Editorial Gameplayer Australia says Fallout 3 will rock because...

[JarlFrank]

Tags: Bethesda Softworks; Fallout 3

...because Oblivion sucked.
<br>
<br>
[blatantly plagiarizing this title from Brother None]
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>The fact that this almost sacred series is about to receive a next-gen sequel in the form of Fallout 3 is, dear readers, a big deal. In a market where sequels seem to be nothing but reworked versions of their predecessors, with little or no innovation when it comes to story telling and/or immersion, we think that it is reasonable for Fallout fans to be a little worried.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
So, basically, what they are saying is: sequels are usually so-so, because they don't innovate and never change anything of the original gameplay. And that's the reason why Fallout fans are so worried and don't trust Bethesda. Everyone fears they're going to make a boring turn-based isometric RPG with boring long dialog trees and the intelligence stat even having a meaning [LOL since wen dose intellugenc matter wehn playyng gaemz LULZ?] instead of the action-filled next-gen RPG everyone's waiting for. Because that's what Fallout fans want. Innovation, which means, a game that has nothing in common with the first two games!
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Of course, you may know Bethesda from a little game called Oblivion, which itself has faced its fair share of controversy. The big question we therefore have to ask is this: does Bethesda have the balls to make Fallout 3 kick arse? Well that depends on whether they can face up to the flaws of Oblivion. Certainly that game will do them no favours with Fallout’s hardcore fans: in fact, one of the original developer’s key staff described the sale of the license as feeling like "our ex wife had sold our children that she had legal custody of." Talk about pressure!</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
So, basically they appear to be quite reasonable. Oblivion had flaws. Don't think I read that very often on a mainstream gaming site. Then they're listing the different flaws Oblivion had, but I think every Codexer knows these already.
<br>
<br>
The ironic thing is, though... they're absolutely fucking optimistic about Fallout 3.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote> With around 40 different voices being used for Fallout 3, those embarrassing vocal mess ups we witnessed in Oblivion should be a thing of the past.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>That said, the promise of multiple endings in Fallout 3 (over 200 according to Todd Howard, the Executive Producer of the game) indicates that Bethesda is hard at work on developing the intricacies of player choice in the game – such as good, neutral and evil decisions. It’s a promising sign.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Yep, they first complain about Oblivion and then assume that Bethesda has learned from their faults and will inevitably make it better in Fallout 3.
<br>
<br>
Read the full article <A HREF="http://www.gameplayer.com.au/Home/FEATURES/FEATURE/tabid/1488/Default.aspx?CID=f19fc79a-4f2a-43aa-b6fd-d5055074b05b&v7Pager=1">here.</A>

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

we think that it is reasonable for Fallout fans to be a little worried.

A "little" the says.

That said, the promise of multiple endings in Fallout 3 (over 200 according to Todd Howard, the Executive Producer of the game) indicates that Bethesda is hard at work on developing the intricacies of player choice in the game – such as good, neutral and evil decisions. It’s a promising sign.

You are a fucking moron, go shot yourself.

Read the full article here.

No, thanks. I don't have enough stamina to survive this gem.

 

[BillyOgawa]

There you have it – our take on what Bethesda needs to focus on in its development of Fallout 3 and what lessons it should learn from Oblivion. We think we’ve covered just about everything that most perspicacious gamers would pick up. This feature should certainly not be taken as an attack on either game; we are actually very much looking forward to Fallout 3, and we still think that Oblivion is one of the best RPGs ever made.

:gag:

 

[Xerxos]

Normally I'd say it's right to think: "this game has many faults, the dev gonna learn from them"

but (and this is a big BUT) this is BETHESDA we're talking about. Look at all improvements from Morrowind to Oblivion. I think it's more of a degeneration than a steady improvement over time. Additionally Bethesda got much praise from the mainstream media sites, so they probably even think they did good.

The next game is going to be better? Fat chance.

