[Dark_Archon]

At first, thoughts of this game were always accompanied with feelings of dread, but now, I'm finding myself cautiously optimistic.

Bethesda Studios has a lead writer! (That's right, they had no lead writer for any of their other games)

Also in the article, the writer mentioned and criticized "lore bombs", and how these are a very bad way to drive a story It seems like there is hope, but if they knew it is such a bad way to drive a game, why did they do it for their other games?

The graphics do undoubtedly look good. I'm (grudgingly)willing to give up turn-based combat if the writing is at least almost as good as in the other games. If it has the cynical Fallout flair and wit, I'll be content.

[teflon]

I think there is a reasonable hope that its going to be quite good. I have one issue with it so far, the lack of any real motion to a character aside from a 3-4 second loop, combined with next to no facial animation aside from the mouth.

But I also see one or two potential issues with the gameplay, such as an over reliance on the SHB system or whatever its called. The one thatll take your shots for you. I guess itll really just depend on how you want to play the game, but even those who set out to play it like a FPS might find that the auto system just works better for them throughout.

so it does have the potential to be very good. My vote is out until I see reviews and other people's impressions as to whether Ill buy the game or not.

[Dark_Archon]

V.A.T.S (Vault Assisted Targeting System). It sounds like it isn't worth wasting the time on weaker opponents, but with stronger opponents, it makes more sense. Plus it reduces the reliance on twitch gameplay.

[AussieMacGamer]

I said this before so i guess i'll just say it again.

From what I've seen, Fallout 3 has all of the little details about Oblivion, that i hated.
Monotonous NPC's, in motion, voice acting, animation, and actions.
The way the camera focusses on the same spot when you talk to someone, so no matter what every conversation you have seems exactly like the last one. Realistically when you go to talk to someone, do they stop what their doing just to turn around, face you, and talk to you. Especially if theyre angry with you.
Hell, i even heard one of the same voice actors from oblivion, doing his famous "I'm better than you because im a Breton and i'm always smiling" voice.

[teflon]

Spot on AMG, all of those little niggling things with how the NPCs act. Theres no emotion at all in whatever they do. Its not even that theyre jarring because of approaching the uncanny valley, its just they theyre jarring because weve seen so much better from other games.

Dark_Archon, on September 6th 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

V.A.T.S (Vault Assisted Targeting System). It sounds like it isn't worth wasting the time on weaker opponents, but with stronger opponents, it makes more sense. Plus it reduces the reliance on twitch gameplay.

I just feel that the VATS is so much better than FPS style combat. I mean, maybe its because all the demos are played on easy so that they dont die, but every time they need a tough shot, switching into VATS just kills them, basically.
I dunno I guess Ill have to wait for the full release and other people's opinions.

[Mr. Selvetarm]

My only question is X360 or Winblows?

[Ranger_Joe]

I've been waiting for another chapter to the fallout series for so long that I'm willing to overlook a lot when it comes out. What type of character are you going to roll?

[morback]

Diplomat and/or stealth, but from the videos it seems quite action heavy...Beautiful though...

[UniversalWolf]

"Fallout 3" may or may not be a decent game, but it's not a faithful Fallout sequel. That's my qualm. A company with too much money to spend came along and bought the rights and tossed out the core gameplay elements in order to make something similar to the other games they make. And they say it's a sequel. That's called inadequate respect for your source material.

I'll pass.

[Vulpine]

UniversalWolf, on September 17th 2008, 12:38 AM, said:

"Fallout 3" may or may not be a decent game, but it's not a faithful Fallout sequel. That's my qualm. A company with too much money to spend came along and bought the rights and tossed out the core gameplay elements in order to make something similar to the other games they make. And they say it's a sequel. That's called inadequate respect for your source material.

I'll pass.

I disagree. So long as it's faithful to the established setting, I don't care what variety the gameplay takes. The story is what matters to me.

[digt]

Vulpine, on September 17th 2008, 06:29 AM, said:

I disagree. So long as it's faithful to the established setting, I don't care what variety the gameplay takes. The story is what matters to me.

I'd agree but caution that the name is an important distinction. By calling it Fallout 3 customers expect it to be a direct sequel rather than if they named it Fallout: Zeitgeist. Fallout will be a hit but perhaps there would of been less backlash from the community. That kind of marketing judgment is what fans of SimCity cite as one reason for SimCity Societies slow sales.

As a side note Interplay seems alive again and wants to develop a Fallout MMORPG, and they also have a new office near Blizzard about an hour south of Los Angeles.

