No Fallout 3 for you! Come back one year!

[Liquidize105]

Yup. There's to be NO Fallout 3 at this year's E3. None, nada, zippo.

Bethesda's Pete Hines kindly broke it down for Gamespot:

1. Too early to see
2. Too early to talk about (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144791.html)

Which means the game's still a good ~2 years away; and just like BioShock, things could get interesting at later stages of the development. For now, we'd have to settle for the waiting game.

Fallout is one of those pioneering series from the 90s that still has its diehard following today. Like many other distinguished titles (Thief, Total Annihilation, and System Shock come to mind), its continuity was in question prior to being acquired by Bethesda.

Careful though, change too much and the diehards are gonna raise such a stink that things could turn sour even for the fabled. Or would it? Who's up for a fresh take on Fallout?

[Savok]

I say give them time to do it right.

[Pumped'Up]

In this series' case, "more of the same" would have been perfect for a Fallout 3.

[SMES]

If all they did was take the Fallout 1/2 engine and made a new game with fresh artwork and storyline I would be happy. Probably they are going to shoot for an Oblivion-engine 3D world and it's going to take friggan forever to come out. I'd say late 2008/early 2009 before we see F3.... If we're lucky.

Can you imagine how awesome the game would be if they just spent all that time on highly polished content with a traditional isometric game engine? Oooooh, Ghost of that which will never come to pass, you haunt me so!

Just to answer Liquidize's question: I am a diehard Fallout fan and no, I wouldn't mind a fresh take on Fallout. But pretty much anything they do is guaranteed to be a fresh take. Are they going to use the same graphics engine and interface? No, probably it's going to be 3D, and probably it's going to be at least semi-realtime like Oblivion. It's going to change the game, but if they can nail the atmosphere, storyline, characters, etc, it will be better than nothing.

[Cha-Ka]

I don't think Fallout 3 would draw in a large audience with "more of the same". If Oblivion is a big hit then I'd hope they aim big with their follow-up game to capitalize on that success. Picture a fully 3d fallout with the option to go 1st or 3rd person. It'd be a natural for the shooter or melee types of character paths that are associated with the series.

Or maybe they'll turn it into a X-Com MMO. What do I know?

To put it another way: what SMES said.

[Liquidize105]

I don't think Fallout 3 would draw in a large audience with "more of the same".
That's exactly what I think. Although when you mess with the formula, you risk messing up the concoction.

Luckily Bethesda's got their own fans.

[Savok]

Yes, because we all know exactly what Bethesda is going to do with the license using our mind reading powers.

[Gamefreaks]

Bethesda is developing it. I have faith.

[Dirty Harry]

Bethesda is developing it. I have faith.
better than troika, lol amiright!.

[AversionFX]

What the fuck? TOO EARLY? The game was ~50% done when Blackisle/IPLY went under.

Too early my ass. Pricks.

[SMES]

What the fuck? TOO EARLY? The game was ~50% done when Blackisle/IPLY went under.

Too early my ass. Pricks.

I'm pretty sure that Beth is starting over from scratch. It is very difficult to take the half finished code of a company and pick up where they left off. Expect Fallout 3 to be built on an internally created Beth engine, probably some form of the Oblivion engine.

I really wish that Beth could work with Obsidian on this, but since that isn't going to happen I just hope it isn't just "Oblivion in the Fallout universe."

[nonchalance]

Although a turn-based isometric Fallout RPG with a 2007 graphics engine makes me erect, I'll be happy as long as they keep the soul - the black-humour feel, the art style, and the setting. Oh, and the character system, preferably. I'd rather not be able to walk away overnight with an object on the keyboard and come back two days later capable of jumping mountains.

[The_Reckoning]

I think it's best they leave it under wraps untill it's actually got enough content to really show off what they're doing with the game, rather than get everyone all riled up about something that's not going to surface fully for another few years.

Talking about what I'd like the game to be like is annoying for me, since I have the underlying cognition that they're never going to listen to us if it even contradicts their business mass-market plans a fraction. All I can do is sit back, forget about it, and hope they don't screw it up, and if they screw it up, get it off bittorrent to try before buy.

"Fallout RPG with a 2007 graphics engine makes me erect,"

LOL

[codswallop]

The game was ~50% done when Blackisle/IPLY went under.
SMES was right. Bethesda only bought the license for the game (any and all new versions based on the existing license excluding MMOs, I believe), not the game as it was to-date.

[Slaughter]

I don't think Fallout 3 would draw in a large audience with "more of the same".
X-COM changed the formula. They made a space game and a FPS set in the same universe. Suffice to say they didn't do too well. You can argue that the problem wasn't changing the formula, but the fact that they were lousy games. Even so, who did they make the games for? The X-COM fans liked X-COM for what it was:

Small squad tactical turn-based combat on one side.
Global scale strategy on the other side.

Not saying that people that liked X-COM hates all other genres, but if I wanted space combat I'd go for Freelancer. If I wanted FPS I'd go for Half-Life. People that like X-COM wants more of the same.

