Fallout 3 to be approachable to newcomers!

[QUOTE="Grive"]There is a set of elements that you personally attribute as essential to the fallout franchise.There is another set, which partially overlaps your own, and that someone else (not you!) attribute as essential to the fallout franchise.Now, can you see how it is even possible that someone else (as in, someone who isn't you) might consider Fallout 3 to be a worthy successor to Fallout 1 & 2?Or once again, do you believe that your personal experience and expectations of what made Fallout 1 and 2 what they were have to be the standard for everyone else on planet earth (and likely, beyond?). Vandalvideo

You are using your personal experience. You're just rimshooting "the most reputable source of the english language" in the world to discredit any possible argument.

You're arguing that your perception of what "set" the atmosphere in Fallout, and that your limited perception of what Fallout 3 will include will not be able to live up to that. So far, so good.

However, you're also explicitly stating that nobody else is allowed to have a different set of characteristics unique to Fallout that they consider essential to the game.

I could simply kill your argument with a claim of petitio principii (begging the question).

"The atmosphere of fallout is essential to what Fallout is. The current fallout, according to Oxford, does not have the same atmosphere. Thus, this is not worthy of the name fallout".

There is a problem in the first proposition.

That atmosphere is integral to what "fallout" is. This is not true on the very basis that we're talking about a subjective assessment of importance. Yours can be different from mine without either one being wrong..

Your thumping of the dictionary seems like nothing but a rather cheap attempt to cover this through a definition that doesn't really matter.

However, we can go further: "From a purely objective point of view, the things that define fallout are; dark humour, light satirical story, deep consequence system, and its story".

This is flat out incorrect. You cannot claim that what made fallout for you is an objective assessment. Just because you find a partial subset of elements common to both games appealing doesn't mean they're the only elements common, or that they're the essential ones.

You are using your personal experience. You're just rimshooting "the most reputable source of the english language" in the world to discredit any possible argument.Grive

You're arguing that your perception of what "set" the atmosphere in Fallout, and that your limited perception of what Fallout 3 will include will not be able to live up to that.

So far, so good.However, you're also explicitly stating that nobody else is allowed to have a different set of characteristics unique to Fallout that they consider essential to the game.

I could simply kill your argument with a claim of petitio principii (begging the question)."The atmosphere of fallout is essential to what Fallout is. The current fallout, according to Oxford, does not have the same atmosphere. Thus, this is not worthy of the name fallout".There is a problem in the first proposition. That atmosphere is integral to what "fallout" is. This is not true on the very basis that we're talking about a subjective assessment of importance. Yours can be different from mine without either one being wrong..

However, we can go further:"From a purely objective point of view, the things that define fallout are; dark humour, light satirical story, deep consequence system, and its storyThis is flat out incorrect. You cannot claim that what made fallout for you is an objective assessment. Just because you find a partial subset of elements common to both games appealing doesn't mean they're the only elements common, or that they're the essential ones.

I didn't claim those are the things that made Fallout for me. I'm claiming those are the unique characteristics that you cannot find anywhere else that are unique to,Vandalvideo

and that define, "Fallout".Vandalvideo

Oh, and I really don't understand where people say the humor isn't there. The producer has said there won't be any "jokes" in the game, but I can't be the only person that finds the idea of a city worshipping a dud A-bomb to be hilarious, in a Dr. Strangelove sort of way.

This, however, cannot. That's an opinion, and Grive is simply arguing that different features define the game to different people.Oh, and I really don't understand where people say the humor isn't there. The producer has said there won't be any "jokes" in the ame, but I can't be the only person that finds the idea of a city worshipping a dud A-bomb to be hilarious, in a Dr. Strangelove sort of way. lowe0

*snip snip*Vandalvideo

And you're claiming that there is absoluely nothing else in fallout that is unique to both games?

If you can honestly assert that, then your argument stands. If you don't, your argument falls to the ground quite harshly.

And no, I don't mean implicitly. I asked you a direct question.

As for the atmosphere, my begging the question example is a mistake, you're right. The overall argument still stands.

If we limit ourselves to the atmosphere: Post apocalyptic, retro-50's future, a dark satire. The prevailing mood is created by the effects of the government's vault experiment in said future, along with those of nuclear radiation. Fallout has it. Nothing else has. Fallout 3 fulfills all these.

But let's play your game. Under your definition, the Fallout on your head is not fallout. Dark humor? not unique to Fallout. Light satirical story? Not unique to fallout. Deep consequence system? not unique to fallout. The story? well it's different between Fallout 1 and 2, it can't be part of the atmosphere. Or you're implying that the specific application of each of these is what makes fallout? Hmm. Then there are variations on all these between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Minor, to be certain, but if there are any, and you're accepting Fallout 2, then you are implicitly accepting that there can be variation.

Where are the boundaries on these variations? Can you objectively pinpoint them? I'll save you the answer: No. It will be a subjective assessment.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]I'm just so giddy that the atmosphere and feel I got from playing Fallout 1 and 2 seems to have been captured perfectly in this. I dunno how I'll view the combat and gameplay mechanics, but I'll find out.Verge_6

Ah, apologies, I didn't get the "All Fallout fans cannot show any form of anticipation for this game" memo. I'll be sure to check my inbox again.

