Interview Fallout 3 Quickie on GamePro

[Section8]

Tags: Bethesda Softworks; Fallout 3

<a href="http://www.gamepro.com/">GamePro</a> has posted a short but damning <a href="http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=167788">interview</a> with Todd Howard, that says precious little, barring some fairly predictable comments on how much it's going to be like Oblivion.
<br>
<blockquote>Todd Howard: The overall game flow feels like Oblivion, in that you make your own character and then explore a huge open world and do whatever you want. The basic gameplay of Fallout 3 is similar, which is one of the reasons we really wanted to do Fallout in the first place. I'd say the amount of action is similar to Oblivion, not more, not less. The basic combat in Fallout 3 may seem more complex then Oblivion's, but at the same time, there is no magic in Fallout 3, so we felt we needed to do as much as we could with the guns and add a nice layer of being able to shoot body parts and feel the effects of a crippled leg and such.</blockquote>
<br>
Glad to see that the combat only <i>seems</i> more complex than Oblivion's. It would be poor form to boggle the dementia-addled minds of all the geriatric "lastgen" Fallout fans.
<br>

<br>
Shamelessly lifted from <a href="http://www.nma-fallout">No Mutants Allowed</a> as always.
<br>

<br>

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I like how they felt the need to add in targetted shots just to make it more complex. Not because of some silly reason like say... Fallout had them and it might be considered part of the franchise.

 

[Serious_Business]

The basic gameplay of Fallout 3 is similar, which is one of the reasons we really wanted to do Fallout in the first place.

That doesn't make any sense, he's not even trying. He should be saying "the basic gameplay of Fallout 1 and 2 is similar", not 3. They made 3, I mean, how can the fact that Oblivion and this are similar be a reason why they wanted to do it in the first place? "We made the sequel like this other thing we did, and that's why we were interested in doing it." What? So what stopped you to, you know, do something different altogether? I don't get it.

 

[fastpunk]

I'd say the amount of action is similar to Oblivion, not more, not less.

But in Oblivion, wasn't the player attacked on sight almost everywhere? ... wonderful!

 

[Slaytanic]

We need to get some people willing to die in order to stop them from spewing another retarded blind baby into the world.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Breaking new: Fallout 3 has no magic, so we replace it with leg-exploading backflipping bucket-wearing mutant-orcs.

 

[slipgate_angel]

Why are we still questing what's already obvious? We all know by now that Fallout 3 will not be like the first two games, so really there's not much to disscuss.

Sad that there's two more games going to be done by Bethesda after this installment. So I'm with Chris on this one, and just make another post apocolyptic adventure that smashes Fallout easily. While that's easier said than done, it's better than just nit picking at a Feral ghoul.

 

[Herbert West]

As this abomination creeps closer to release they sing more and more to the tune of "ITS LEIK OBLIVION, IT IS!!!"

 

[VonVentrue]

As this abomination creeps closer to release they sing more and more to the tune of "ITS LEIK OBLIVION, IT IS!!!"

Hardly surprising taking into consideration the fact that Oblivion sold millions of copies.
There's no point in lying to the Fallout fanbase anymore, the full-fledged marketing campaign is slowly beginning to take shape.

I'd say the amount of action is similar to Oblivion, not more, not less.

Obligatory trudging through Muties/Radscorpion/whatever-infested areas with no other option but to shoot your way through is in, then?

 

[Barrow_Bug]

We all saw this over a year ago-however as per usual we have no hard evidence but marketing and shite journo bullshit. Who knows, that first gameplay vid might launch and we MIGHT like what we see...forgive me but somtimes I have hope.

However little :D

 

[Seboss]

What was the point of refuting that Fallout 3 will be Oblivion-with-Guns for months (which FO3 obviously is), just to go screaming on roofs that Fallout 3 *is* Oblivion-with-Guns now that the PR machine shifts on high gear, except for ruining their credibility even more?

Why always the double talking? I would have much more respect if Bethesda just stated that "Yes, Fallout 3 is Oblivion-with-Guns biatches, suck it down!" from the get go.

Sorry for the lousy English.

 

[Ladonna]

I bet one of you lot will still buy this turd in a Tiffany box. I bet.

'I hated Oblivion, but I had to make sure F3 wasn't as bad, but it is!!! Now I will rant away about how bad it is, talk about class action lawsuits and generally put the game down even though I gave Bethesda my 80 bucks (Or however much it costs where ever)'.

As for respect for Bethesda? R00fles!

 

[FireWolf]

Why are we still questing what's already obvious? We all know by now that Fallout 3 will not be like the first two games, so really there's not much to disscuss.

Sad that there's two more games going to be done by Bethesda after this installment. So I'm with Chris on this one, and just make another post apocolyptic adventure that smashes Fallout easily. While that's easier said than done, it's better than just nit picking at a Feral ghoul.

Isn't this what Beth should have done? Just made a post apoc free roaming sandbox game, rather than having to contend with hoards of slathering Fallout fans? Or do they really need the Fallout moniker and prestige among RPG folk to kick their marketing scheme into gear? Beth fans are likely going to pick up a game made by them anyway, Oblivion fans are going to be dragged in by Oblivion comparisons, what does the Fallout title actually bring other than ire? The last fallout RPG was, what, 10 years ago? How is it relevant to marketing?

If this game wasn't called Fallout 3, would there be such objection to it on a game level? Beth have spent so much time and effort trying to present the title in a particular way 'oh we've got period music, like fallout! We've got the BoS, like Fallout! wacky nuclear powered catapults, how 50s pseudo science of us, isn't it just like Fallout? We have dark humour and a dog companion, and ghouls and supermutants!' instead of concentrating on showcasing why this is a good, original game that people want to play. When I play a new title I want to be absorbed into the storyline, the atmosphere and the characters of that game, not spend the whole time thinking 'wow, that's just like Iguana bob in that game I played ten years ago, awesome!'.

