Escapist Editorial on Fallout 3 & Nostalgia

Stainless · Post by **Stainless** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:24 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>

 The <a target="_blank" href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com">Escapist</a> has posted up an interesting article on nostalgia and Fallout 3, which doesn't proceed to declare Fallout 3 as totally awesome and everyone who doesn't like it is living in the past and stop wanting isometric turn based games with graphics from 1998. While it centers on Fallout 3, the core base of the article is more on the state of modern gaming. <blockquote>There is a reason that sequels usually have a
property of diminishing returns, and it has little to do with the
illusion of creative bankruptcy or the fallacy of lazy development. The
problem is that the traditional sequel is trying to recapture a moment
that is only valuable because it had never been captured before. It's
not just that developers and gamers are trying to recapture lighting in
a bottle, they are trying to capture the lightning that has already
struck. </blockquote> You can check out the full article <a target="_blank" href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... y">here</a>
 <blockquote> </blockquote>

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:32 am

What's interesting is that in their original review they pretty much said "Fallout 3 as totally awesome and everyone who doesn't like it is living in the past" but I'm hoping it's a different writer as I'm too lazy to care.

Stainless · Post by **Stainless** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:41 am

yeah, the editorial and the review were done by different people. Off the top of my head, I think the lead ed did the review and he's kind of a media whore from what I've gathered (ie: every new game is WTF AWESOME)

Fenwick · Post by **Fenwick** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:05 am

I somewhat enjoy the comments for the article. Everyone seems to have this general tone of "well yes it could have been better." Yet the second later they cover it up with game play time, effects, and all the other things we tend to hear often about FO3.

All seem to agree out right that the writing was bad, and some even say the "older Fallout fans" have a point. Yet sadly such arguements, and comments are drowned in a sea of look at the graphics, see the detail they put into the game?

cazsim83 · Post by **cazsim83** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:31 am

article needs to be two pages longer - very nice, stainless.