...I'm going to be blunt, I really expected alot more from you.

Dude, after faking for at least 3 entire years that he's familiar with the Halo universe and games, I don't think you should really expect much from him.

Like Fallout 3, he has incredible amounts of potential, but very fundamental flaws which remove him from the high ranks.

And you're claiming that there is absoluely nothing else in fallout that is unique to both games?Grive

As for the atmosphere, my begging the question example is a mistake, you're right. The overall argument still stands. If we limit ourselves to the atmosphere: Post apocalyptic, retro-50's future, a dark satire. The prevailing mood is created by the effects of the government's vault experiment in said future, along with those of nuclear radiation. Fallout has it. Nothing else has. Fallout 3 fulfills all these.But let's play your game. Under your definition, the Fallout on your head is not fallout. Dark humor? not unique to Fallout. Light satirical story? Not unique to fallout. Deep consequence system? not unique to fallout. The story? well it's different between Fallout 1 and 2, it can't be part of the atmosphere. Or you're implying that the specific application of each of these is what makes fallout? Hmm. Then there are variations on all these between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Minor, to be certain, but if there are any, and you're accepting Fallout 2, then you are implicitly accepting that there can be variation. Where are the boundaries on these variations? Can you objectively pinpoint them? I'll save you the answer: No. It will be a subjective assessment.

[QUOTE="Grive"]And you're claiming that there is absoluely nothing else in fallout that is unique to both games?Vandalvideo

As for the atmosphere, my begging the question example is a mistake, you're right. The overall argument still stands. If we limit ourselves to the atmosphere: Post apocalyptic, retro-50's future, a dark satire. The prevailing mood is created by the effects of the government's vault experiment in said future, along with those of nuclear radiation. Fallout has it. Nothing else has. Fallout 3 fulfills all these.But let's play your game. Under your definition, the Fallout on your head is not fallout. Dark humor? not unique to Fallout. Light satirical story? Not unique to fallout. Deep consequence system? not unique to fallout. The story? well it's different between Fallout 1 and 2, it can't be part of the atmosphere. Or you're implying that the specific application of each of these is what makes fallout? Hmm. Then there are variations on all these between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Minor, to be certain, but if there are any, and you're accepting Fallout 2, then you are implicitly accepting that there can be variation. Where are the boundaries on these variations? Can you objectively pinpoint them? I'll save you the answer: No. It will be a subjective assessment.

You didn't answer my question.

Heck, you sidestepped my argument. I can safely assume you don't have a valid answer, since you don't seem to have. Right now, you're parroting your initial, subjective assessments as objective truth.

I was right, then. There was little to add here.

You didn't answer my question.Heck, you sidestepped my argument. I can safely assume you don't have a valid answer, since you don't seem to have. Right now, you're parroting your initial, subjective assessments as objective truth.I was right, then. There was little to add here. Grive

Heck, you sidestepped my argument.

Grive

Seriously man, quit while you're ahead. It'll just keep going on and on and on and on. In fact, he usually pulls the opinion argument when it suits him. This time, he's trying to pull objectivity his way.

Reminds me of the Rodney King incident, actually. Remember what those defense lawyers were able to do?

But as I said, quit while you're ahead. Your argument with him will, quite frankly, disintegrate into worthless babble.

Continue long enough, and he will honestly just reply with "McDonald's drive thru".

I lol'd at TC's post.angelkimne

Me too.

Then I also cried a bit :(

Wow. A thread made for the deliberate purpose of trying to parody Fallout fans.

What I find most hilarious about it is how people are trying to cover up the subtext of "approachable."

Do you guys honestly believe that Fallout 2 wasn't "approachable" to propspective players?

This is a desperate attempt by Hines to cover up the critique of the game so as to make it sound like all of the negative observations and reviews are born of esoteric standards when, in reality, they're just unwilling to admit they've made rehash that looks more broken than it's predecessor Oblivion.

I say we have a vote to change the name hermit on GS to elitist prick's for pc gamers. That seems to be how everyone feels about them on SW.

lolkie_81

Should we call the other fanboys little kiddies while we are at it? The LULZ PS3 is bettar than Xbux 360!!! or Xbux 360 pwns PS3 sure is mature, amirite?

[QUOTE="Grive"]

Heck, you sidestepped my argument.

FrozenLiquid

Seriously man, quit while you're ahead. It'll just keep going on and on and on and on. In fact, he usually pulls the opinion argument when it suits him. This time, he's trying to pull objectivity his way.

Reminds me of the Rodney King incident, actually. Remember what those defense lawyers were able to do?

But as I said, quit while you're ahead. Your argument with him will, quite frankly, disintegrate into worthless babble.

Continue long enough, and he will honestly just reply with "McDonald's drive thru".

I fully agree with you. I'm absolutely aware of this. I also am kinda trapped in the middle of nowhere (well, at a waiting room) close to suffering terminal boredom. And I find this all funny and engaging, since he hit a couple of my pet peeves.

In no way, shape or form is my argument subjective. I'm objectively pointing out that Fallout is defined by a set number of characteristics "unique among its peers". These specific set of characteristics are absent from Fallout 3. Without these unique characteristics it isn't Fallout, or atleast a faithful sequal.Vandalvideo

Ok, let's put this in bees and flowers. Yes.