I think this is very relevant for Fallout as well. The fans of Fallout like it for what it is, and don't want Fallout: Oblivion. Now we have no idea what Bethesda plans to do, but I fear they'll develop just that. Sure, the Oblivion fans will probably appreciate Fallout: Oblivion, but why do they have to use the Fallout setting? The point of developing a new Fallout game would be to please the Fallout fans, wouldn't it? There are plenty of other good post nuclear settings out there, or they could come up with their own.

Anyway, my impression is that most Fallout fans want more of the same. We'll see what Bethesda thinks in time...

[Draft]

better than troika, lol amiright!.Yes, you are right. Troika would have fucked up FO3 like they fucked up every other game they made.

[GunnyMo]

If all they did was take the Fallout 1/2 engine and made a new game with fresh artwork and storyline I would be happy. Probably they are going to shoot for an Oblivion-engine 3D world and it's going to take friggan forever to come out. I'd say late 2008/early 2009 before we see F3.... If we're lucky.

Can you imagine how awesome the game would be if they just spent all that time on highly polished content with a traditional isometric game engine? Oooooh, Ghost of that which will never come to pass, you haunt me so!

Just to answer Liquidize's question: I am a diehard Fallout fan and no, I wouldn't mind a fresh take on Fallout. But pretty much anything they do is guaranteed to be a fresh take. Are they going to use the same graphics engine and interface? No, probably it's going to be 3D, and probably it's going to be at least semi-realtime like Oblivion. It's going to change the game, but if they can nail the atmosphere, storyline, characters, etc, it will be better than nothing.


I couldn't have said it better. We've waited this long so a couple more years to get it right won't hurt.

[MojoJojo]

I would not have minded (is that a word?) even an Infinity engine version.

I have no problem with them taking their time, though... I don't want them to fuck it up and leave us with a buggy mess like Fallout 2 or a buggy and soulless mess like Fallout Tactics.

[Mr_Snuffle]

Yes, you are right. Troika would have fucked up FO3 like they fucked up every other game they made.

Arcanum was awesome, just took a bit of getting into

[Frogleg Special]

I believe it's going to be 3rd person view RPG-Tactics ala Brothers in Arms, Full Spectrum Warrior, and Knights of the Old Republic. 3rd person isometric doesn't translate well, at least what Bethsoft perceives, with the new audiences using Xbox 360 and PS3.

I myself prefer 3rd person isometric with this kind of game for easy game continuation and better team management. But I'm willing to try what Bethsoft is concocting.

[Apex]

I've always thought Bethesda iare a bit overrated as a developer. Sure they're good but their not great. Arcanum had a horrible interface and didnt flow well, it was a funny game sure.

Did anyone of you play Pirates of the Caribbean by Bethesda? Same again, friggin horrible interface and the gameplay was dead shallow.

Morrowind is the only game that redeems them imo. I liked it alot, but I didnt particularly think it was quite as good as people generally say it is.

So i'm very skeptical about how good Fall Out 3 will be coming from them. The worst possible thing they could do is try to re-invent the franchise. It better not have a bad interface. There is no excuse for having a bad interface these days when it's obvious what works and what doesn't.

[StGeorge]

But apparently they AREN'T using the Oblivion engine which just shows how idiotic Bethesda is. If you have this state-of-the-art RPG engine in development for 4 years now, shouldn't your next project using this engine be done much more rapidly since you have programmers, artists and musicians all coming off Oblivion development with a metric fuck-ton of experience using this new engine? Nah, let's just create a new one and take 6 years to make it. What a bunch of maroons.

[Taco]

They are updating the Bible for RPG games. Take a decade or two, just do it right :).

But apparently they AREN'T using the Oblivion engine which just shows how idiotic Bethesda is. If you have this state-of-the-art RPG engine in development for 4 years now, shouldn't your next project using this engine be done much more rapidly since you have programmers, artists and musicians all coming off Oblivion development with a metric fuck-ton of experience using this new engine? Nah, let's just create a new one and take 6 years to make it. What a bunch of maroons.

And don't make the game for graphic whoring Fallout ignoramus's like this.

[Taco]

I've always thought Bethesda iare a bit overrated as a developer. Sure they're good but their not great. Arcanum had a horrible interface and didnt flow well, it was a funny game sure.

They did not make Arcanum, that was Troika. Bethesda's rep is based solely on their Elder Scrolls games dating back a decade or so and is more than well deserved. They take the time to make massive games and do it right, all the other dev houses like that have been shut down.

Whole ton of clueless people speaking their mind in this thread.

[baz]

But apparently they AREN'T using the Oblivion engine which just shows how idiotic Bethesda is. If you have this state-of-the-art RPG engine in development for 4 years now, shouldn't your next project using this engine be done much more rapidly since you have programmers, artists and musicians all coming off Oblivion development with a metric fuck-ton of experience using this new engine? Nah, let's just create a new one and take 6 years to make it. What a bunch of maroons.

I think its great that Fallout 3 is not using the oblivion engine. I think that to keep the real Fallout core game you need it to be isometric based. A first-person Fallout based on the Oblivion engine wouldn't be Fallout, it would be Oblivion-SciFi edition.