 

[Rat Keeng]

Wow... That's just unbelieveable. A quick summary of what he puts down, talking about Oblivion:

Radiant A.I. - Disappointing, total arse, poorly implemented, total revamp required
Extremely repetitive world - Seen one area/dungeon, seen 'em all
Insanely repetitive oblivion gates - Yup, got it's own mention for being so shitty
Inconsistent and uninteresting NPCs - Shitty conversations and illogically behaving NPCs
Embarrasingly poor voicing - Inconsistent voices, reptitive voices
Level scaling - Utter utter shit, Morrowind was better
Repetitive forests - Obviously

Why are people falling for the same pre-release hype once again? Yes it's a rhetorical question, though I sometimes think it still begs an answer from some of these cunts. Honestly, if the people believing Beth's hype were hookers, they'd have given the guy a blowjob before agreeing a price.

 

[elander_]

but (and this is a big BUT) this is BETHESDA we're talking about. Look at all improvements from Morrowind to Oblivion. I think it's more of a degeneration than a steady improvement over time. Additionally Bethesda got much praise from the mainstream media sites, so they probably even think they did good.

The next game is going to be better? Fat chance.

You are right. With this new Bethesda we never know what is coming next. Maybe they are starting to realize they can't keep breaking their toys all the time without any sense of purpose or direction or maybe they don't. We can never know. Bethesda will only get a chance when they finally realize the only solution is to intern Todd and Pete in a sanatorium.

 

[Claw]

I couldn't really be arsed to read the article, but I found this gem.

So far, I think it sucks. Firstly because I don't understand the "Spore has no brand value and Will Wright has little name recognition with the mainstream" argument. Didn't the same apply to The Sims prior to its success? How does the fact that The Sims is a big brand now doom Spore?
Secondly because I don't think "Like, c’mon..." makes for a convincing argument either. I don't believe it's the concept of Civilization that might turn casual gamers off, but the implementation. And here Spore looks completely different - more like Civ Light.

There may be some good points on why Spore might fail, or at least not be a huge success, but I haven't seen any very convincing arguments in that article. For all its words, it's pretty superficial.

Radiant A.I. - Disappointing, total arse, poorly implemented, total revamp required

The sad thing is, even on German Gothic forums, it appears to be accepted canon that Gothic uses "static scripts" while Radiant AI is cool, potentially revolutionary AI, which is proven by the NPCs retarded behaviour - such as guards attacking another guard after that guard tried to kill an animal.

 

[Zeros]

I'll try not to take over the thread, but:

There may be some good points on why Spore might fail, or at least not be a huge success, but I haven't seen any very convincing arguments in that article. For all its words, it's pretty superficial.

from the article:

"The game has seen a string of release delays, always something that raises doubts in experienced minds"

Uh yes, like Blizzard's continaul delays?

Also, when it was released, The Sims had no "brand recognition" yet it became a success. Trying to hold that against Spore seems silly.

 

[Gragt]

Game "journalists" give me a headache...

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Wow... That's just unbelieveable. A quick summary of what he puts down, talking about Oblivion:

Radiant A.I. - Disappointing, total arse, poorly implemented, total revamp required
Extremely repetitive world - Seen one area/dungeon, seen 'em all
Insanely repetitive oblivion gates - Yup, got it's own mention for being so shitty
Inconsistent and uninteresting NPCs - Shitty conversations and illogically behaving NPCs
Embarrasingly poor voicing - Inconsistent voices, reptitive voices
Level scaling - Utter utter shit, Morrowind was better
Repetitive forests - Obviously

...and we still think that Oblivion is one of the best RPGs ever made.

Giggle.

 

[VonVentrue]

When will those 'journalists' finally stop treating this game like the sequel to Oblivion?

 

[Black]

When will those 'journalists' finally stop treating this game like the sequel to Oblivion?

Why not? It's closer to oblivion than is it to Fallout.

 

[Grey]

When will those 'journalists' finally stop treating this game like the sequel to Oblivion?

Erm... when it stops BEING a sequel to Oblivion... obviously. :codexdevil:

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

Wow, they had balls to quote Boyarsky.

 

[VonVentrue]

Why not? It's closer to oblivion than is it to Fallout.

Very true. It was a rethorical question, though.

 

[Dark Matter]

When will those 'journalists' finally stop treating this game like the sequel to Oblivion?

Why not? It's closer to oblivion than is it to Fallout.

