Game News Fallout 3 rips off BioShock, franchise now like FIFA

[DarkUnderlord]

Tags: Fallout 3

Fallout 3 is a BioShock rip-off <a href="http://www.heroine-sheik.com/2008/08/30/pax08-how-fallout-3-rips-off-bioshock-and-why-thats-ok/">according to an article on Heroine Sheik</a> (it's some kind of blog) but that's a good thing. Here's why:
<br>
<blockquote>As frustrating as it is to see one game rip off another, it’s hard to stay annoyed at Fallout 3 for long — because, frankly, the game looks awesome. The crowd here at PAX, perpetually entertained by explosions, cheered whenever someone’s head got blown off. Personally I could do without all the fighting in this shooter. Seriously, forget the guns, forget the enemies, and make this world simply explorable. For the first few minutes of the demo, when the audience was free to admire the eerie landscape and the bizarre, radioactive towns, the game’s fiction was really fascinating — and fun. Radioactive cola, anyone?</blockquote>
<br>
In other news, <a href="http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/09/01/saying-fallout-4s-on-the-way-is-like-saying-theres-a-fifa-next-year-says-hines/">Pete Hines has said on videogaming247</a>:
<br>
<blockquote>“We didn’t buy it just to do one and then to never anything again. So it’s sort of like confirming there might be another FIFA next year. It’s their franchise and they’re going to do another one. We bought it for the purposes of doing another one. If we were just going to do one, there’s any number of things we probably could have done differently.”</blockquote>
<br>
Like make a real RPG instead of a shooter? Hyuk, hyuk. Milk that cow.
<br>
<br>
Thanks <b>Cthulhugoat</b> and <b>larpingdude14</b>!

 

[Quilty]

Well, seems like that's that for one part of the holy trinity. I just hope the Toddler's grubby little hands never fall on PS:T or Arcanum. I know it's hardly possible, but still...I dread.

 

[thesheeep]

An Arcanum shooter in the style of Dark Messiah of M&M (just better) might actually be cool and fun. As long as it doesn't replace the RPG series

 

[Micmu]

Nah, not Arcaum, let alone PS:T....
In some interview he (or someone else from Bethesda?) said that his favorite game is X-COM... :shock:

Thanks Cthulhugoat and larpingdude14!

:declineofthecodex:

 

[elander_]

I answered it:

Are people on the internet this dumb. I’m not talking about the article writter but the guys answering with “fallout has a 3 in front of fallout so it must be a fallout sequel”. Yay so if i make a manga porno game in a post apocalyptic world and call it Fallout with a 3 in front of it becomes a Fallout sequel and an honest successor to the sequels and NOT a post-apocalyptic manga porno game. You guys should get your heads checked by a doctor to see if there is a brain inside.

 

[Micmu]

You're preaching to the deaf choir.
Everybody knows that we all hate allout 3 because it's not 90's isometric turn-based!

 

[Hory]

Are people on the internet this dumb. I’m not talking about the article writter but the guys answering with “fallout has a 3 in front of fallout so it must be a fallout sequel”. Yay so if i make a manga porno game in a post apocalyptic world and call it Fallout with a 3 in front of it becomes a Fallout sequel and an honest successor to the sequels and NOT a post-apocalyptic manga porno game. You guys should get your heads checked by a doctor to see if there is a brain inside.

It is a sequel.

se·quel /ˈsikwəl/
–noun
1. a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.

 

[elander_]

"continues the narrative of the preceding work"

So all those things like game play and game features like a world map are just accessories in a computer book err i meen game. This is what happens when you use the dictionary too much to prove a point.

 

[Helton]

Main Entry: fan fiction
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a fictional account written by a fan of a show, movie, book, or video game to explore themes and ideas that will not or cannot be explored via the originating medium; also written fan fiction, also called fanfic
Etymology: 1944

 

[shihonage]

It’s pretty obvious the game is ripping off Bioshock. Send me hate mail if you must, but first let’s look at the comparison. Bioshock was a shooter with RPG elements that took place in a post-apocalyptic dystopia. Fallout 3 is, yeah, just that.

Bioshock was more linear than Doom, and didn't even attempt any meaningful C&C. It was all about the ways in which you disposed of the respawning enemies peppered through the levels.

It is already clear that Fallout3 is less linear than that.

But then again...

because, frankly, the game looks awesome. The crowd here at PAX, perpetually entertained by explosions, cheered whenever someone’s head got blown off.

