PCGamer Fallout 3 Predictions

Post by **King of Creation** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:35 am

[ Game -> Article ] - More info on <a href="#Fallout 3">Game: Fallout 3</a>

PCGamer predicts that Fallout 3 will be loved by everyone but us. Huh. Haven't heard that before.<blockquote> The only thing that confuses me about
Bethesda getting the Fallout licence is why they'd even bother.
Fallout, while important and brilliant, was never a runaway sales
success. At the moment, Bethesda are arguably the most commercially
successful western-style Role-playing Game developer on earth. It'd
actually be far smarter for them to develop their own post-apocalypse
setting from scratch rather than trying to raise Interplay's child from
the nuclear ashes. 

 The idea of Bethesda doing a
post-apocalypse game is as big a story as Bethesda doing Fallout 3.
Perhaps even a bigger story. Since it'll be presumably be appearing on
the consoles, where it'll have no history whatsoever, the "3" is going
to make people back away slowly. (Don't
 expect it to come out under the name "Fallout 3" but "Fallout: Some Extra Subtitle") 


So what have they bought with the licence? Just the enmity of the
hardcore Fallout fans who'll hate any game Bethesda make with it just
on principle.

 So why did they do it? Only reason I can work out
is Bethesda are just dirty big Fallout fans and would love to play in
the Sandbox. Which is a good a reason for the rest of us to be very
excited indeed. </blockquote> Check out the rest of the article <a href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... 1&site=pcg" target="_self">here</a>, where the author makes a few more predictions. Spotted @ <a href="http://ve3d.ign.com/">Voodoo Extreme</a>

Dreadnought · Post by **Dreadnought** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:36 am

1st.

Edit:

See it from the bright side!

It won't be Fallout 3 so we don't have to worry about the canon, the setting and the other shit... we must ignore it... and live a life without a proper Fallout sequel.

How sad is that?

Thor Kaufman · Post by **Thor Kaufman** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:24 am

FO3 might be like the crippled child you never loved, you can still sell it to cults or use it as a drug courier, so it's all good, probably

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:01 am

I've never thought of it this way before.

First of all, removing the "3" would indeed save them a lot of grief, and allow them to focus on a storyline, race, technology or whatever, without getting scorned for gamers false expectations..

And making something post-apoc and not fallout would also be a good idea. I mean, I'd love another sequal, but not by beth. Let them come up with something of their own instead, and let us meet that without the high expectations we have for a FO3.

DaC-Sniper · Post by **DaC-Sniper** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:13 am

fucking PC Gamer, i dont want to read this text

it seems like they know more then we do or they are just simply writing bullshit.
It already has the name Fallout 3, removing the "3" would be stupid.

Mr. Teatime · Post by **Mr. Teatime** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:22 am

Nah, I think this journo's getting things wrong. I don't think Bethsoft would remove the 3, Thief: Deadly Shadows style - I agree if they did it's a big sign about where their target audience is.

And I think that there are some fans who'd hate anything made on principle, but there are also some who are trying to keep an open mind - certainly if Bethsoft are going for turn based combat, and/or other 'fallout-but-not-of-instant-mass-appeal' stuff, I'm willing to give them a chance. In other words, it depends on the game content (but it's time we got some details about what that entails).

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:46 am

PCGamer got it wrong there. The Fallout franchise is incredibly popular and known by most if not all CRPG enthusiasts. You can't find a single gaming forum where if you mention 'Fallout' the next guy immediately replies "That was an awesome game, I hope they don't mess it up!". The sales figures aren't exactly a reliable indicator of the brand value in Fallout's case.

On the contrary, people would back away if the box doesn't read "Fallout 3". I'm still not sure whether I want a Fallout game or a completely new post-apoc game by Bethesda or any RPG by Bethesda, for that matter.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:58 am

VasikkA wrote:The sales figures aren't exactly a reliable indicator of the brand value in Fallout's case.

Fallout 1/2 had sold 900,000 copies by the release of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, and could be estimated at 1 million now. If that odd "Fallout biggest torrent download!"-thing was even close to reality, it's a big download too.

It has a bigger fanbase than you'd think. Problem is, that fanbase would like another *Fallout*, not a repackaged Oblivion.

The "Bethesda would have been better off on its own franchise" is right. Nobody is going to convince me Bethesda bought the license because they're fans, that's not how a media corporation like ZeniMax works (ZM couldn't give less of a shit about what BethSoft developers are fans of, as long as it sells).

I can only asume they bought it in the hope of name recognition to boost casual sales ("Hey, Fallout, I once heard of that name somewhere, supposed to be really good") and the extra "legendary franchise"-boost to their usual hype.

It's been a failure so far, mostly generating head-scratching and a negative word-of-mouth. The only places it has generated positive word of mouth so far are the kind of places that like whatever Bethesda does (kotaku, QTT, PoNG, those kind of places), so that's not a plus that comes from buying the license. 1.175 million down the drain, if you ask me.

Dreadnought · Post by **Dreadnought** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:01 pm

They're fans of MONEY.
And you can possibly make MONEY with FALLOUT.
So they're technicaly a twistedER form of Fallout Fans.
They're not lieing... they're just not telling the truth.