Wait, I should expand a bit more. Yes, they are subjective.

Why?

You claim that there are a set number of characteristics that fallout is unique in putting together, since it's painfully obvious that they're not unique in their own right. You arbitrarily claim that only these unique characteristics of Fallout are essential to fallou, and that anything else that is unique to the two original games is not essential at all. By this point, you're already being subjective, but you can't see it yet. Doesn't matter. I disregarded that some time ago, and am willing to disregard it and play along on your "objectivity" claim.

Now, there are four cornerstones of the "fallout" franchise, correct? These are dark humor, a light satire, the consequence system, and the story. Alright. These are an "objective assessment". You also claim that the implementation of these is also important - since there are games other than fallout that in some way, shape or form incorporate these elements.

Let's see. Both fallout and fallout 2 have different implementations of all four. The subject of the humor changes, the satire becomes much more prominent in F2, the consequence system has a different scale, and the story is quite different. So, if you consider Fallout 2 worthy of the title "fallout", you implicitly agree that the level of implementation of all these four cornerstones allows for some variation.

My question to you, can you objectively pinpoint the boundaries on that variation? I know the answer is no. However, if you wish to answer yes, then I will ask you to precisely and inambiguously define these boundaries without constricting them to Fallout1/2 examples.

That answer will be subjective no matter how much you try.

And there is the problem.

Fallout 3 has dark humor. If it's funny to you or not is subjective.

Fallout 3 has some satire in it. If it's enough or good enough for you or not is subjective.

Fallout 3 has a consequence system. If it's well applied according to you or not is subjective.

Fallout 3 has a story that relates to the one in the first two. If it's good enough, or accurate enough to you is subjective.

So, it's feasible that Fallout 3 has a valid "fallout" atmosphere (oxford's definition) to someone else (that is not you) because your argument is inherently subjective.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]...I'm going to be blunt, I really expected alot more from you.Verge_6

From what I've seen in the videos, it does seem to match what I felt. Key word here, "seems". You know, as in, not definitive or absolute? You cannot dictate what I feel, or how to feel, or why I feel, and quite frankly I am sick of being told how I should view this game.

I agree, it there was a MGS game made by Tri-ace and it seemed ok, I would give it a go and not damn the thing to hell because konami and Kojima didnt have a hand in it.

I am looking forward to this game despite all the haters, And even if it is Oblivion with guns, then I'm ok with that because gasp! I liked Oblivion!

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]...I'm going to be blunt, I really expected alot more from you.XturnalS

From what I've seen in the videos, it does seem to match what I felt. Key word here, "seems". You know, as in, not definitive or absolute? You cannot dictate what I feel, or how to feel, or why I feel, and quite frankly I am sick of being told how I should view this game.

I agree, it there was a MGS game made by Tri-ace and it seemed ok, I would give it a go and not damn the thing to hell because konami and Kojima didnt have a hand in it.

I am looking forward to this game despite all the haters, And even if it is Oblivion with guns, then I'm ok with that because gasp! I liked Oblivion!

If it was made by Tri-Ace and turned into a RTS would you complain? :P

If it was made by Tri-Ace and turned into a RTS would you complain? :P

Espada12

Now that you mention it, a RTS with mooing Mechas sounds quite awesome.

Ok, let's put this in bees and flowers. Yes. Wait, I should expand a bit more. Yes, they are subjective. Why?You claim that there are a set number of characteristics that fallout is unique in putting together, since it's painfully obvious that they're not unique in their own right.Grive

You arbitrarily claim that only these unique characteristics of Fallout are essential to fallou, and that anything else that is unique to the two original games is not essential at all. By this point, you're already being subjective, but you can't see it yet. Doesn't matter. I disregarded that some time ago, and am willing to disregard it and play along on your "objectivity" claim.

Now, there are four cornerstones of the "fallout" franchise, correct? These are dark humor, a light satire, the consequence system, and the story. Alright. These are an "objective assessment". You also claim that the implementation of these is also important - since there are games other than fallout that in some way, shape or form incorporate these elements. Let's see. Both fallout and fallout 2 have different implementations of all four. The subject of the humor changes, the satire becomes much more prominent in F2, the consequence system has a different scale, and the story is quite different. So, if you consider Fallout 2 worthy of the title "fallout", you implicitly agree that the level of implementation of all these four cornerstones allows for some variation.My question to you, can you objectively pinpoint the boundaries on that variation? I know the answer is no. However, if you wish to answer yes, then I will ask you to precisely and inambiguously define these boundaries without constricting them to Fallout1/2 examples.That answer will be subjective no matter how much you try.And there is the problem.

Fallout 3 has dark humor. If it's funny to you or not is subjective.

Fallout 3 has some satire in it. If it's enough or good enough for you or not is subjective.

Fallout 3 has a consequence system. If it's well applied according to you or not is subjective.Fallout 3 has a story that relates to the one in the first two. If it's good enough, or accurate enough to you is subjective.So, it's feasible that Fallout 3 has a valid "fallout" atmosphere (oxford's definition) to someone else (that is not you) because your argument is inherently subjective.