The best thing about high school girls is that no matter how old you get, they stay the same age. Coincidentally, that is also the worst thing about game reviewers.

 

[St. Toxic]

That guy is a blithering idiot. Bioshock was more linear than Doom

In what? The main story or the level design? We obviously can't call FO3 "dynamick" in its' quest structure or narrative. As for level design, Bio was about as linear as the 'Doom games' put together, in the alternative routes it provided. My main gripe would be that making a huge level with invisiwalls at the sides and calling it "Wasteland" and throwing shit in there is non-linear, and makes the game "stand out" in a "good way"; it's really not a big deal, and we did have that city level in Doom 1 (I think it was) where you had "free roaming" powahz.

EDIT: Also notice the "That guy" bit with the "blithering idiot" bit, sort of reflecting "reading incomprehension" + "illusion of grandeur". Excellent comment; too bad you removed it.

The great thing about high school girls is that no matter how old you get, they stay the same age.

I'm more of a pre-teen sort of geezer myself. Old enough to pee, old enough for me.

 

[elander_]

The great thing about high school girls is that no matter how old you get, they stay the same age. Coincidentally, that is also the most depressing thing about game reviewers.

Give them a few beers and they are great fuck holes too.

 

[shihonage]

In what? The main story or the level design? We obviously can't call FO3 "dynamick" in its' quest structure or narrative. As for level design, Bio was about as linear as the 'Doom games' put together, in the alternative routes it provided. My main gripe would be that making a huge level with invisiwalls at the sides and calling it "Wasteland" and throwing shit in there is non-linear, and makes the game "stand out" in a "good way"; it's really not a big deal, and we did have that city level in Doom 1 (I think it was) where you had "free roaming" powahz.

I can't tell if you agree or disagree. Either way, Bioshock's level flow was MORE linear than Doom. Bioshock was a game where you could go somewhere, but the item necessary for progression hasn't SPAWNED there because you haven't triggered it by going to another location. Doom didn't have spawning item nonsense, and it never actually spawned monsters (short of highest difficulty), it only moved them through teleports.

Bioshock had no "paths". It had a different 20-second cutscene. That was it.

 

[Spectacle]

It’s pretty obvious the game is ripping off Bioshock. Send me hate mail if you must, but first let’s look at the comparison. Bioshock was a shooter with RPG elements that took place in a post-apocalyptic dystopia. Fallout 3 is, yeah, just that.

Yes, a game that's been in development since 2004 is a ripoff of a game released last year :facepalm:

Living proof that ESF fanbois aren't the only kind of stupid out there.

 

[MetalCraze]

So I've heard Fallout 2010 will be an AWESOME game - they will even add 2 new weapons there and more of the same cool dungeons to explore. Did you like Fallout 2009 btw?

 

[St. Toxic]

I can't tell if you agree or disagree. Either way, Bioshock's level flow was MORE linear than Doom. Bioshock was a game where you could go somewhere, but the item necessary for progression hasn't SPAWNED there because you haven't triggered it by going to another location.

I don't see how that's more linear than NOT being able to go somewhere, because you have to go somewhere else FIRST to get the KEYCARD to unlock the DOOR.

In fact, being able to go there in the first place is pretty non-linear amirite?

Bioshock had no "paths". It had a different 20-second cutscene. That was it.

Oh, well, excuse me. I just had this weird flashback where the "dock-ish" area was accessable by either going through a door or running over a field with a machinegun sentry and phat lewt. Or how about the hospital level, where you could jump into a barricaded room through a partly broken window, or a ventilation duct? Crawling through sewage at the docks, or going through numerous corridors to get to the same location? Maybe you just hadn't noticed?

I'm not bleeding my heart out over Bioshock, but I won't allow people to say it's "COMPLETELY FUCKING LINEAR OMG!" simply because it's the verbal equivalent of stabbing yourself and telling the police that you were assaulted by a black man. The same goes for Doom 1 / 2; both had several levels that had allowed for multiple paths. If you want a successful, mainstream game to brandish with the "linear" slogan, you can summon Half-Life 2, or better yet, Call of Duty 4; they're almost rail shooters, so it's kosher.

 

[shihonage]

Fallout 2009 had that thing where Lebron James withdrew contract for using his mutant likeness in the world.

But I hear they got Tiger Woods and Mike Tyson for Fallout 2010. The former will play a character named "Superfly Jones", and the latter will be "Punchy McFistingson", town Sheriff.