[BleedTheFreak]

I say give them time to do it right.

Yeah, this isn't really a surprise. They are only *just* wrapping up Oblivion, and (one would hope) Fallout 3 will be equally huge.

[Nichols]

Bethesda does not know how to make a Fallout-style game, or even a decent game for that matter.

Let's look at what made Fallout great: The dialogue trees that were based on your stats and skills, the turn-based combat, your actions having reprecussions, the great characters and so on and so forth. The only Bethesda game that had dialogue trees was Battlespire and boy, did that suck. Bethesda is hell-bent on not making dialogue for some reason because I guess that would require actual talent, let alone dialogue that GASP is affected by your stats and skills and not some retarded mini-game BECAUSE GUESS WHAT IT'S AN RPG AND YOU NEED STATS AND SKILLS THAT HAVE A PURPOSE.

The combat was tactical, and was also BASED ON YOUR SKILLS and not your twitch reflexes, which Bethesda is using to garner the LOL LETZ PALY HALO ADN SUM CS LATA crowd who have no interest whatsoever in Fallout or hell, even Elder Scrolls. This sounds familar...trying to attract a crowd with no interest in the series, ah yes, FALLOUT BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL THE WORST GAME EVER MADE.

Also in Fallout actions had consequences, such as killing Kilian Darkwater or Gizmo, or hell, telling people you need a water chip for you vault. The game took all of that into account and it was magnificent. When you kill an important NPC in Morrowind/Oblivion, what do you get? A screen that goes "SRY U KILLED IMPORTANT NPC LOLLERSKATES 1UP PLZ RELOAD OR PLAY A BROKEN QUEST BECAUSE WE'RE TOO LAZY/STUPID TO ADD DIFFERENT OUTCOMES TO THE MAIN QUEST"

Bethesda does not know what makes a Fallout game good, they just know how to dumb games down to Hell and back and try to make a quick back. Which is exactly what Interplay tried to do with the license, and where did they end up? In a fucking trash can with shit on their faces, thank god.

They're not going to give us a "fresh take" they're going to give us a stupid, Fallout: Deus Ex Invisible War complete with light bloom and super mutant testicles.

I think its great that Fallout 3 is not using the oblivion engine. I think that to keep the real Fallout core game you need it to be isometric based. A first-person Fallout based on the Oblivion engine wouldn't be Fallout, it would be Oblivion-SciFi edition.
Bethesda had already said they got the license because they wanted to do a sci-fi game (WTF, Fallout isn't sci-fi, it's post-apocalyptic) with their new engine, AKA the Oblivion engine.

[Mason]

Fallout 1&2 nailed it. To try and make a carbon-copy FO3 wouldn't just be boring, it'd stand a fair chance of failing in comparison. If you want the original Fallout, play the original Fallout, because no one is going to make that exact game and do a better job at it.

As far as I'm concerned, they have to include the character system and do a great job keeping the setting faithful. Turn-based combat should probably be there, but there's plenty of room for improvement on exactly how that gets implemented. I can recall fighting the random number generator too much in Fallout games, as who gets a nasty improbable crit was usually the difference between easy victory and a quickload. That bit was never too interesting.

I could see a mixed 3rd-person and isometric perspective working pretty well. And hopefully we'll hear some surprising things about the AI systems.

[Nichols]

I'm not saying make a carbon-copy, I'm saying make something that would even remotely recognize Fallout, rather than a post-apocalyptic Oblivion with hairy deathclaws and hookers who swear OMG SO GRITTY THAT IS THE CORE OF FALLOUT

[Mason]

The combat was tactical, and was also BASED ON YOUR SKILLS and not your twitch reflexes, which Bethesda is using to garner the LOL LETZ PALY HALO ADN SUM CS LATA crowd who have no interest whatsoever in Fallout or hell, even Elder Scrolls. This sounds familar...trying to attract a crowd with no interest in the series, ah yes, FALLOUT BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL THE WORST GAME EVER MADE.
We don't serve your kind here. You'll have to wait outside.

[Nichols]

My kind? You mean people with intelligence who don't want to see one of their beloved franchises raped to death again?

[Mason]

My kind? You mean people with intelligence who don't want to see one of their beloved franchises raped to death again?
Feel free to talk about it, just keep the drama and the caps to a minimum, I humbly request.

[Frogleg Special]

Did anyone of you play Pirates of the Caribbean by Bethesda? Same again, friggin horrible interface and the gameplay was dead shallow.


That wasn't made by Bethesda. It was by Akella, a Russian development house whose games were always ridden by glitches. Bethesda is the producer, and of course guilty of pushing a formerly PC-geared game to become an Xbox focused game.

One thing that's becoming a sore spot in my eye about Bethesda is that it cannot be denied it's a bit too Xbox slanted. POTC was turned into an Xbox-oriented game although on the previous E3 showings it was only made for PC, Cthulhu was made Xbox first PC later affair, and Oblivion marketing for its PC version is about unequal to its X360 brethren. Still this still seems to be a viable move to Bethsoft (and its brother in plight, Bioware), where all the PC-only RPG devhouses like Troika and Black Isle have fallen.

