Keeping Faith in Fallout

cazsim83 · Post by **cazsim83** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:27 am

[ Game -> Editorial ] - More info on <a href="#Bethesda Softworks">Company: Bethesda Softworks</a> | More info on <a href="#Fallout 3">Game: Fallout 3</a>

David Wilgoose, from the Official Xbox Magazine, has an article up on his blog regarding why we, fans of Fallout, should embrace change when thinking of Fallout 3.Here are some excerpts, which I intentionally have emphasized:<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px">Recently I had the opportunity to visit Bethesda and play Fallout 3. I’ll shortly be posting extracts from an interview I did with lead designer Emil Pagliarulo, and you can read my hands-on impressions of the game in an upcoming issue of the Official Xbox Magazine. But for now I want to discuss what happens when one major developer inherits a classic series from another major developer.I’ve been thinking about change recently, and how gamers tend to be somewhat frightened by it. We want to be dazzled by new technology and we say we want innovation and originality, but it seems what gets us most excited is something familiar given a new lick of paint. So, on the one hand, Fallout 3 should be exactly what gamers want – an old idea updated with cool new graphics; on the other hand, it’s kinda scary. How do we know Bethesda isn’t going to ruin an old favourite?[...]What’s notable with Fallout 3 is the length of time between Black Isle signing off on Fallout 2 and Bethesda applying its own seal to the series. Ten years is a long time in gaming. It’s enough time for entire genres to rise and fall in popularity; for new technology to change our perception of what makes for a modern game...Bethesda has to combat all these factors. They have to bring a new Fallout into a world where multi-platform development is vital; where RPGs flounder without production values as high as the next big budget FPS; where many of the play mechanics of the original games now seem anachronistic; and where Bethesda has charted out their own successful course of what a role-playing game can be.The entire article can be read at <a href="http://unifiedammo.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... ands/">The Wordpress</a></blockquote>Spotted @ <a href="http://fallout3.wordpress.com/">Briosafreak's Fallout 3 Blog</a>

cazsim83 · Post by **cazsim83** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:39 am

The worst part to me is at the end when he talks about the "production values" of big budget FPS games.

If anything, it's a sad admission of the quality of the majority of gamers out there. I understand the "immersion" factor of a FPS - whether it be Oblivion, Bioshock, Doom, or Condemned. It does make you feel 'in the game' - but am I any less satisfied with being able to see a fully-rendered character apart from a cutscene?

Would I be less satisfied with Fallout 3 if I could actually see my character, and have a couple more party members than a dog on a regular basis?

It's a sad era for gamers when "we" just want to get excited about a sequel with a "fresh lick of paint". SAD era.

I bought CoD 4 because it wasn't another WW2 sequel, and found out what I find out about *most* FPS games - the story is either short, or crap.

Halo would not be HALF the game it is were it not for multiplayer - which let's be honest, is an upgraded version of Counter Strike. (Deal with it)

For me, Bioshock was one of the VERY few games that added a memorable (and shocking) story to a very well-done FPS.

Even Doom had NO story while you were playing the game, apart from perhaps some post-level blips - Doom 3 didn't even have a very well fleshed-out storyline.

So, Mr. Wilgoose - there is a gamer here who does not agree with almost anything that you're saying. I see the point you're trying to make, and one thing we do agree on is that 10 years is a long time to make a sequel. That alone sets Fallout apart from Starcraft, Diablo, or even Fable - but because it's ten years that means that Fallout needs to be a FPS? The times dictate that this is what Fallout needs to be a modern game? No, you hit the nail on the head and didn't even realize it, sir.

As a genre, RPG's do not make as much profit as FPS'.

Therein lies the problem when you're talking about almost any game developer. The bottom line. Money. Dinero. Etc.

So please, don't spit in my face with implying that Fallout needed to be a FPS to become a modern game, and I should learn to love the changes. I'm not afraid. The word you're looking for is heartbroken, on some video game scale only reached by a select few who've spent most of their childhood parked in front of a glowing screen, dissecting each level into a seared memory recalled years later with a faint glowing fondness.

If you ever read this, and can't possibly understand where I'm coming from, Then it's okay. *I* understand.

And only a real Fallout fan could.

rabidpeanut · Post by **rabidpeanut** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:23 pm

i think you mean DOWNGRADED counterstrike.

:SPITS:

Fucking profiteers.

the_BlackPipMan · Post by **the_BlackPipMan** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:31 pm

oblivion and fallout 3 are not first person shooters. call them action RPGs or call them first person perspective. but to call them shooters is idiotic.

i cant recall the last shooter i played were i can play a completely different character then joe down the street. or spend more then 3 minutes choosing dialog.

your over use of hyperbole makes it hard to take you seriously

cazsim83 · Post by **cazsim83** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:03 pm

the_BlackPipMan wrote:oblivion and fallout 3 are not first person shooters. call them action RPGs or call them first person perspective. but to call them shooters is idiotic.

i cant recall the last shooter i played were i can play a completely different character then joe down the street. or spend more then 3 minutes choosing dialog.

your over use of hyperbole makes it hard to take you seriously

Well, please make some points of your own and maybe we can discuss it, but to only criticize what I've said in one short sentence, without any evidence or quotation, makes it difficult to see exactly what you don't agree with.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:05 pm

the_BlackPipMan wrote:....fallout 3 are not first person shooters. .

It's set in first person. You are shooting firearms. Tacked on roleplaying elements only make it a FPS with RPG elements.

i cant recall the last shooter i played were i can play a completely different character then joe down the street. or spend more then 3 minutes choosing dialog.

Deus Ex, off the top of my head. System Shock applies here as well. I can name more if I bothered to think just abit more.

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:13 am

Another "cool theme" versus "Fallout" report.

Joe average wants the first, and anyone who loves fallout for what it was and is, wants a worthy sequal and not just a compromise.
As it is now, it doesn't even look like something I would've played 10 years ago, not counting the graphics (which would've been completely amazing at the time. The concept itself is the point.)

The game is just a jab at making something cool(but not a classic), that profits on the brand and having Bethsoft make something different than mindless swordswining adventure number 4 or 5.

the_BlackPipMan wrote:oblivion and fallout 3 are not first person shooters. call them action RPGs or call them first person perspective. but to call them shooters is idiotic.

Nowhere near as idiotic as making that statement a point, to counter a well written comment.
You're talking ridiculous semantics.

i cant recall the last shooter i played were i can play a completely different character then joe down the street. or spend more then 3 minutes choosing dialog.

Then you're not even trying, or haven't played an FPS the last twenty years, that was worth something.

your over use of hyperbole makes it hard to take you seriously

Your lack of anything relevant makes it hopeless to take you serious.

MadBill · Post by **MadBill** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:18 am

How about StarCraft 2? I think we have seen about a decade between sequels there too?? Granted, bethcocks haven't had the chance pedophile it, so maybe they need the chance? Someone turn Fallout 3 into a verb, please.

SenisterDenister · Post by **SenisterDenister** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:03 am

EA is Fallout 3-ing the fuck out of the Command and Conquer Red Alert series.

Superhaze · Post by **Superhaze** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:30 pm

Closer to FOBOS imo.

cazsim83 · Post by **cazsim83** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:03 pm

senisterdenister wrote:EA is Fallout 3-ing the fuck out of the Command and Conquer Red Alert series.

quote database, please.