[the Battle Cat]

Interplay! Now there is a blast from the past. It reminds me of my Wolfenstein 3D days!

[Dark_Archon]

digt, on September 24th 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

As a side note Interplay seems alive again and wants to develop a Fallout MMORPG, and they also have a new office near Blizzard about an hour south of Los Angeles.

Making a good MMORPG is probably just as hard as making a worthy sequel to Fallout 1&2, if not harder. The only one that has even come close to being good is EVE.

I'd prefer if companies like Blizzard called their games MMO action games because they seem to completely forget about the RP part of RPG. They all lack content, and all that is left is grind (like leveling and item finding) and no meaningful interaction between players or with the world. Static worlds suck, especially in MMOs. I mean it seems so obvious that a good massively multiplayer game would need a dynamic world where players could actually do something.

[QuantaCat]

Wasn't fallouts earlier attempt at multiplayer a horrible failure? (FF:Tactics wasnt that well received, now was it?)

[UniversalWolf]

Vulpine, on September 17th 2008, 08:29 AM, said:

I disagree. So long as it's faithful to the established setting, I don't care what variety the gameplay takes. The story is what matters to me.

It's not a faithful sequel in story either. Bethesda took what they wanted and added what they wanted from the original Fallout story, all the while bragging about how they own Fallout now, so they could do whatever they wanted.

Gameplay is crucial. You can't buy the rights to Civilization, turn it into a FPS, and then claim your game is the Civilization 5 all Civ fans have been waiting for. That's what Bethesda is trying to pull off. First person perspective is at odds with the design intent of the original Fallout games, which was to simulate a tabletop, pen-and-paper RPG with miniatures and a modified GURPS system. Either Bethesda never should have bought the Fallout license to begin with and come up with their own post-apocalyptic setting, or they should admit the game is a spinoff instead of a sequel and call it Fallout: Raiders of the Wastes or something. By insisting their game is a sequel, they're showing, as I said, insufficient respect for the source material. It's an issue of artistic ethics.

To me it will always be "Fallout 3" and I won't buy it. Whether the game is good or not in its own right matters very little.

[Sargiel]

I saw some of the trailers/gameplay video's and thought it looked promising. So long as they keep the atmosphere and feel of the game faithful to the classics I'm interested.

Would be nice to have a mac port after it eventually arrives

[Tetsuya]

Dark_Archon, on September 25th 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

Static worlds suck, especially in MMOs. I mean it seems so obvious that a good massively multiplayer game would need a dynamic world where players could actually do something.

the problem with that theory is that if you make it so that players can "do something", then players who werent there when the game launched miss content and dont get to experience the game, because someone else already did. Too bad for you, huh?

It just doesnt work.

[Ranger_Joe]

There is a great deal of concern about how close the game will be to the original Fallout games that were made more than a decade ago. I'm trying to think of a case where a sequel to a gaming series which was developed by a different developer, was a 'faithful' sequel. One possible example is the Sam and Max series, but I haven't played the new ones.

[QuantaCat]

Tetsuya, on September 27th 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

the problem with that theory is that if you make it so that players can "do something", then players who werent there when the game launched miss content and dont get to experience the game, because someone else already did. Too bad for you, huh?

It just doesnt work.

In the face of that: I loved it in Neocron where things were established already, to first of all take in all the systems the players that started earlier put up before, and then stir them up by changing the "rules". (clan raids are fun)

[zombiejesus]

woah!
all of this QQ about "is this a faithful sequel to my favorite game?"

are you people looking at the same videos i am?

if i can play through as a smarty pants/scientist/diplomat guy,
and then as a heavy guns moron,
and then again as a sneaky leather-only fisto,
i'm gonna be righteously ecstatic.
(yeah, i played through FO2 all 3 ways, as well as a few others).

i expect to be able to solve tricky quests a couple of different ways, and have the game chock full of little sf geek easter eggs. and some interesting, poignant moments. and a lot of dark humor. character advancement seems faithful. and the cast of monsters is true to the originals. and i'm excited to get to move the camera around and play first person.

what i don't like is the stop during character creation to spend 45 precious play minutes deciding what my eyebrows are going to look like. but, whatever. bring it on!

my question is (and i guess i haven't poked around enough to find this info) am i going to be able to play this on my mac, using bootcamp/parallels/crossover/whatever? or do i need to seriously consider a real winbox to play this?

~zj.