[Nichols]

Black Isle didn't fail because it was PC only, it failed because Interplay is -- Sorry, WAS -- run by a bunch of monkeys. BI was working on Fallout 3 AND Baldur's Gate 3, both of which were guaranteed to sell mucho money. But Iplay though "Hey, consoles = teh moneys!" so they ditched those games and sold off the Baldur's Gate license for the PC and instead made Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (which completely bombed) and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 which sold only 300,000 copies. Baldur's Gate 3 would've easily sold 4 times that amount.

[Reanimated]

lol, great headline.

[Frogleg Special]

BG3 development cost is also higher. PC RPG is generally costlier than the console brethrens because they're generally more expansive not necessarily in terms of graphics, but what's there for the gamers (gameplay, depth, customability). That's why Bioware's Dragon Age takes so long to develop, where the other hands its X360 cousin RPG Mass Effect takes a more episodic/trilogy approach.

[Nichols]

Development costs are only "higher" because everyone is so focused on making flashy graphics to attract non-gamers and/or idiots who are dazzled by pretty colors. Look at the Spiderweb Games, especially Avernum. Avernum's world is HUUUGGGE and it's deeper than the grand canyon. Now, how much did it cost to make? No more than about 40,000 dollars, I believe. 40,000. That's almost as much as a paycheck for a programmer on a super-dooper EA project.

Besides, when you develop for the PC you don't have to deal with the hassles of dealing with console royalties and such and you can basically do what you want without some big mean company saying you can't have a brothel or whatever.

[Taco]

My kind? You mean people with intelligence who don't want to see one of their beloved franchises raped to death again?

People who tout their own intelligence very rarely are.

[Nichols]

Obviously I'm the exception to the rule.

[baz]

Bethesda had already said they got the license because they wanted to do a sci-fi game (WTF, Fallout isn't sci-fi, it's post-apocalyptic) with their new engine, AKA the Oblivion engine.

The (standard) definition of Sci-Fi is wide enough to encompass most post-apocalyptal settings. Since the apocalypse in Fallout was caused by the misapplication of Science (i.e. Nuclear war), and there was a lot of advanced tech in the game (i.e. plasma guns), I'm sticking by my description of Fallout as Sci-Fi. So don't be such a pedantic fuck.

I however do agree with you that the strengths that made the fallout series great are Bethseda's weakspots. I love Morrowind, but the stories and the NPCs of the Eldar Scrolls games are completely weak and flat contrasted against those of the Fallout series.

I do think that the Eldar Scrolls games are great, but what the Fallout series does not need is to be a Post-Apocalyptal Sci-Fi total conversion to Oblivion. That would be a fucking tradegy, so hopefully Bethseda aren't going to do that. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I'm proved otherwise, cause I'm just upbeat like that.

[Taco]

The Elder Scrolls are different games with different types of gameplay elements trying to be achieved. I'm expecting the game world to be smaller and tighter in Fallout(compared to Elder Scrolls) and the time spared to be spent on aspects more central to a Fallout game.

In the end we are all just speculating. I'm just happy we are getting a Fallout, and with the collapse of Troika who out there is better for it?

[Nichols]

I'd rather have no Fallout than one that's going to be butchered by Bethesda. Hell, I'd rather have Obsidian or *shudder* BioWare have the license than Bethesda who have absolutely ZERO experience with this type of game. At least BioWare has made some progress when it comes to designing decent RPGs (Look at the leap from Baldur's Gate, which was basically an adventure game with stats, to KotOR which at least took some stats into consideration) and Obsidian is made up of a lot of people who worked on Fallout or at least Fallout 2.

[Taco]

Hell, I'd rather have Obsidian or *shudder* BioWare have the license than Bethesda

Your opinions are now null and void. I mean, KOTOR? Why not Square while you're at it?

I know I like my RPGs bleached and without a soul.

[Nichols]

Did you even read my post beyond that? KotOR, while not the best example of an RPG, is definitely a step forward for BioWare in respect to the outcome of dialogue determined by your stats and the multiple endings (Yeah, I know, you choose them two hours before the game ends, shaddup, it's still a good try for BioWare). It had a helluva of a lot problems, yes, but it's more akin to Fallout than any of the Elder Scrolls are.

[Taco]

KOTOR is trash. End of any comparisons.

[Nichols]

KOTOR is better than Elder Scrolls, at least.

[Taco]

KOTOR is better than Elder Scrolls, at least.

Which validates the conclusion arrived at in post 43.

[Nichols]

What, that I enjoyed parts of KotOR because IT WAS INFLUENCED BY STATS, WHICH IS A GOOD THING YOU FUCKING MORON CAN YOU READ? I didn't say "KOTOR IS AWESOME LOLOLOL BEST GAEM EVARRRARA" No, I never said that. I said I LIKED KOTOR BECAUSE OF IT'S USE OF STAT CHECKS, WHICH THE ELDER SCROLLS ONLY USED FOR COMBAT! CAN YOU FUCKING READ, YOU STUPID ASS SUBSCRIBING SON OF A BITCH?