One should reconsider the possibilities of Fallout 3 to the gaming world. Instead of churning out more of the action-RPG first-person shiny factors we've seen repeated ad nauseam (their qualities not withstanding), Fallout 3 should stand out and offer a return to pen and paper CRPG values that made the original a great game. Bethesda should not try to rehash an existing game in a different mold and take the risk of finding a fan base amongst people who think the originals were boring. Fallout 3 should offer something we haven't seen in the CRPG world for years, something nobody else is doing. In taking a step back, it would make a leap forward.

Sounds pretty innovative, doesn't it?


A glittering gem of hatred. Summon deathclaw refers to famous Fallout fan Rosh (image made by Wooz).
Where are you going, wind? Far, far away
Take me with you, and let me be rabbit-of-the-wind
Conclusion

Fallout fans, often portrayed as the victimizers, have throughout most of their history been the victims of either circumstances and/or incompetence. Some may blame the fans for the failure of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. But the truth is that no one really wanted to see a console shooter version of Fallout, what they wanted was a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2. In the end FOBOS showed little regard or understanding of the tenets of the Fallout franchise. More importantly, Interplay's decisions to move forward with FOBOS and abandon Van Buren reflected Interplay's willingness to sell out both the franchise and the fans for the anticipated profits of the console market. Why did Interplay decide to continue BoS and discontinue Van Buren? Whatever the reasoning, it illustrated Interplay's failure to understand many of the key points covered above.

The Fallout fans have proven their loyalty and value over the years. Their dedication to a great game has kept the franchise alive, despite Interplay's willingness (with games like Tactics and BoS) to abuse this loyalty for its own gain. The hardcore Fallout fans have proven that while they are few their opinions are often shared by others when it comes to holding true to the franchise's essential tenets. Tactics might have succeeded buoyed by fan support despite the fact that it was a tactical combat game and not a CRPG. But Tactics did not realise its potential because it disappointed fans by being inconsistent with the core tenets of the Fallout setting. When Interplay tried to go all-out in lying and manipulating, it lost fan support and utterly failed with its console oriented action shooter Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

Nothing substantial is known about Bethesda's Fallout 3 as of the time of this writing. Despite the lack of official commentary, there have been leaks and a lot of thinking about what can be anticipated from Bethesda. We'll draw no conclusions to the choices they made, only to the effect those choices will have.

For that, I'll drop my guise as a writer and put on the power armor of fandom instead:

I'll throw down the gauntlet before your feet, Bethesda. Simply choose. Either communicate with the fans who kept this show on the road for so long and constitute the strength of the franchise. Or risk it all in a desperate gamble to make a game for a new fanbase who haven't even heard of Fallout before you purchased it. Both roads have been tried before. The former road has led to success, the latter road has led only to total failure.

you guys should really read this article...link

You claim that there are a set number of characteristics that fallout is unique in putting together, since it's painfully obvious that they're not unique in their own right. You arbitrarily claim that only these unique characteristics of Fallout are essential to fallou, and that anything else that is unique to the two original games is not essential at all. By this point, you're already being subjective, but you can't see it yet. Doesn't matter. I disregarded that some time ago, and am willing to disregard it and play along on your "objectivity" claim.

Now, there are four cornerstones of the "fallout" franchise, correct? These are dark humor, a light satire, the consequence system, and the story. Alright. These are an "objective assessment". You also claim that the implementation of these is also important - since there are games other than fallout that in some way, shape or form incorporate these elements.

Let's see. Both fallout and fallout 2 have different implementations of all four. The subject of the humor changes, the satire becomes much more prominent in F2, the consequence system has a different scale, and the story is quite different. So, if you consider Fallout 2 worthy of the title "fallout", you implicitly agree that the level of implementation of all these four cornerstones allows for some variation.

My question to you, can you objectively pinpoint the boundaries on that variation? I know the answer is no. However, if you wish to answer yes, then I will ask you to precisely and inambiguously define these boundaries without constricting them to Fallout1/2 examples.

That answer will be subjective no matter how much you try.

And there is the problem.

Fallout 3 has dark humor. If it's funny to you or not is subjective.

Fallout 3 has some satire in it. If it's enough or good enough for you or not is subjective.

Fallout 3 has a consequence system. If it's well applied according to you or not is subjective.

Fallout 3 has a story that relates to the one in the first two. If it's good enough, or accurate enough to you is subjective.

So, it's feasible that Fallout 3 has a valid "fallout" atmosphere (oxford's definition) to someone else (that is not you) because your argument is inherently subjective.

Grive

Instead of emphasizing what's implemented in the game, perhaps you should concentrate on exactly how they're implemented.

Fallout 1 & 2 had a specific atmosphere that was maintained by no one element. It was perspective that worked together with controls that worked together with interaction that worked together with options that worked together with consequences that worked together with story that worked together with atmosphere. Fallout 2 had more satire than the previous game, but that doesn't mean it was implemented differently from how it was in Fallout 1.

Now try changing the perspective and see how it affects everything thereafter. The character building elements are all but lost and choices seem very shallow. Fallout is a grand total sum of specific characteristics aiming for a particular atmosphere. You can't just emphasize one or two characteristics and claim you can put them in another game and preserve the franchise's genre.

