Fallout 3 Will Be Watched In 2008


So many “games to watch in 2008” lists, so little time. Let’s start with San Francisco Chronicles:

Fallout 3: Bethesda, best known for the Elder Scrolls series, uses its role-playing know-how to revive one of the greatest RPG franchises from the long-defunct publisher Interplay. Fallout 3 moves from post-apocalyptic California to Washington, D.C., where an inhabitant of fallout shelter Vault 101 ventures through devastated landscapes filled with mutants in search of his missing father. Adapting the original’s pause-able and body-part targeting combat, Fallout 3 is the most anticipated RPG sequel.

Now for WRAL.com:

Fallout 3 – Bethesda Softworks created the brilliant role-playing game, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Now they’re tackling the post apocalyptic world of Fallout with this third outing. PC and next gen gamers will be able to create a character and roam this destroyed world, while contending with its inhabitants. This franchise gets a new developer and its first next gen outing, which could make it this year’s Mass Effect or Oblivion (if you want to go back to 2006’s top RPG).With none of the original creators onboard, Fallout 3 could flop if its new developer drifts away from the series’ essence: distinctively dark humor and dialogue, and retro-’50s wastepunk visuals. Fallout 3 could easily become a BioShock rip-off. (PC, Xbox 360, PS3.)

I actually heard a rumor that Mass Effect PC will be out on fall 2008, in direct competition with Fallout 3. We’ll see if that’s just a rumor or not.

And now for The Canadian Press:

Fallout 3 – (Bethesda Softworks): The long-awaited continuation of the classic post-apocalyptic role-playing series was the best-looking thing at last year’s E3 trade show. If it’s as good as Bethesda’s “The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion,” it will be a Game of the Year contender.

And finally Bit-Tech.net:

Keeping things nicely sequential, we jump from the second instalment in a series onto a game which is the third in a series – and what a series! Fallout is one of the holy grails of PC RPGs and although the news that Bethesda has bought the rights to third game from the now semi-defunct Interplay has been met with mixed reactions from gamers, the game still looks tantalisingly good if you ask us.

Set in a post-apocalyptic Washington DC, Fallout 3 will depart from the convention of the past Fallout games and use a FPS perspective similar to Bethesda’s other game series, The Elder Scrolls. The plot is being kept tightly under wraps, but we do know that it will see players starting off in underground Vault 101 before venturing out into the wasteland above in search of their father.
What makes Fallout 3 look so tempting already is the way it seems to fuse elements from both the Fallout and Elder Scrolls series’. On the one hand, it will be an FPS/RPG using the GameBryo engine in which we can expect to see plenty of similarly-voiced characters and fetch-quests, while on the other hand it also seems to be impressively gory and has a facility to allow turn-based combat using power-ups.
With a fusion of some of the best talent and licenses in the RPG genre, Fallout 3 could be the only game you’ll need for the rest of your life.

Spotted at the Bethesda Blog, where you can also check the new winner of a Fallout t-shirt, Ramon Alvarez, whose winning picture is featured above.


7 thoughts on “Fallout 3 Will Be Watched In 2008

  1. This is my take on the Fallout 3 hype:

    – Old people who liked the isometric, bland graphical but fun Fallout interace need to STFU and let the game sink or swim on its own.

    I’m getting tired of the idiots over on the The Vault or the old Fallout fan sites acting like Internet n00bs who cry about every little thing done to their old ass game.

    I grew up in the 80’s, played both Wasteland and Fallout, then Fallout 2. Loved all three. Will probably love Fallout 3 for all its weird deviations on a great story. Wish people could stop clinching their butt cheeks on this.

  2. “I’m getting tired of the idiots over on the The Vault or the old Fallout fan sites acting like Internet n00bs who cry about every little thing done to their old ass game.”

    I think that’s what the problem is, though. It’s not just one little thing that bothers some fans. It’s *every* little thing, or rather, a lot of little things. And when you have many little things being a problem it becomes equal to one or two big things. Also, don’t forget that the combat system is a lot different from the one in Fallout 1 and 2. That isn’t exactly a minor change.