[Serapth]

What, that I enjoyed parts of KotOR because IT WAS INFLUENCED BY STATS, WHICH IS A GOOD THING YOU FUCKING MORON CAN YOU READ? I didn't say "KOTOR IS AWESOME LOLOLOL BEST GAEM EVARRRARA" No, I never said that. I said I LIKED KOTOR BECAUSE OF IT'S USE OF STAT CHECKS, WHICH THE ELDER SCROLLS ONLY USED FOR COMBAT! CAN YOU FUCKING READ, YOU STUPID ASS SUBSCRIBING SON OF A BITCH?



... was that a trantrum?

Also, to all the people talking about the "Oblivion Engine" and if it is or isnt going to be used for Fallout 3. Um... take a look here. (http://www.emergentgametech.com/index.php?source=clients-elder) there is no Oblivion engine nor was there a Morrowind engine either.

Now granted, they have things like the RADIANT AI, etc... but as to what people would consider "an engine" they license. Just like the doom engine, unreal engine, etc...

[Taco]

What, that I enjoyed parts of KotOR because IT WAS INFLUENCED BY STATS, WHICH IS A GOOD THING YOU FUCKING MORON CAN YOU READ? I didn't say "KOTOR IS AWESOME LOLOLOL BEST GAEM EVARRRARA" No, I never said that. I said I LIKED KOTOR BECAUSE OF IT'S USE OF STAT CHECKS, WHICH THE ELDER SCROLLS ONLY USED FOR COMBAT! CAN YOU FUCKING READ, YOU STUPID ASS SUBSCRIBING SON OF A BITCH?


Except of course stat checks were used for many things other than combat in Morrowind, including dialogue.

[Nichols]

Morrowind didn't have dialogue. And the only stat checks that were used were either in bartering, alchemy, or "persuasion." KotOR also had stat checks for those and a lot more.

[Taco]

And KOTOR was also a boring formulaic pile of crap because they spent all their time on a rather repetitive and simplistic gimmick.

Priorities sir, priorities. Fallout has nothing in common with KOTOR, including the dialogue. Dialogue in Fallout was actually engaging instead of reptitive and predictable. I'd take an Elders Scrolls formula over KOTOR any day.

[Adewade]

You people dislike games far too strongly.

[Taco]

Feelings tend to get emphasized on boards dedicated to them.

I probably feel to strongly about other things on other boards.

[Citizen Philip]

I would rather Obsidian with the FO license. I tend to agree that Betheseda has a license to an excellent title, but lack the abilitiy to draw on ths series' strengths.

Perhaps Oblivion will reveal a new side to BS.

[Stooby]

Jesus Christ. I hope they turn Fallout 3 into an action packed first person shooter with absolutely NO RPG elements and the only dialogue you hear is the NPCs shouting "FUCK," "DAMNIT WE LOST A MAN," etc while you are blowing their heads off. (Although they should keep the amount of blood and gore to a minimum as to not upset the parents of the kids that may play it.)

I think the second you say "KOTOR was a boring formulaic pile of crap" or the instant you say that Morrowind was a bad game you should have your gamer card revoked. Those were some of the best RPG games to come out in recent years. Just because you like Fallout doesn't mean you have to hate every other RPG.

God you guys are worse than those japanese nerds that say the only good RPGs are the japanese RPGs (such as Final Fantasy).

I hope none of you ever even consider thinking about making a committment to look at any game I ever help develop.

Fucking faggots.

[Beelzebud]

I'm just glad a true Fallout 3 is being made. I've been a HUGE Fallout fan since the first one came out. I still play through both games to this day. I think it will be interesting to see the nuclear wasteland modeled out in 3d, especially using their engine.

I'm optimistic.

[laggerific]

Yup. There's to be NO Fallout 3 at this year's E3. None, nada, zippo.

Bethesda's Pete Hines kindly broke it down for Gamespot:

1. Too early to see
2. Too early to talk about (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144791.html)

Which means the game's still a good ~2 years away; and just like BioShock, things could get interesting at later stages of the development. For now, we'd have to settle for the waiting game.

Fallout is one of those pioneering series from the 90s that still has its diehard following today. Like many other distinguished titles (Thief, Total Annihilation, and System Shock come to mind), its continuity was in question prior to being acquired by Bethesda.

Careful though, change too much and the diehards are gonna raise such a stink that things could turn sour even for the fabled. Or would it? Who's up for a fresh take on Fallout?


You act like they really drove the original series into the ground, exhausted all of its potential...the problem is, there were "fresh take[s]" on the Fallout series and they deviated from an excellent formula only to fail. While I thought that the strategy game for fallout was fun enough, it just made us all crave more of the original...the POS came out and made us crave for any game other than that one...and it was a sad place to leave Fallout. Until Bethesda came...and based on my experience with their elder scroll series, they should just hire the Fallout 1 and 2 creators to do the game, because I haven't seen Bethesda come close to getting at the heart of what makes the Fallout games great in their elder scroll series.