The point here is that all of your Oblivion With Guns comparisons are shallow. Lets say I concurred with what it does have in comparison to the first two games. Now keeping that in mind, are you actually going to try holding these characteristics from Oblivion With Guns up to Fallout 1 & 2's characterisitics and say they truly resemble each other?

Atmosphere may be a preferential, but it's not subjective. Oblivion with Guns' atmosphere and interface is profoundly different from Fallout's. And considering genre is dependent upon those things, it's apparent that Oblivion with Guns is a shooter and not an RPG like Fallout.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

If it was made by Tri-Ace and turned into a RTS would you complain? :P

Grive

Now that you mention it, a RTS with mooing Mechas sounds quite awesome.

Even if it was just because of the name I would try it *cough Halo Wars cough*

[QUOTE="Grive"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

If it was made by Tri-Ace and turned into a RTS would you complain? :P

XturnalS

Now that you mention it, a RTS with mooing Mechas sounds quite awesome.

Even if it was just because of the name I would try it *cough Halo Wars cough*

Halo wars isn't the same situation Halo wars isn't Halo 4 :P

BTW that's what bestheda is banking on .. people buy it due to the name.

[QUOTE="XturnalS"][QUOTE="Grive"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

If it was made by Tri-Ace and turned into a RTS would you complain? :P

Espada12

Now that you mention it, a RTS with mooing Mechas sounds quite awesome.

Even if it was just because of the name I would try it *cough Halo Wars cough*

Halo wars isn't the same situation Halo wars isn't Halo 4 :P

BTW that's what bestheda is banking on .. people buy it due to the name.

Now you see I am not a skeptic as you but for me Fallout before Fallout 3 meant nothing to me, so for Fallout 3 to be approchable is a + in my book. I don't believe Bestheda needs the name to sell the game. Even though the popular opinion in this forum is that "Oblivion sucks", a lot of people like Oblivion (me included). Bethesda only needed to make a new IP and call in Oblivion with guns and I'm pretty sure people would flock to it like flies to honey.

That is not subjective in any way, shape or form. It is an objective observation of the observable, empirical characteristics of the game itself which is unique to the game itself among its peers. There is nothing subjective at all about that statement. Vandalvideo

No, there's nothing subjective about that claim. But that doesn't mean NOTHING in your argument is subjective

I never claimed taht they were essential to Fallout. I claimed that these are the unique elements which are UNIQUE to Fallout, and those are the elements which define fallout. Those statements are true. Without these elements, it is simply not Fallout.Vandalvideo

So they are essential to fallout then? From your beloved Oxford dictionary:

essential

*adjective 1 fundamental; central. 2 absolutely necessary.

If these elements are the ones that define fallout, then they're fundamental and absolutely necessary to fallout, right?

These other games are in other genres, and there are only an extreme minority. There are no other games in any other genre that is like Fallout 1 and 2. They are unique among their kind. Why? Because of their combination of a number of different elements unique to them that creates an environment unique to it that you cannot find anywhere else. When that environment is tampered with, it is no longer fallout. The overall direction of both fallout 1 and 2 are extremely similar. The variations in their implementation aren't even noteworthy, if they are even there. There is no major retcons or shifts in the direction of the games between Fallout 1 and 2. Vandalvideo

There are shifts in direction in Fallout 2. That you don't deem them "noteworthy" is unquestionably subjective.

There are some people who say that making an 18-rated game, and especially making a Fallout one, should be about sleeping with the hooker, then waking up with the venereal disease. A lot of that stuff personally, to me, veers into being a 12-year old dungeon master. Some of it feels right and some of it feels wrong. We're appealing to an adult audience and it's a tough call. I mean, once you have groin shots you're approaching a level of silliness that, if you're not careful, can pervade the whole game." Lead designer, Emil Pagliarulo This quote clearly illustrates a 180 degree turn from the conventional humour that was found in the previous games. Emil explicitly denounces the series of humour found in the original titles, and states that this type of humour WILL NOT be in Fallout 3. Vandalvideo

Did he really say that there will be no humor, or are you just looking for reasons to hate the game? So maybe some of the stuff in Fallout he doesn't like. There is corpse eating in F3, so it's not like they're whitewashing it all. He never states that Fallout 3 won't be funny in the same way Fallout was - just that some of the humor is too silly for him. He specifically states that some of the joke themes feel right.

The original Fallout titles had a story that lightly wrapped the game in a blanket. It wasn't something as smothering as going out to search for your father who dissapeared. Heck, in the original Fallouts you started out seeking something incredibly mundane like a fix for the water for the vault. This LIGHT satirical story is completely changed in Fallout 3. Not to mention characters which died over ONE HUNDRED A FIFTEEN YEARS AGO AFTER RUNNING HEAD FIRST INTO A FORCE FEILD are back magically. The retcons in the game are glaringly obvious. Bethesda hasn't stayed faithful to the stories of the original titles, and have "Experienced problems creating a story in these open environments: Vandalvideo

Fallout 2 had some consistency issues sprinkled here and there. And I find it hard to believe that an important piece of equipment vital for the survival of an entire colony (you included) or a kit designed to allow the development of your community is "inconsequential". Heck, I could even argue that your feelings for your father are, objectively speaking, less consequential than either of these, since both affect the destiny of many more people.