No. Aside from the first person view and real time combat. on the other hand, lets consider the large number of similarities it has with FO:

- skill system is similar to Fallout's
- FO setting
- multiple solutions to quests
- multiple endings
- morality (it treats it differently from the original FO but atleast, unlike oblivion, its still a factor in the game)
- action points
- shorter, more focused game that lasts about 20 hours, as opposed to being a sandbox style game that lasts 100 hours like olbivion
- the game has actual, unique companions

the game tries to emulate fallout's game mechanics more than oblivion's, anyone who thinks differently is a moron

 

[pkt-zer0]

The game it's closest to is Oblivion. So now when someone asks, 'Is it Oblivion with guns?' my main answer is, 'in all the best ways.'

the game tries to emulate fallout's game mechanics more than oblivion's, anyone who thinks differently is a moron

Indeed.

 

[sabishii]

No. Aside from the first person view and real time combat. on the other hand, lets consider the large number of purported similarities it has with FO:

Fixed.

 

[Ratty]

- skill system is similar to Fallout's

Only superficially.

- FO setting

- multiple solutions to quests

You mean like they promised for Morrowind and Oblivion? Yeah, I'm sure they are being truthful there.

- multiple endings

Likewise.

- morality (it treats it differently from the original FO but atleast, unlike oblivion, its still a factor in the game)

Differently indeed. By all accounts, Fallout 3 has the same kind of juvenile black-white morality that's ubiquitous in fantasy CRPGs and that Fallout purposefully did away with. Though being evil is now supposedly viable, that's pretty much irrelevant, since evil still stupidly amounts to pointless, destructive sadism.

- action points

Yeah, action points were retained... in name. Given that Fallout 3 has a completely different combat system, I don't see how a superficial stat in FO3's optional bullet time mechanic that happens to bear the same name as something out of the original Fallout could be qualified as being common game element to the two titles.

- shorter, more focused game that lasts about 20 hours, as opposed to being a sandbox style game that lasts 100 hours like olbivion

Very broad and very vague.

- the game has actual, unique companions

Supposedly.

the game tries to emulate fallout's game mechanics more than oblivion's, anyone who thinks differently is a moron

If you don't count the combat system, viewpoint, controls, focus on combat, black-white morality, silly setting that could only be described as "post-apocalyptic medieval fantasy" (BOS as "noble knights of the wasteland"), Retarded AI, visuals, physics and pretty much every game element of any relevance, then yeah, you could say that FO3 has far more in common with Fallout than with Oblivion.

 

[Brother None]

- skill system is similar to Fallout's

Only superficially.

How do you figure?

 

[Dark Matter]

Only superficially.

How so? I'm not claiming the skill system is going to be the same as in the original FO. But anyone who honestly believes it has more in common with Oblivion than FO is an idiot.

You mean like they promised for Morrowind and Oblivion? Yeah, I'm sure they are being truthful there.

With Morrowind/Oblivion, they also promised hundreds and hundreds of hours of gameplay along with that. This time, Bethesda claim that the game will be fairly short (only about 20 hours) so it's fair to assume the game will be more non-linear. The only example they provided supports their claim. It's always possible that they're lying, but I see no reason to make that assumption until I see evidence indicating otherwise.

It seems like a lot of criticism of FO3 is just based on illogical assumptions. There's a difference between not buying into the hype and being a moron.

Likewise.

The whole 200 endings thing is likely a horrible exaggaration, but I'm almost certain there will be atleast 2 different real endings in the game.

Differently indeed. By all accounts, Fallout 3 has the same kind of juvenile black-white morality that's ubiquitous in fantasy CRPGs and that Fallout purposefully did away with. Though being evil is now supposedly viable, that's pretty much irrelevant, since evil still stupidly amounts to pointless, destructive sadism.

I don't disagree, but the point being made here is that the "FO3 is more similar to Oblivion than FO" comment is not true. Oblivion had no good/evil ways of solving quests. There was always one way. Compare that with FO which different levels of morality involved. FO 3 seems closer to the latter than the former.

Yeah, action points were retained... in name. Given that Fallout 3 has a completely different combat system, I don't see how a superficial stat in FO3's optional bullet time mechanic that happens to bear the same name as something out of the original Fallout could be qualified as being common game element to the two titles.