  3. Isometric, turn-based combat has to change. There are a few games that still run that way, but they are far from the most popular games out there. Like Fire Emblem. Great game for what it is, but the repetition of the same graphics coupled with the same mechanics are basically killing the game.

    Graphics from 1989 aren’t going to cut it for new gamers and old gamers who like to use the entirety of their system to play a video game. The old Fallout is great for what it is, but it’s time to try something else. If it doesn’t draw new blood, we’ll never see it in the decent gaming market.

    I say do away with the old SPECIAL system altogether and actually come up with something that doesn’t rely on the old % die rolls of 1970. Maybe make it more dependent on your play style than crunching numbers and trying to min/max characters to death.

    It’s gotten to the point that the retards on No Mutants Allowed forums are nitpicking the power armor show in the trailer. Everyone’s a critic about ever little detail in their beloved games anymore and less about playing the game for the enjoyment of it.

  4. I disagree. You are trying to force the same type of system into every game. Horses for courses. The reason some people want it to be turned based isometric is because it goes hand in hand with SPECIAL, and the reason that people want SPECIAL is because it is actually a well thought out system. Perfect? No, I think there still room for improvement, but improving things that make sense. But for the most part, I think it is good even as it is. The only (and mind you, it is not easy at all) thing that needs to be done is to implement it properly, because its quality is useless if you are not using all of its potential or if you are misusing it.
    Also, you are forgetting that the reason that TB games aren’t as popular is because the industry is forcing more and more RT games. But from what I hear Civilization is still quite popular and I hear that the same goes for the Final Fantasy series, which as I understand have TB combat. And I really don’t understand the “let’s simplify everything to accommodate even the stupidest players” mentality. Sure, in some cases, simpler is better, but it has gotten to the point where games have become tech demos for a company’s graphics engine. In comparison to graphics, the AI has improved very little in the last few years, and story and characters are bland beyond belief in most cases. Instead of pushing to improve those, the industry tends to shove them out in favor of “next gen” which sadly only comes down to graphics.

    As for your comment about graphics from 1989, I think nobody is asking them that. Nobody serious is going to complain about the game using a 3D engine, though if they did a 2D game, I wouldn’t complain either. It doesn’t matter to me, as long as it manages to faithfully recreate the Fallout universe. And that is most certainly not dependent on 2D or 3D, it is only dependent on the capability of the creators. Trying something else? Sure, if you can come up with something that is going to actually be better, then why not? However, as I mentioned before, topping SPECIAL is not easy, as it is rather well thought out. Drawing new blood… well the question is, what kind of new blood do you want it to draw? Do you want to draw the kind of blood that has to be held by the hand rather than explore the game on their own?

    As for crunching numbers, every game crunches numbers, you may not always see it, but it has to be there. How are you going to describe how good a character is at stealth if you don’t use something to describe his ability to be stealthy? Also, min/maxing characters is actually how you fit your character to your play style. A good system will allow you to create a wide variety of characters for everyone’s play style. From a dumb brute, to an intelligent villain to a scientist (to name a few of the more common character types). The more types of characters it offers and the more a game is balanced to allow you to actually play as that character, the better.

    The problem with the power armor for some people is that it goes directly in contradiction with Fallout 1. As I recall, someone in the Brotherhood of Steel says there that an armor that is not up to Brotherhood’s standards, would never go into use. Having things that contradict each other is usually a sign of not actually understanding of what you are supposed to do. Of course, you can always try to go around such things, but then you have to make sure that your explanation is actually buyable, and preferably better than the original. Whether Bethesda will achieve that, remains to be seen.
    Also, again, as I see it, there wouldn’t be so much fuss if it was *only* the power armor, the fuss is that there are quite a lot of little things that just make no sense (fatman, superorcs etc.), and that there are also big things that they are changing (i.e. the combat system).

  5. No problem.

    I know that we number crunch the backend of the game, but if we’re going to use stealth (using your example), it should be dependent on how good the player is at staying to the shadows, out of sight, timing guard movements, etc. and less about “I has a 90% stealth ratings – guards couldn’t see me if I was standing in plain sight!” D&D mentality.