Thor Kaufman · Post by **Thor Kaufman** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:09 pm

A convincing lie is almost as good as/equals the truth

Dreadnought · Post by **Dreadnought** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:18 pm

Thor Kaufman wrote:A convincing lie is almost as good as/equals the truth

Depends on the final outcome.

A lie can be a good thing as long as it supports something worth lieing for.

Briosafreak · Post by **Briosafreak** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:30 pm

Lol I just quoted Teatime on my blogpost about this

Cimmerian Nights · Post by **Cimmerian Nights** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:26 pm

Bethesda : Lowered Expectations are our Goal!

Why shoot for excellence when you can court mediocrity?

GO TODD!

Cthulhugoat · Post by **Cthulhugoat** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:46 pm

SANDBOX

SANDBOX

SANDBOX

SANDBOX

rilom · Post by **rilom** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:08 pm

Okay. Time for me to get yelled at. I'm just tired enough of hearing the 'Oblivion with guns' reference that I figured I'd say something. Anyone remember the "rpg" that Bethesda made after Morrowind and before Oblivion. Originally it went by the name Sea Dogs. Then, some movie producers decided to buy it and change the name to "Pirates of the Carribean" before it was finished so that they could package it and send it out before it was too long after the movie had come out to make sense. Now I'm not gonna claim that Pirates was a good game. It was pretty horrible. Not because of the content or the ideas, but because it was obviously not finished. What the game was, though, was a rpg that was NOT morrowind with pirates. Bethesda has done nothing to show that they are going to make Fallout just like Oblivion. They understand that differerent series' should operate differently.

I'm not trying to defend Bethesda in any way by using Pirates as an example, that would be downright foolish. All I'm saying is that if you're going to make an argument against Bethesda, say something that makes sense. Otherwise all your other arguments lose a lot of face because it can be shown that you haven't done your research.

Dreadnought · Post by **Dreadnought** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:40 pm

Allright... all we need now is Ninjas, then we have everything necessary to make the thread perfect.

Bradylama · Post by **Bradylama** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:59 pm

You forget, rilom, that Bethesda is going to "do what we do best."

Also, didn't Beth copyright the Fallout 3 title, or did they buy the rights to use the copyright?

In either case, not using a name they payed for would have to provide greater benefits than using it for the hyphenated title to actually be used.

rilom · Post by **rilom** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:10 pm

Bradylama wrote:You forget, rilom, that Bethesda is going to "do what we do best."

Bah. Remember the context that that quote came from? Sure he was saying that they weren't planning on making an iso-metric game. It may make me unpopular around here but that's one thing that I care little about. I'll agree that if the combat system is the same as Oblivion's then it'll be little more than a FPS, but the combat system was not what he was talking about. Everything that I've heard come out of Bethesda's mouths in my opinion has been pretty much positive in terms of how much they're sticking to the laws of the Fallout universe. Except when they said that it would be less lewd. That made me worry. Other than that I've only been dissapointed in their PR department and how lazy they are. In my opinion they should've had developers blogging about what they were doing from day one. But hell, I'm no PR expert so maybe the large corporation is right on that one.

Thor Kaufman · Post by **Thor Kaufman** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:15 pm

don't worry, tards, the bus is coming

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:46 pm

rilom wrote:I'm just tired enough of hearing the 'Oblivion with guns' reference that I figured I'd say something.

...

They understand that differerent series' should operate differently.

You should remember the context as well. "Morrowind/Oblivion with guns" is just a typical phrase used by the fans ever since Bethesda acquired the license. It's mockery, that's all. But yeah, you're right; Everything written here about Fallout 3 is nothing but speculation and conclusions made of rumors and old information. I personally don't believe FO3 to be a 1:1 copy of Oblivion, only with a different setting. And if I recall correctly, Pete Hines has emphasized that they are trying to introduce something 'new' with every game and are more than well capable of doing that.

The view perspective or combat system isn't going to determine whether a game is good or bad. The quality of an RPG isn't ultimately dependent on these factors. As for the combat, Bethesda should at least consider using the combat system in Fallout as a basis and improve on that because, frankly, combat isn't what Bethesda "does best".

All I'm saying is that if you're going to make an argument against Bethesda, say something that makes sense. Otherwise all your other arguments lose a lot of face because it can be shown that you haven't done your research.

A lot of the frustration among the Fallout fans is caused by Bethesda's PR policy. The fact that there is no information available has created an uneasy atmosphere and keeps the creative discussion concerning game mechanics minimal in these (and NMA's) forums. Also, the fact that Bethesda has publicly blacklisted gaming sites that potentially can be harmful to the marketing of their products has pissed a number of fans off. So you see, a lot of the frustration is caused by a conscious choice by Bethesda. However, it's their choice and not ours.

Everything that I've heard come out of Bethesda's mouths in my opinion has been pretty much positive in terms of how much they're sticking to the laws of the Fallout universe.

Well, that's just PR. Take it with a grain of salt. And in Pete Hines' case, with pepper as well.