"Fallout 3 however has a slightly different ethic and has spun this round somewhat because there's a hidden flaw wrapped in the model of the previous games that the player doesn't always know how their options are being trimmed, their choices culled. You might miss out on important quests and information without knowing it, so as well as extending development time by factoring in all this redundant content, you can leave players feeling falsely trapped or locked into a game they don't want to play. Fallout 3 avoids this neatly then, giving players a constant string of second chances. You're reputation is still tracked locally and globally via the karma evil-o-meter that labels you with different titles and insults based on your allegiances and actions, but you have a permanent ability to disobey your own ethic" Fallout 3 is lacking the kinds of indepth consequence systems that you found in the original titles. In this quote, Bethesda directly blasts the original methods used in the original titles, and clearly states that they will not be using the same type of gameplay. They don't want consequences to peg down the player.Vandalvideo

See? We're back at the previous square. You're pegging your subjective opinions as objective, and doing a very poor job of it.

I reiterate my request. Don't even bother answering with empty arguments unless you can comply: Define the limits for all four of these elements, which include but are not limited to what Fallout 1 and 2 did. This is so you can fully prove there is an objective criteria.

On another note. "#$!"#$ this thing. I spent more time correcting the errors the posting system added out of nowhere than actually typing this... and then the forums went down. Fun times for all.

Instead of emphasizing what's implemented in the game, perhaps you should concentrate on exactly how they're implemented.

Fallout 1 & 2 had a specific atmosphere that was maintained by no one element. It was perspective that worked together with controls that worked together with interaction that worked together with options that worked together with consequences that worked together with story that worked together with atmosphere. Fallout 2 had more satire than the previous game, but that doesn't mean it was implemented differently from how it was in Fallout 1.

Now try changing the perspective and see how it affects everything thereafter. The character building elements are all but lost and choices seem very shallow. Fallout is a grand total sum of specific characteristics aiming for a particular atmosphere. You can't just emphasize one or two characteristics and claim you can put them in another game and preserve the franchise's genre.

The point here is that all of your Oblivion With Guns comparisons are shallow. Lets say I concurred with what it does have in comparison to the first two games. Now keeping that in mind, are you actually going to try holding these characteristics from Oblivion With Guns up to Fallout 1 & 2's characterisitics and say they truly resemble each other?

Atmosphere may be a preferential, but it's not subjective. Oblivion with Guns' atmosphere and interface is profoundly different from Fallout's. And considering genre is dependent upon those things, it's apparent that Oblivion with Guns is a shooter and not an RPG like Fallout.

Pariah_001

Thank you, you have unwittingly working to prove my point.

See, your definition of what "fallout" is differs from vandalvideo's, and you suggest a different set of elements that make fallout essential.

I know my comparisons can be perceived as shallow by you. I accept that. So maybe for you it won't be fallout. For someone else, it might just be what he saw that made fallout the game it was for him, and no matter how much you tout what you liked about it, it will still be fallout for him.

Oh, and Fallout 3 is an RPG. It is a real time RPG. There are choices, there are stats, there is an indepth story. Any characteristic of the RPG subset is present in Fallout 3.

That's the sticking point. You're trying to force your opinion as fact, just like vandalvideo did. You're both setting up subjective boundaries to what's important in fallout, and you're both unwilling to even accept the possibility of someone else holding a different subjective point of view.

Oh, and stop saying "oblivion with guns". Dilutes your argument horribly, and makes taking you seriously (seriesly, I guess) a huge chore.

Pssh, Emil said yesterday that it appeals to old school PC gamers because you get to read text in the game. (He actually said that)RobbieH1234

Fallout 3 appeals to old school fans like movies with subtitles appeal to readers.

No, there's nothing subjective about that claim. But that doesn't mean NOTHING in your argument is subjectiveGrive

So they are essential to fallout then? From your beloved Oxford dictionary:essential*adjective 1 fundamental; central. 2 absolutely necessary. If these elements are the ones that define fallout, then they're fundamental and absolutely necessary to fallout, right?

There are shifts in direction in Fallout 2. That you don't deem them "noteworthy" is unquestionably subjective

Did he really say that there will be no humor, or are you just looking for reasons to hate the game? So maybe some of the stuff in Fallout he doesn't like. There is corpse eating in F3, so it's not like they're whitewashing it all. He never states that Fallout 3 won't be funny in the same way Fallout was - just that some of the humor is too silly for him. He specifically states that some of the joke themes feel right.

Fallout 2 had some consistency issues sprinkled here and there. And I find it hard to believe that an important piece of equipment vital for the survival of an entire colony (you included) or a kit designed to allow the development of your community is "inconsequential". Heck, I could even argue that your feelings for your father are, objectively speaking, less consequential than either of these, since both affect the destiny of many more people

I'm pretty sure blowing up Megaton will be consequential. He also states that your choices will be meaningful in how people deal with you. It also states that you're capable of going against your previous ethical choices. I'm not happy about this, either. But that's subjective! There is a consequence system. You're assuming it will be shallower (likely will be), but it will be there.See?