    There is a difference in the TB of Final Fantasy and Civilization that you mentioned in comparison to regular RPG games. One is an outright strategy game – Fallout is far from a simulation strategy game. And Final Fantasy is now more popular by concealing the turn based combat with a meter that fills and a timer that forces the player to think quickly before the enemy gets to strike again. FFXII has a “fake” TB system, and it was one of the most popular changes in the system that a lot of fans liked.

    I’d accept a Turn Based combat system IF they concealed it well enough to not cause a break in reality. That was my problem with the old Fallout games – I’m moving along fine, and we go into combat. Boom, there is a gap between when I tell my guy to do something and the AI to determine its turn. Back and forth.

    Yeah, a 3D engine would also get my attention. If they did it like Neverwinter Nights 2, I’d so be more enthusiastic about Fallout 3. However, I’m enthusiastic about an FPS style as well. Either way, I want to see the fantastic rendered terrains that a modified Oblivion engine can provide for a nuclear devastated wasteland.

    I also agree with you about the Fatman Nuke Launcher. That seems a little far fetched for even me.

  6. But that’s exactly what some of us don’t want. We don’t want it to depend on our own hand eye coordination, we want it to depend on how our character’s skill. For me that is part of the whole point of an RPG. To allow me to watch how my character develops over time.
    I agree with the plain sight thing. But again, I don’t see why you couldn’t simply take things other than the character’s skill into account, i.e. how well the area is lit, the guard’s skill and everything else that is relevant. It definitely isn’t impossible, X-COM for example used a number of things to determine visibility, like the time of day, soldier’s field of view, obstacles, smoke.

    I agree that Fallout is far from a simulation strategy game, but for some people the great thing about Fallout’s turn based combat was that it didn’t turn into a boring sit and watch combat, you actually had the ability to use some tactics. It wasn’t exactly stellar in that department, but I could easily use tactics such as hit and run, and using walls as cover. The best thing about it is that with not too much improvement, Fallout’s combat could improve even more. Also, why should it tend toward more action instead of more thinking? A whole lot of games tend to go for action, and the worst thing is, their combat is usually poorly executed. Especially when it comes to melee combat. It usually ends up that the peak of melee combat is me trying to actually hit the opponent, instead of it being a fight that resembles something. The only really good combat I’ve seen was in Severance: Blade of Darkness, where your opponents actually required you to use different tactics in order to defeat them and since the developers opted for the ability to lock in on your opponent they were able to concentrate on making the enemies next to impossible to defeat if you just charged at them without thinking.
    But I digress. My point is, if most games tend to go for action in combat, then wouldn’t a different, more tactical approach make Fallout more unique? And if it goes with the rest of the herd, then what makes it different? Then it turns into another clone. I think that offering something different, while making sure that it has quality will make it far more interesting.
    You said that Fallout isn’t a simulation strategy game. But my question is, why would it have to be an action game?
    As far as Final Fantasy, I should probably not have used that as an example, but the impression I got was that the change of the combat system got mixed reactions. Perhaps it got positive reactions in the West, and more negative reactions in Japan? Or maybe I mixed something up. 😛

    I think your point about reality is moot. TB is simply an abstraction of reality, and a well implemented TB system can simulate reality just as good, and often better, than RT. Consider that RT games often involve little to no tactics, while TB allows for far more control over combat. The problem with FP combat is that it depends on player’s hand eye coordination too much, which kills the balance, because a player whose aim is good is going to gain an unfair advantage over someone whose aim isn’t. Also, in FP combat you don’t have nearly as good a feeling of your surroundings as you do in life, which often leads to getting stuck behind an object that you would easily avoid in life. Also, I think that trying to go realistic too much would be bad, you wouldn’t for example want your character to fall after his foot gets stuck into a root.
    In fact, I don’t think we should strive for realism for all games. In some games it makes sense, but I think it’s just a choice, an approach that has its good and bad sides.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s