It's just another feature which brings it closer to Fallout and moves it farther away from Oblivion. APs in FO3 might be handled very different from APs in FO, but compared with Oblivion (which had no such thing at all), they still have a greater degree of similarity.

Very broad and very vague.

Not really. My only point here is that FO3 has more in common with FO than with Oblivion. "too broad" would be a valid comeback if my argument was that FO3 is a true FO sequel. Vague as it may be, my statement still excludes Oblivion and includes the original FO.

the combat system, viewpoint, controls, focus on combat, black-white morality, silly setting that could only be described as "post-apocalyptic medieval fantasy" (BOS as "noble knights of the wasteland"), Retarded AI, visuals, physics and pretty much every game element of any relevance, then yeah, you could say that FO3 has far more in common with Fallout than with Oblivion.

-"Combat system and viewpoint": K, I already acknowledged the game is more similar to Oblvion in that regard. Although, there are some aspects where the game tries to be more like Fallout than Oblivion even in those two regards (pseudo-realtime with APs, and view can be changed to a more top down view apparently).

-"Controls": well duh, different viewpoint = different controls. I think mentioning the different viewpoint is enough as it covers this as well.

-"black-white morality": Morality was not a factor in Oblivion. It had concepts of good and evil but they were irrelevant and entirely superficial and had no real effect on the way you played the game. FO3 is definitely more similar to FO in this regard (even if it appears to lack the moral ambiguity of the original FO).

-"silly setting that could only be described as "post-apocalyptic medieval fantasy"": It still has more in common with FO than with Oblivion.

- "Retarded AI": Ok? FO AI in a 3D world will basically be equal to the AI in Morrowind. I'd much rather they try and improve on what they were trying with Oblivion(and failed miserably) than go back to Morrowind-level AI. Expecting it to be more like FO in terms of AI is just stupid.

- " visuals": Aside from the fact that it's 3D (different viewpoint already covers this), the visual style is closer to FO than Oblivion.

- "physics": Quit being stupid.

- "pretty much every game element of any relevance": If you say so.[/quote]

 

[sabishii]

It's always possible that they're lying, but I see no reason to make that assumption until I see evidence indicating otherwise.

It's called prior experience.

The whole 200 endings thing is likely a horrible exaggaration, but I'm almost certain there will be atleast 2 different real endings in the game.

Right, 2 is much closer to the several endings in FO than 1.

It's just another feature which brings it closer to Fallout and moves it farther away from Oblivion. APs in FO3 might be handled very different from APs in FO, but compared with Oblivion (which had no such thing at all), they still have a greater degree of similarity.

Well, here's the problem with your argument right here, summed up in one quote. Moving closer to Fallout and farther from Oblivion != being closer to Fallout than Oblivion. Yes, elements from Fallout have been added. However, this previous sentence does not include degree of severity - Adding a small amount of Fallout does not equal adding a large amount of Fallout, yet in both cases FO3 is indeed moving closer to Fallout.

Now, to what degree is FO3 farther from Oblivion?

The whole 200 endings thing is likely a horrible exaggaration, but I'm almost certain there will be atleast 2 different real endings in the game.

Already discussed.

I don't disagree, but the point being made here is that the "FO3 is more similar to Oblivion than FO" comment is not true. Oblivion had no good/evil ways of solving quests. There was always one way. Compare that with FO which different levels of morality involved. FO 3 seems closer to the latter than the former.

Having multiple solutions to quests, sure. Implementation using juvenile black-and-white morality which is the opposite of Fallout, no. FO3 is not closer to FO than Oblivion, but perhaps halfway.

It's just another feature which brings it closer to Fallout and moves it farther away from Oblivion. APs in FO3 might be handled very different from APs in FO, but compared with Oblivion (which had no such thing at all), they still have a greater degree of similarity.

Back to this. Yes, if you look on the list of features and see OMGZ APS!! then it will seem closer to Fallout. However, given that this implementation of AP is handled very differently than in FO, and also taking in consideration the massive change in combat gameplay, in the end state AP in FO3 will be little more than an optional support for real-time FPSing, rather than a crucially determining/limiting stat as in FO.