Fallout as an RPG had a truly dynamic and fundamental association with its characters attributes...play a dummy and you better be prepared to fight yourself through situations alot...play a smarty and you get to talk your way through a bunch of stuff. If you are smart you might be able to hack a computer, if you are stupid perhaps your good looks might let you get by. So far in the Elder Scroll series all I've seen of that is it might take you longer to mix an elixir, but the conversations with the people or true interaction with the environment all come up flat. I truly hope that Oblivion will rectify this and give me hope for a true Fallout game from them, but until I see it, I remain anxiously awaiting info...

Also, KOTOR and Morrowind and such may be good games in their rite, but they do not come close to creating the sense of awe and wonder we saw with Ultima 6&7, Ultima Underworld I&II, System Shock I, Fallout I&II. These worlds really felt alive, and I know that some have tried to capture that, System Shock II, Bioshock, and Arx Fatalis...but for some reason publishers don't like these types of games. I think because they are scared and impatient...these games take time to make, and they take brilliance...or something...can someone explain to me why we don't see games of the depth and caliber of the original Fallout series or Ultima series? Ascension could have been brilliant, but EA rushed it, that much is obvious, but why are they so impatient for unforgettable gaming? It's obviously the money thing...the developers are interested in more than just money, they want to create an unbelievable game...but the publishers want to create an game for unbelievable amounts of money.

[Crabby]

I would be interested in seeing a Fallout done closer to the style of Jagged Alliance *open-ended* turn-based squad combat/strategy management, but maintaining the RPG character building sensibilities of the originals.

And having said that I realize that the sublties of the comment might escape some not intimate with either series.

[TrackZero]

I don't care if they take another 3 years, as long as they do it right.

Edit: And they damn well better get Ron Perlman and Richard Dean Anderson back to do some voices, along with the other slew of famous voices throughout the games.

[ElectricMonk]

alright i'm a fan of fallout, but i don't really care where they go with the series. imho fallout 1/2 were released at a perfect point in time where your imagination was required to get the full experience. it was like a book fused with a game. so they can never make a game as good because the graphics will detract from the experience. like comparing the book to the movie.

also the last fallout game was released in 1999. with a few more delays f3 could come out 10 years after the last game, which means it probably dosen't matter what they do with the game because the majority of people will have never played the originals. there's almost no point to even having the fallout license.

if I could keep one thing intact (and expand upon) would be to keep the purely-turn based combat system. the fallout tactics 'semi-turnbased' and the bioware 'pause based' system don't come close.

[Taco]

I would be interested in seeing a Fallout done closer to the style of Jagged Alliance *open-ended* turn-based squad combat/strategy management, but maintaining the RPG character building sensibilities of the originals.

This would be Fallout Tactics, no?

[Nichols]

Fallout Tactics was hardly an RPG, and it wasn't turn-based either.

[Taco]

Wasn't an RPG, but I though it had character building. But I only played it for a few hours shortly post release and don't really remember it clearly.

[Nichols]

It used the SPECIAL system, but it didn't do much. Charisma was basically useless and it was linear as Half-Life. Maybe about as much as an RPG as Jagged Alliance (the first one) was.

[Heretic Machine]

I like Fallout. I like Elder Scrolls. I'm going to wait and see what they come up with before jerking off on a forum about how much it sucks.

[Heretic Machine]

also the last fallout game was released in 1999. with a few more delays f3 could come out 10 years after the last game, which means it probably dosen't matter what they do with the game because the majority of people will have never played the originals. there's almost no point to even having the fallout license.

Zelda is 20 years old, and you know what? Most gamers have played the originals.

[Voodoo]

Wow! Game release two years from now... That means this will take advantage of 64 bit processors, multiple cores and multiple GPUs. Also by that time 2GB will be considered standard by the PC Gamer due to the larger binary sizes of 64 bit program. Should be interesting when this game is released.

[ezra]

Except of course stat checks were used for many things other than combat in Morrowind, including dialogue.

Enough of your facts, taco! Can't you see the man used capital letters to make his point!?

Anyways, this thread has really brought out the trolls hasn't it? Nichols, you'd be on my ignore list if you weren't so damn hilarious. If you really believe that TES games don't involve stats in any way, and are either willfully ignorant or just (dare I say it?) an idiot. Go back to RPGcodex.

Anyways, there's no point fretting yet anyways. The game is years away, at least.

[Nichols]

I never said TES didn't involve stats. Of course they do, what I am saying is that the majority of them are worthless (How often did you have to use your persuasion skill, honestly? And I don't see how retarded wiki "dialogue" can be used for stats beyond "Ability to Click on Hyperlink and sometimes Yes/No") or combat-related, and even that is seemingly going to change with the removal of a "to-hit" roll in combat. Now it'll be based entirely on player's reflexes and not the character's. I'm not good at twitch games, but what if my character is really dexterous? Wouldn't he be able to perform better than me?

[EvoG]

also the last fallout game was released in 1999. with a few more delays f3 could come out 10 years after the last game, which means it probably dosen't matter what they do with the game because the majority of people will have never played the originals. there's almost no point to even having the fallout license.
Zelda is 20 years old, and you know what? Most gamers have played the originals.

