filled with people. But a bunch of scattered little settlements throughout a large metropolitan area could be cool... There'd be the same separation and differences between the communities, only instead of being separated by fifty miles of empty wasteland, it could be a couple miles of fallen skyscraper wreckage and some block sized cave-in's leading to the subwaylines/sewers. All of it infested by mutants, ghouls, or whatever.

Anyway, no use talking about it all now till we know anything I guess.

Sovy Kurosei · Post by **Sovy Kurosei** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:44 am

brillo;

That does look pretty desolate. Bethesda will have quite a bit of stock footage to play around with, at least.

---

There'd be the same separation and differences between the communities, only instead of being separated by fifty miles of empty wasteland, it could be a couple miles of fallen skyscraper wreckage and some block sized cave-in's leading to the subwaylines/sewers.

Ehhhhh... I guess if you put it that way. I just want my hexes, my turn-based, and my isometric viewpoint. And a non-rehashed storyline. And moral ambiguity would be a big plus. When I hear that Fallout 3 is going to be in one big city, I seize up and start thinking about Final Fantasy 7. Or dealing with just one big dungeon. Or Bethesda basically making a Morrowind with guns mod. Or Oblivion with guns and "OMFGH!11! L33T DETHCLAWSs LOL!11!"

Although, I guess you could do that irregardless of the confinements of the setting.

Anyway, no use talking about it all now till we know anything I guess.

What? Lie down and take it? No sir, I'm going to bitch about it loud and clear, and make my opinion heard.

fallout ranger · Post by **fallout ranger** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:12 am

Franz_Schubert wrote:I'm sorry... did you just claim that the Rocky Mountains would be an arid desert after a global nuclear war?

Actually, the colorado desert covers the base of most of the southern rockies

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:49 am

Sovy Kurosei wrote:What? Lie down and take it? No sir, I'm going to bitch about it loud and clear, and make my opinion heard.

Now that's exactly the kind of attitude that we like to see.