 

[shihonage]

I'm not bleeding my heart out over Bioshock, but I won't allow people to say it's "COMPLETELY FUCKING LINEAR OMG!" simply because it's the verbal equivalent of stabbing yourself and telling the police that you were assaulted by a black man. The same goes for Doom 1 / 2; both had several levels that had allowed for multiple paths. If you want a successful, mainstream game to brandish with the "linear" slogan, you can summon Half-Life 2, or better yet, Call of Duty 4; they're almost rail shooters, so it's kosher.

It's more of splitting hairs. Doom's level design was more open, IMO. Tricks & Traps was a good example. Bioshock always locked the player in a much more linear path.

Half-Life 2 and Bioshock are in the same category of linearity. In Gears of War you could take the LEFT PATH or the RIGHT PATH, did it make it any less linear than Call of Duty 4 ? Not really, its just a superficial see-through device.

As I said, the only non-linear thing about Bioshock was the way in which you killed monsters. Of course, in my book, that doesn't count as non-linear progression. Its the staple of FPS, whether that variety is provided by stats or just numerous selection of weaponry.

 

[St. Toxic]

It's more of splitting hairs. Doom's level design was more open, IMO. Tricks & Traps was a good example. Bioshock always locked the player in a much more linear path.

I just don't see it. Are you talking about large areas or pathway structure? Doom had alot of levels that were interconnected, sometimes going for a more oval approach, or having a central section that became the chokepoint for exploring the rest of the level, with the cityscape level being one of the few level where you were actually walled in on a big plane, with buildings in the middle of the level, some allowing non linear exploration (most not). IIRC there was a Castle-level as well, based on the same premise, but more linear.

Bioshock started off with a linear decent into the facility, with the only deviation being several optional areas, but after getting to the medical section it practically adopted the level design straight out of Doom, obviously without providing any enormous fields (because that would be queer in an underwater facility). From then on it was Central Hub -> Areas of interest -> Pipelines between areas (sometimes not). In fact, I remember thinking "Sort of reminds me of Doom." when I played it. The park-like area in Bio, for instance, is an interconnected maze, where the sections often connect via alternate routes, a central hub connects to all sections and a water-walkway flows via the central section into several areas. If all the walls were to be replaced with, say, hills you couldn't climb or water that was powerfull enough to swipe you away, thus still not allowing for passage, it would look much like the early candidates to open world gameplay did.

Half-Life 2 and Bioshock are in the same category of linearity.

Not really. For example, there was no revisiting old levels at whim in HL2, by use of a system implented within the gameworld. Or the Dooms for that matter.

In Gears of War you could take the LEFT PATH or the RIGHT PATH, did it make it any less linear than Call of Duty 4 ? Not really, its just a superficial see-through device.

I believe it made a difference. It allowed the player to experience a particular fight from a different angle, in most cases, and made a minor alterations to the cinematics (such as one group avoiding a fight by going left, while the other was pushed into the fray from the get go, by going right, and the left group only hears the fight from behind a wall without taking part).

Does it change ANYTHING in the grand scope of things? Not a thing; it's still a linear, limited level. Then again, so is every level, in every game. It has 1's and it has 0's; can walk -- can't walk; collision -- walkway. And if you have a place to go, you'll either go there straight, or deviate, which is about as important (in the majority of all games) as is choosing left or right.

As I said, the only non-linear thing about Bioshock was the way in which you killed monsters. Of course, in my book, that doesn't count as non-linear.

What? Why would you even bring it up, you dumb shit? What game has you killing monsters in the exact same way through the whole game, and why did you even bother installing it?

Its the staple of FPS, whether that variety is provided by stats or just numerous selection of weaponry.

It's certainly not the pinnacle of open world gameplay, but it's not a rail-shooter like CoD4 or script-triggering-corridor-fragfest like HL2. It had a reasonable indoorsy design and made up for the numerous times my primary route was blocked by fancy cinematic effects, by allowing me to choose the preffered method of approach as many, if not more, times.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I'm not bleeding my heart out over Bioshock, but I won't allow people to say it's "COMPLETELY FUCKING LINEAR OMG!"

He didn't. He said it was more linear than Doom. That is to say, it wasn't completely linear, it was just more linear when compared with Doom (not to mention it relies heavily on respawning monsters).

Oh, well, excuse me. I just had this weird flashback where the "dock-ish" area was accessable by either going through a door or running over a field with a machinegun sentry and phat lewt.