His point was (which I agree with) is that not enough people played Fallout to even matter much today. Millions of people have grown up with and played Zelda.

Fallout, IIRC, sold around 110k copies, and FO2 around 120k? So despite the respect it garners, it is not Zelda in this context.

Mind you, I say this as a massive fan of FO and an old school gamer, so my perspective is hopefully objective.

[EvoG]

I have to believe those that compare a Bethesda game to Fallout with any sort of equality perhaps either never played Fallout or in fairness, didn't care for Fallout.

The issues with Bethsoft doing this game is simply their track record of middle of the road mainstream. There is simply nothing wrong with this, but they were the wrong house to get this license. There's a reason why Fallout sold so few copies and Morrowind millions. Not because Fallout was bad (on the contrary), but because it wasn't easily absorbed by the mass consumer market. Morrowind treaded lightly along, making sure it was pretty and accessible, and avoided gameplay that could be deemed to ambiguous or confusing. This isn't a slight against them...not in the least. Fallout was Fallout because of Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Chris Taylor, Chris Avellone and Feargus Urquhart in FO2...games are a product of not just the physical development, but the artistry. You can have all the turn-based, top down, dialogue rich gameplay, and it still wouldn't be Fallout unfortunately. Its akin to asking Michael Bay to make a sequel to Clockwork Orange. Nothing wrong with Bay's movies at all...I like them...but he isn't Kubrick.

[Nichols]

Fallout sold about 250,000k worldwide, I think.

[EvoG]

Well knowing you, I won't argue. :D

Perhaps I was quoting US sales? Either way, far less than Morrowind unfortunately.

[Mason]

(How often did you have to use your persuasion skill, honestly?
With high persuasion you could pick fights with people and essentially murder anyone without breaking the law. Plenty of quests had paths based on persuading people. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Mason]

I have to believe those that compare a Bethesda game to Fallout with any sort of equality perhaps either never played Fallout or in fairness, didn't care for Fallout.

The issues with Bethsoft doing this game is simply their track record of middle of the road mainstream.
I'd like to respond with to this with "So?" in a gigantic font, but that'd be a tad rude.

If anything, Morrowind demonstrated how well Bethesdasoft could make a game with mainstream appeal that still had a lot to offer the hardcore. And yes, that's a lot better than a A-list game with limited appeal, as the companies that made those tended to, you know, die.

Faulting BSoft because they haven't yet made a Fallout game is just ridiculous. TES games had a very different vision, but they realized that vision pretty well, and we've got no reason to expect that they'll fail miserably with a different vision. Getting all worked up before anyone knows the first thing about Fallout 3 is quite a waste of time.

[Heretic Machine]

pretty and accessible

You are the only person in the world who has ever called Morrowind "pretty."

Fallout, IIRC, sold around 110k copies, and FO2 around 120k? So despite the respect it garners, it is not Zelda in this context.

I'm sorry, but Fallout is the Zelda equivalent for PC RPG's. Everyone has played it, or at least heard of it, if they have any interest in PC gaming. The reason Morrowind sold so much more was because it was released on a console. Notice how many people HERE plan to buy it for a console rather than for PC. That's why it sells more, it is as simple as that.

[EvoG]

I'd like to respond with to this with "So?" in a gigantic font, but that'd be a tad rude.

Indeed...you feel the need to be potentially "rude", why? Something I said provoked you?

If anything, Morrowind demonstrated how well Bethesdasoft could make a game with mainstream appeal that still had a lot to offer the hardcore.

Hehe, right, you're saying this with a straight face? I myself dont want to be rude, but I find it hard to take that statement seriously, especially if you yourself have any real history of playing RPG's on PC's.

I am new around here, and not looking for meaningless arguments, so don't misconstrue my sentiment, but I do have to question that statement.

Faulting BSoft because they haven't yet made a Fallout game is just ridiculous. TES games had a very different vision, but they realized that vision pretty well, and we've got no reason to expect that they'll fail miserably with a different vision. Getting all worked up before anyone knows the first thing about Fallout 3 is quite a waste of time.

First off, I'm far from getting "worked-up", so lets think of this in the proper perspective as we talk.

Secondly, I've placed no fault, and yes that would be ridiculous had I. Their TRACK RECORD though is telling of what we can expect from them. This is called precedence, and it dictates that they will more than likely not deviate very far from their comfort zone nor their abilities, so why would we all of a sudden expect our ideal version of Fallout? If YOU are happy to have a Fallout that is Oblivion with guns, great, you will more than likely get that. This isn't "failing miserably", but it isn't doing Fallout 3 justice.

Can you honestly tell me you expect Fallout 3 to be as different from Oblivion, as Fallout's 1 or 2 are from Morrowind? If you can and believe that to be, more power to you...and I hope you're right. I would love to be wrong, but in all fairness, as much as you think I am wrong because of what we don't know, how can you be so sure you are right?

[EvoG]

You are the only person in the world who has ever called Morrowind "pretty."