We're back at the previous square. You're pegging your subjective opinions as objective, and doing a very poor job of it.I reiterate my request. Don't even bother answering with empty arguments unless you can comply: Define the limits for all four of these elements, which include but are not limited to what Fallout 1 and 2 did. This is so you can fully prove there is an objective criteria.On another note. "#$!"#$ this thing. I spent more time correcting the errors the posting system added out of nowhere than actually typing this... and then the forums went down. Fun times for all.

Thank you, you have unwittingly working to prove my point.

See, your definition of what "fallout" is differs from vandalvideo's, and you suggest a different set of elements that make fallout essential.Grive

Or, perhaps, this is your way of avoiding the argument in favor relying on subjectivity as a kneejerk again.

Vandelvideo's definition doesn't necessarily differ from mine. What's different is that he's concentrating on the core aspects of the game when I'm trying to go over exactly what makes Fallout's atmosphere what it is in terms of how those aspects work synergistically(sp). Vandel goes about it differently than I do.

I know my comparisons can be perceived as shallow by you. I accept that. So maybe for you it won't be fallout. For someone else, it might just be what he saw that made fallout the game it was for him, and no matter how much you tout what you liked about it, it will still be fallout for him.Grive

This has nothing to do with what I "liked" about it and everything to do with what was in the game. All of the characteristics I referenced were concrete in nature. Not abstract.

The mutually exclusive atmospheres between Oblivion with Guns and Fallout are profoundly different because of these diverse characterisitcs and therefore, the games as a whole are different from eachother.

Try to imagine Kafka directing 2001 instead of Kubrick. The story and plot developments would all still be there, but do you really think they'd amount to the same movie?

Oh, and Fallout 3 is an RPG. It is a real time RPG. There are choices, there are stats, there is an indepth story. Any characteristic of the RPG subset is present in Fallout 3.Grive

Obviously, you're not familiar with the RPG genre's tenet of character-building. It basically means that the player doesn't have to spoon feed the character throughout the game. You rely on the character to make the strategies you implement work for it and that allows it to gain more experience. In Oblivion with Gun's case however, the character is totally dependent upon your participation and twitch value. Twitch gamplay doesn't require leveling up or even a great deal of skill.

Choices and stats are, as was the case with Oblivion, periphery in nature. And RPG's don't have a monopoly on in-depth story. But if you're trying to say that the story is the game as was the case with Mass Effect or numerous other RPGs out there, then you've been lied to. Pete Hines himself has said that while there are choices, they won't be as numerous as media proponents have made them out to be (you're not even allowed to get through the entire game with killing someone). He's even gone so far as to point out that they want the player to get as much done throughout a single playthrough as possible, so there's not much room for consequences and replay value here.

I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a real time RPG; I'd say Mass Effect certainly is. But to say Fallout could be made into one is ridiculous.

Oh, and stop saying "oblivion with guns". Grive

No.

[QUOTE="lolkie_81"]

I say we have a vote to change the name hermit on GS to elitist prick's for pc gamers. That seems to be how everyone feels about them on SW.

Espada12

Should we call the other fanboys little kiddies while we are at it? The LULZ PS3 is bettar than Xbux 360!!! or Xbux 360 pwns PS3 sure is mature, amirite?

Yep, your right, but I dont do any of that. I have all 3 consoles and dont care which is better at this point, but I still think the PC gamers come off as really stuck up when it comes to gaming.

Yep, your right, but I dont do any of that. I have all 3 consoles and dont care which is better at this point, but I still think the PC gamers come off as really stuck up when it comes to gaming.lolkie_81

[QUOTE="Coyo7e"]

[QUOTE="Franko_3"]If spore got a 8, this will get a 7Espada12

I have not played the game yet so I don't know. But I do know the hype for this game was way, way to much. Will Wright (or however you spell his name) is just not that special.

Thx for your opinion? He just created one of the most successful franchises ever.. yea not that special right?

yeah, Hootie and the Blowfish and Nickelback were successfull, too.

Fallout 3 is lacking the kinds of indepth consequence systems that you found in the original titles. In this quote, Bethesda directly blasts the original methods used in the original titles, and clearly states that they will not be using the same style of gameplay. They don't want consequences to peg down the player.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="Coyo7e"]

[QUOTE="Franko_3"]If spore got a 8, this will get a 7clone01

I have not played the game yet so I don't know. But I do know the hype for this game was way, way to much. Will Wright (or however you spell his name) is just not that special.

Thx for your opinion? He just created one of the most successful franchises ever.. yea not that special right?

yeah, Hootie and the Blowfish and Nickelback were successfull, too.

So?...what does that got to do with anything? Are you trying to throw your opinion across that those bands suck?

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="Coyo7e"]

[QUOTE="Franko_3"]If spore got a 8, this will get a 7Espada12

I have not played the game yet so I don't know. But I do know the hype for this game was way, way to much. Will Wright (or however you spell his name) is just not that special.

Thx for your opinion? He just created one of the most successful franchises ever.. yea not that special right?

yeah, Hootie and the Blowfish and Nickelback were successfull, too.