That dock area isn't exactly huge and that area you're running over only has two doors out. Two doors that both lead down very short corridors into the same room. It's not exactly round the back, up this way, over there and back through another room to meet up with the alternate route you could've taken. You're right in that Doom's design also included a lot of neat tricks, like central areas you'd return to several times as new doors opened or you got the next key.

I think the real answer though is that Doom / Doom 2 simply had much bigger levels. Even if it only took 20 - 30 mins to run through, there was a lot more room to move and stuff to shoot. I think 3D games lose a lot of that because if you try that with the latest and greatest technology, the game comes to a grinding halt as performance takes a dive and walls disappear into greyness (I have Quake levels I tried building grand designs in, only to give up because I could never build that really awesomely but-not-particularly-big level I wanted. By comparison, the house plans I'd build in Doom 2 with a CyberDemon outside were loads of fun).

 

[St. Toxic]

He didn't. He said it was more linear than Doom. That is to say, it wasn't completely linear, it was just less linear when compared with Doom.

Yes, but a sound brain would deduce that a game said to be more linear than the grand-daddy of all games, now considered obsolete by many, is to be considered shamefully linear; as in, the level designers of Bioshock should be ashamed of themselves. If his point is that Doom is the pinnacle of free-roam, then the statement sort of falls on itself.

That dock area isn't exactly huge and that area you're running over only has two doors out. Two doors that both lead down very short corridors into the same room. It's not exactly round the back, up this way, over there and back through another room to meet up with the alternate route you could've taken.

But we're still talking two ways to play. There are better examples in Bio, I just pulled the first one that popped to mind. Never really liked the game, and haven't beaten it, and it was ages since I played it. Doesn't change the fact that it provides the player with alternative routes on numerous occasions.

I think the real answer though is that Doom / Doom 2 simply had much bigger levels. Even if it only took 20 - 30 mins to run through, there was a lot more room to move and stuff to shoot. I think 3D games lose a lot of that because if you try that with the latest and greatest technology, the game comes to a grinding halt as performance takes a dive and walls disappear into greyness (I have Quake levels I tried building grand designs in, only to give up because I could never build that really awesomely but-not-particularly-big level I wanted. By comparison, the house plans I'd build in Doom 2 with a CyberDemon outside were loads of fun).

I guess I just don't see it that way. If you're going for an in-doorsy shooter, you can't clear areas the size of footballfields without it looking bizzare. If you're going to have an out-doorsy shooter, you can't have walls that force you to go down a linear path just because it's simpler.

Thus, in my opinion, a game like Bioshock is fine and not overly linear in that it provides optional areas and alternate routes, while games such as Stalker or Crysis, that are aiming for the feeling of "complete freedum in teh worlds" completely fail because they wall off huge portions of these supposedly open areas.

It'd be pretty unfair to compare a game that takes place in an office complex or a closed up mine, to a game that takes place in the void of space, because they both work with their enviroments to the best of their abilities. In many cases, as you say, having fancy graffix puts a stop to bigger gameworlds, but I wouldn't pin this on to corridor shooters (at least not with a straight face) because it's only ever apparent when devs showcase their failed attempts at doing an open enviroment by cramming invisiwalls or impenetrable forests into, what is otherwise, a relatively open gameworld. Would the world of Quake have been the size of a small country, if graphics came as a last priority? Would it have made for a better game? It's just not a valid line of inquest, because it assumes that every setting fares better in a larger gameworld. Getting back to Bioshock on this one, because it's trying to be somewhat claustrophobic, and therefore isn't really out to give you alot of space (rather the opposite in fact), this line of reasoning is outlined as a misconception.

 

[PennyAnte]

Great ... so since they doubtless will be recycling art "assets" for their sequels, we will see endless iterations of the same color scheme that revels in smeared poo-brown ... I guess *that* was the apocalypse ... everyone woke up and the world was covered in shit ... a post-Apoocalyptic pseudo-RPG, thanks Bethesda. You fucked up one of my favorite games.

 

[PennyAnte]

(>_>) ... (<_<)
... I have a cyberstalker

 

[Helton]

Cloak, I hate to tell you man. It's a trap.

 

[sportforredneck]

I'm more of a pre-teen sort of geezer myself. Old enough to pee, old enough for me.

I'm more of a "as long as there's muff, that's good enough" kind of a guy myself.