:D

I was being diplomatic, but in this light, honestly, god forbid. Truth be told it in and of itself is far from pretty. My intent though was that focus was placed on graphics and not substance, so "pretty" simply referred to their prioritizing their art assets.


I'm sorry, but Fallout is the Zelda equivalent for PC RPG's. Everyone has played it, or at least heard of it, if they have any interest in PC gaming. The reason Morrowind sold so much more was because it was released on a console. Notice how many people HERE plan to buy it for a console rather than for PC. That's why it sells more, it is as simple as that.

Don't be sorry, and no, it is not. I'd argue Baldurs Gate or if I can be a bit more current, NWN. Fallout unfortunately was a niche game, as was my beloved Arcanum. Yes people heard of it, but Fallout was sadly not the breakout game BG or NWN were(commercially)...and most CERTAINLY is not equal to the epic, near life altering Zelda series.

Now you do say something very interesting and very TELLING. Yes Morrowind sold more due to also being on Xbox, but not SIMPLY because it was ON the console...it still needed to appeal to the console audience. Being a console game does not guarantee massive sales as we all know. Bethesda did the right things to INSURE that the console gaming masses would latch onto Morrowind. This is exactly why Fallout will not be what "hardcore" RPG'ers want, or dare I say "need" it to be, and hence why they were the wrong developers to get the license. If I had to choose a mainstream RPG dev to do Fallout right, it would have to be Obsidian, easily. Irrational Games though would be my dream developer for Fallout.

And just for a bit of clarification on my position; I myself am not one of the rabid fans that insist on a top-down game, in 2D with turn-based combat. I prefer a modernization. I want it to be in 3rd person 3D. I would like TB combat, but no more or less than I would mind even straight action combat, as I prefer my combat in realtime, perhaps like MGS or Splinter Cell. In fact give me System Shock 2's game system and I'd be thrilled (Bioshock :D ). But what I DO want that I feel strongly will be missing (again prove me wrong Bethsoft) is a deep dialogue system with open ended puzzle/quest solution with deep classless character creation, with gameplay supporting the non-combat skills as heavily as the combat ones. What WILL be missing that I know Bethsoft can't really be expected to deliver is the soul of Fallout, and I already explained above why. The artistry was genuine and particular, not something just anyone can do...and certainly not Bethesda as their past games have already shown.

(Funny, but these arguments always remind me of the Wizardry vs. Ultima fans, and, as I was an Ultima fan, could never enjoy Wizardry. Or hell, the Tandy vs. Commodore crowd...of which I was diehard Commodore :D )


Cheers

[EvoG]

Perigon, to better define my reply regarding Zelda and Fallout:

Zelda was both emotionally engaging for a AND commerically successful; LOTS of people love and played Zelda.


BG and NWN were both the most commercially successful RPG's on the PC, but were in no significant way emotionally engaging. Why I initially said it was equivalent to Zelda was strictly commercial.


Fallout was emotionally engaging and the 'defining RPG' for the genre, but was commercially flat. Grim Fandango is regarded as one of the best adventure games, critically acclaimed and emotionally engaging, but commerically a disaster.


The Ultima series I'll argue are the games that defined PC RPG'ing, and was emotionally engaging and quite successful. Legacy of the Ancients was my very first cRPG period, but Ultima 4 is regarded as my spiritually first RPG...the one that let me know how much I love these games.

With that said, I'd agree that Fallout is perhaps as defining as Zelda, moreso than BG, but Ultima has the legacy, commercial success and the emotional engagment that I feel is more closely equal to Zelda in that context. So in my post above, replace BG/NWN with the Ultima Series :D


Cheers

[The_Reckoning]

PAGE 9

I would be interested in seeing a Fallout done closer to the style of Jagged Alliance *open-ended* turn-based squad combat/strategy management, but maintaining the RPG character building sensibilities of the originals.

And having said that I realize that the sublties of the comment might escape some not intimate with either series.

That's how I think FO:T should have been.

[Crabby]

PAGE 9



That's how I think FO:T should have been.


Yeah...kind of a coincidence, right?

[Apex]

They did not make Arcanum, that was Troika. Bethesda's rep is based solely on their Elder Scrolls games dating back a decade or so and is more than well deserved. They take the time to make massive games and do it right, all the other dev houses like that have been shut down.

Whole ton of clueless people speaking their mind in this thread.

I was tired and got my wires crossed, so sue me.

[Kyle Jones]

I'm eager to see something fresh, hoping that it'll be a lot better than Tribes Vengeance was. I had high hopes for it revitalizing Tribes, in my foolishness, and it was not to be.

I'm really pumped though! Fallout 3, Supreme Commander, and Bioshock... 3 sequels to classic games that I loved!

[Nichols]

I'm eager to see something fresh, hoping that it'll be a lot better than Tribes Vengeance was. I had high hopes for it revitalizing Tribes, in my foolishness, and it was not to be.

Well, be prepared because it's going to be the same with Fallout 3, except much much worse.

[Nite_Moogle]

All I have to say is this: if they leave out the Pip-boy, it's not a Fallout game.

[Taco]

Can't disagree there.