So?...what does that got to do with anything? Are you trying to throw your opinion across that those bands suck?

huh? the fact that they are the definition of mediocrity? oh, no.

huh? the fact that they are the definition of mediocrity? oh, no.

clone01

Thanks for your opinion.

[QUOTE="clone01"]

huh? the fact that they are the definition of mediocrity? oh, no.

Espada12

Thanks for your opinion.

and thanks for yours.

Try to imagine Kafka directing 2001 instead of Kubrick. The story and plot developments would all still be there, but do you really think they'd amount to the same movie?

Pariah_001

Actually the story and plot elements would probably not be there. If you've read "2010" and "3001", you'd realize that they're very different from what the novel "2001" was trying to achieve, let alone what the film was all about. In fact, Stanley Kubrick pretty much wrote the film, and Arthur C. Clarke nodded to whatever he put down on paper. I thought that was general knowledge.

Interestingly, Clarke has gone onto make some sort of science fiction/fantasy adventure with more novels set within the "Odyssey" universe. I guess the first film was a one-of-a-kind.

sounds good to me.Dreams-Visions

Sometimes I reckon the game should just be renamed into some spinoff Fallout title instead of the canonical "Fallout 3". That way, the Fallout fans won't ***** and moan like the world's crumbling over.

It honestly sounds like they're being ripped apart from the inside-out, and big old ugly Bethesda are having them at the table at medium-rare.

I've never seen this amount of pathetic fanatacism ever. This kind of childishness should only be reserved for the Star Wars fans who say Lucas "raped their childhood".

People got over the Matrix sequels. Why are we not letting go of this?

The fact of the matter is, the original Fallout games remain intact. Unlike the unfortunate Star Wars crowd (read: Star Wars special editions), Bethesda are not updating the previous games for the next generation, so Fallout fans have no reason to complain. You can play them if you want to, and they'll be just as good as they were back when they were released. Just because this new game bears the title "Fallout 3", does not automatically make the Black Isle games (Fallout and Fallout 2 in name) suck. Again, they're still the same.

If it's pride you're looking for, then seriously, just humble yourselves.

The only thing that I might not like too much about Fallout 3 is the music. Nobody seems to mention it at all but its very very old. And some people may say well it matchs the post apoc world well they could of come up with some new music for it. Maybe like a little techmo or something like that.

odin2019

The original games parodied the 1950's obsession with all things nuclear, so the '50s-esque music should stay.

Then again, I'm not too happy about having radio stations playing music - it's a clever idea (ignoring the whole question of why people are playing music over radio stations in a post-apocalyptic world), but I loved the ambient tracks of the original games, and hope that those haven't been removed.

[QUOTE="odin2019"]

The only thing that I might not like too much about Fallout 3 is the music. Nobody seems to mention it at all but its very very old. And some people may say well it matchs the post apoc world well they could of come up with some new music for it. Maybe like a little techmo or something like that.

Planeforger

The original games parodied the 1950's obsession with all things nuclear, so the '50s-esque music should stay.

Then again, I'm not too happy about having radio stations playing music - it's a clever idea (ignoring the whole question of why people are playing music over radio stations in a post-apocalyptic world), but I loved the ambient tracks of the original games, and hope that those haven't been removed.

When I played the games, I always just thought it was one of the only things they had to keep themselves happy. So it was kinda funny (in a sadistic way) being a complete ass in the game whilst you listen to sentimental music lol

Hurrah.

From the gameplay videos it looks meh.

From Beths recent history and handling of the game it looks meh.

But casual gamers can pick it up - like Oblivion, and be completely oblivious to the crap shallow game design, and recessive nature of the game, compared to its originals.

[QUOTE="odin2019"]

The only thing that I might not like too much about Fallout 3 is the music. Nobody seems to mention it at all but its very very old. And some people may say well it matchs the post apoc world well they could of come up with some new music for it. Maybe like a little techmo or something like that.

Planeforger

The original games parodied the 1950's obsession with all things nuclear, so the '50s-esque music should stay.

Then again, I'm not too happy about having radio stations playing music - it's a clever idea (ignoring the whole question of why people are playing music over radio stations in a post-apocalyptic world), but I loved the ambient tracks of the original games, and hope that those haven't been removed.

In GTA IV Rockstar were considering the ability to play music from your phone, as you walked around on foot, but it was canned - im guessing because it might have killed the immersion of the city / city life.

It makes sense I guess, because in a game like STALKER or Bioshock that are atmosphere heavy, and use loads of ambient tracks - you get sucked right into the environment, and when you hear music - be it a guitar in Stalker or licenced music in Bioshock, it quite effective in drawing you further into the word, and gives you something briefly interesting to listen to.

Having it constantly available to play, might just kill the effectiveness like in the other games mentioned. I could be wrong.....

Though yeah in Fallout 1 and 2 the ambient tracks were great.

Hurrah.

From the gameplay videos it looks meh.

From Beths recent history and handling of the game it looks meh.

But casual gamers can pick it up - like Oblivion, and be completely oblivious to the crap shallow game design, and recessive nature of the game, compared to its originals.

skrat_01

I'm still getting the game even being a fan of the originals, its not like I won't beat it in 3 days and can't on sell it for next to the same price I bought it for.

I'll keep the lunch box for work, I actually think thats a nice collector piece :P