Maybe I'm in a minority here, but I always thought people wanted to play games that are good fun, original and engaging, all of which generally reside underneath and are not exclusive to a brand identity. A logical, fairly intuitive but open leveling system, a deep character-centric interaction system, compelling dialogue and stories, good voice acting where it is required and a decent combat system that allows the player to choose how they approach a conflict.

So far what I've read about Fallout 3 (and I haven't been keeping up to date on it as much as I should) hasn't really focused on the things that are of importance to me, but the few bits that I have read seem clunky and a bit gimmick-ish.

 

[FireWolf]

What was the point of refuting that Fallout 3 will be Oblivion-with-Guns for months (which FO3 obviously is), just to go screaming on roofs that Fallout 3 *is* Oblivion-with-Guns now that the PR machine shifts on high gear, except for ruining their credibility even more?

Why always the double talking? I would have much more respect if Bethesda just stated that "Yes, Fallout 3 is Oblivion-with-Guns biatches, suck it down!" from the get go.

Sorry for the lousy English.

It reminds me of children in school who don't really know what something is but deny that they are it. 'Jimmy's a caucasian!' 'Am not!' But what strikes me as funny about the whole thing, is that they say they're proud of Oblivion, and lots of people really enjoy the game, gave it game of the year, etc. But when Fallout is mentioned they get defensive and seem to lose confidence in their title, proclaiming that Fallout 3 will definitely not be Oblivion with guns. If they're so proud of the game, and is worth so much critical acclaim, they should have outright stated that 'yes it is going to be Oblivion with guns, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Look at how well our game did in reviews, how well it sold!'

I bet one of you lot will still buy this turd in a Tiffany box. I bet.

And if they do they're entitled to their opinion on the title. Some, if not most, people will read a review before they buy the game, but if fairly recent events are par for the course, games reviews can't really be trusted anymore. Journos get caught up in a hype machine or are forced to write a relatively positive review. Even so, people have different tastes in games, and what might sound great in a review doesn't work for that individual. A demo could help with a decision, but most demos are sections deliberately chosen for their mass appeal or as the best examples of specific things in a game. Sometimes you can only make up your mind about a product after actually trying the finished product.

Personally, I'll wait for the budget title, or a second hand copy because nothing I've read has been particularly encouraging about this title.

 

[Shoelip]

Bethesda doesn't release demos anymore anyway.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

The thing I've thought was great about this whole thing is: It's like Fallout, but we replaced some monsters with new monsters that are exactly like the Fallout monsters but with different names, we made it first person unlike Fallout, we left some of the old Fallout reference groups in even though we moved it to the other side of the country so it doesn't make sense that they're there, so we changed a whole lot of stuff and we're going to call it Fallout 3.

 

[Gragt]

Isn't this what Beth should have done? Just made a post apoc free roaming sandbox game, rather than having to contend with hoards of slathering Fallout fans? Or do they really need the Fallout moniker and prestige among RPG folk to kick their marketing scheme into gear? Beth fans are likely going to pick up a game made by them anyway, Oblivion fans are going to be dragged in by Oblivion comparisons, what does the Fallout title actually bring other than ire? The last fallout RPG was, what, 10 years ago? How is it relevant to marketing?

I read something about that earlier, I should try to find it again. It wasn't aimed at Fallout 3 but it talked of franchises in general. It's a lot easier to make a sequel to a game than create a new one from scratch and even if you do not retain most (or all) of the elements of the previous games you still play with the idea that this is a sequel to a game that was good enough so that someone would bother making a sequel to it, while as I said before it's easier to make a sequel than a brand new game.

I also remember that at the very start of the whole Fallout 3 thing, back when Bethesda just acquired the license, their argument was that they already held one of the most beloved CRPG series (The Elder Scrolls) and it was always their goal to make a sequel to the other most beloved CRPG serie, the one that did not have any sequel since 1998, Fallout. I'm not even going into what is true or false, what were their real intentions, I'm just talking about the message they delivered, about how they tried to continue some kind of legacy by making new games for the two most beloved CRPG franchises (according to them).

What's more, I'd say that Fallout and Fallout 2 being old can actually play in their favour: they're working on a sequel to games that received (and still do) a fair deal of critical acclaim. I imagine that most of their playerbase never really played the Fallout games but only read about it, lately most game websites have been running nostalgia articles about how good they were, not really a coincidence but just some part of the hype machine.

Imagine you are part of the Bethesda crowd, you played and enjoyed Oblivion, and so you have these two games that do not really look impressive but you read a lot of good things about it and they're gonna get a sequel that is even more better than they were. Maybe you'll try them or even like them even though you aren't really free as you were in Oblivion to roam around and explore dungeons but hey it's old games. Or maybe you won't bother to like them because, to be honest, 1997 and 1998 is so prehistoric! But here comes a sequel by the makes of Oblivion so you'll be able to bask in the greatness of one venerable and respected franchise, updated for modern next-gen gaming.

Or maybe you'll try the Fallout games, find out that they are much better than Oblivion while being 10 years older, and join the Codex.

Picking up a sequel to a franchise give some kind of security about a proven formula especially if it's backed up by reviews of the previous games. I doubt that most Final Fantasy VII fans played the previous games from 1 to 6, many just started with the seventh. And that's where Bethesda is trying to go with Fallout and why they did not create a completely new post-apoc setting, because a sequel is more reassuring and gives the idea of evolution, refinement of the proven formula.

That or there might also be other reasons, feel free to dispute or add to my claims.

 

[DraQ]

Bethesda doesn't release demos anymore anyway.

They've always been relasing betas, though.