What if Fallout 3 was not Fallout?

I wouldn't buy it.

 

I'd be shocked and surprised that Bethesda didn't develop a faithfull sequel to the original game.


JarlFrank - Who gives a fuck what it's called? It's just a name, should I get upset at the guys who developed The UnReal world because their title is retarded and reminds me of Unreal? No! It's just 7 bloody letters that nobody cares about. It's not like they are redowing the original storyline and map from Fallout 1.

 

Indeed. What's in a name? That which we call Fallout 3 by any other name would suck just as much - because it's made by Bethesda.

 

Kind of like Oblivion. A game that everyone hear played? Get the fuck out of here.

 

If you look at where they are going as well as where they just came from, you'll understand that as long as these people are at the helm and those people buy their games, you won't get anything but hyped-up soulless shit, no matter what it is called. Maybe if they were honest enough to try and sell their games as FPS and not the new epic pinnacle of the RPG evolution, one might be inclined to give it a chance.

Things being as they are, however, no.

 

Hm, sadly you're right, things were different here a long while ago.

 

I wont buy it because it isn't a Fallout game. It's not my fault or gamers fault. Bethesda could have made a new setting without using the Fallout name and would give it a try but not like this.

No TB means no Fallout game. I won't support anything that goes against the spirit of the original. It could even be a better rpg in other aspects with a probability of winning the lottery but i don't accept the insult to Fallout and the work of their creators by treating their gameplay choices as an abomination.

To me this is about being a gamer and support gameplay instead of being a tool and support the degradation of a game that is classic and a reference.

 

Haha stargelman you're so raged for no particularly noticeable reason based on your post history. Whats up with that?

 

First, I'd like to clarify my opinion that Turn-Based Combat and Isometric View are most definitely not the defining elements of the Fallout games, though it may be true that the only good Fallout games had such a system. I just recently went through VtM:B, and it has convinced me that Troika could very well have made a Fallout action shooter, and it would have been true to the original.

No, what defines Fallout for me is the cynical view of our future, the humorous dialogue that yet constantly betrays humanity's hopeless view of the world, and the fact that even in the end, the world is still a wasteland. Of course there's much more to it than that, but this is what has made me so interested in the game.

And it is these very features that Bethesda seems to be overlooking in their entirety. Bethesda has no trouble making entertaining action games, and I am sure that Fallout 3 will be an enjoyable game with unparalleled production values. It just isn't at all worthy of consideration as a sequel or even a spiritual successor to the two original Fallout games.

 

It really wouldn't, seeing as how one of the major design goals of Fallout was to emulate the P&P experience. That encompasses such elements as turn-based combat and an isometric viewpoint, both of which are obviously antithetical to an FPS.

 

Go antagonize someone on TESF