-"silly setting that could only be described as "post-apocalyptic medieval fantasy"": It still has more in common with FO than with Oblivion.

Please. It is obvious that the setting will be in the FO universe. It is also obvious that this is not the intent of the statement. No, the subject is about the implementation of the setting and its genre. Making the setting look the part is just one small aspect, but the setting is comprised of much more than that - the themes, the values, the atmosphere, etc, etc. A setting that portrays (allows?) black-and-white epic-fantasy-style morality is the complete opposite of a setting full of moral grayness and uncertainty. BOS as "noble knights of the wasteland" screams "medieval fantasy," whether or not they have a Fallouty name or adhere to some of the facts from FO. This is the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars - one a hardcore scifi setting, the other a space-opera and typically considered fantasy setting. Just because Star Wars is set in space does not make it anywhere near the science fiction of Star Trek.

- " visuals": Aside from the fact that it's 3D (different viewpoint already covers this), the visual style is closer to FO than Oblivion.

Uh, supermutants = super orcs mean anything?

 

[Dark Matter]

Fallout had only 2 different endings.

 

[Dark Matter]

It's called prior experience.

So you're just going to ignore my argument about why there might actually be some truth in that statement this time around? If we're gonna go by prior experience, I guess we can also ignore Bethesda's statement about FO3 being around 20 hours and instead expect a 100+ hour game?

Right, 2 is much closer to the several endings in FO than 1.

FO only had 2 real endings (with multiple ways to attain those endings). And even if FO3 has just 2 endings and lets say the original had 5 endings, it's still closer to FO than Oblivion, because there's actually an element of C&C (which was completely non existant in Oblivion).

Well, here's the problem with your argument right here, summed up in one quote. Moving closer to Fallout and farther from Oblivion != being closer to Fallout than Oblivion. Yes, elements from Fallout have been added. However, this previous sentence does not include degree of severity - Adding a small amount of Fallout does not equal adding a large amount of Fallout, yet in both cases FO3 is indeed moving closer to Fallout.

Every single new feature in FO3 does not result in a huge departure from Oblivion creating a fully Fallout-esque experience, but all things considered, FO3 is closer to FO.

Already discussed.

Ummm...what was the point of that?

Having multiple solutions to quests, sure. Implementation using juvenile black-and-white morality which is the opposite of Fallout, no. FO3 is not closer to FO than Oblivion, but perhaps halfway.

Please. It is obvious that the setting will be in the FO universe. It is also obvious that this is not the intent of the statement. No, the subject is about the implementation of the setting and its genre.

Uh, supermutants = super orcs mean anything?

STILL CLOSER TO FO THAN OBLIVION.

It seems a lot of the responses I'm getting make the assumption that I'm calling FO3 a true FO game, or a game that is a complete departure from Oblivion. I made no such claim. And a lot of the arguments seem to nothing more than pure FO-fanboy pretension.

 

[sabishii]

So you're just going to ignore my argument...

I was giong to reply to this seriously, but then I noticed the way you responded to the bulk of my post. Thus, I reply:

STILL LYIN BC I SAY SO.

Every single new feature in FO3 does not result in a huge departure from Oblivion creating a fully Fallout-esque experience, but all things considered, FO3 is closer to FO.

Hm, okay. I'm open to argument. Let's see what "things" that you propose we consider...

STILL CLOSER TO FO THAN OBLIVION.

Wow, I am moved. Tremendous logical arguments. Insane amounts of supporting evidence.

It seems a lot of the responses I'm getting make the assumption that I'm calling FO3 a true FO game, or a game that is a complete departure from Oblivion.

Oh man, you're right, I totally misunderstood you! That is not something I addressed specifically in my last post!:

Well, here's the problem with your argument right here, summed up in one quote. Moving closer to Fallout and farther from Oblivion != being closer to Fallout than Oblivion. Yes, elements from Fallout have been added. However, this previous sentence does not include degree of severity - Adding a small amount of Fallout does not equal adding a large amount of Fallout, yet in both cases FO3 is indeed moving closer to Fallout.