Posted May 29, 2009 3:17 pm PT

@cab374
"Just wondering, Why is it called Van Buren Tech?"
Well, Black Isle Studios or Interplay(I don't remember which) would code name each game with the name of a President, starting with George Washington. They just happened to be on Van Buren for this game. And to those uneducated, this game was going to be 3d, have real-time combat option, and co-op multiplayer.

• agree 2
• disagree 0
• = +2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Apr 22, 2009 5:13 pm PT

blkwolf99:
surprisingly, bethesda was actually a sports game company at first!

• agree 2
• disagree 0
• = +2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Jan 22, 2009 5:07 am PT

@ RKS-23

It's a prototype demo, of course it has a lot of bugs.

• agree 10
• disagree 0
• = +10
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Dec 1, 2008 5:51 pm PT

Forget everything else, Does this demo WORK?

• agree 6
• disagree 1
• = +5
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 25, 2008 8:50 am PT

No skrewdriven they make a NEW engine FOR EVERY SINGLE GAME that comes out...(yes im being sarcastic and yes im making fun of mastadon)

• agree 2
• disagree 3
• = -1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 23, 2008 11:38 am PT

geezer below me criticizing them for "using the exact same tools to make fallout 3 from oblivion" dood, EVERY game does that unless its a completely new game with an entirely new engine, otherwise, same engine, same everything, with maybe some shader tweaking. FALLOUT 3 PWNS

• agree 7
• disagree 3
• = +4
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 7, 2008 8:03 am PT

I would have preferred the isometric Van Buren Tech Demo version of Fallout 3 to the 3D version of Fallout 3 that Bethesda just released. These isometric games were some of the best ever made in the spirit of Diablo, Dark Eden, the Crusader No Remorse/No Regret series, etc. I'm honestly not that impressed with these 3D games that have an excessive amount of bugs and crash issues. It's becoming more and more common for 3D PC games to ship with so many bugs and crash issues that it is almost unplayable for a large percentage of the player base. Either adequate game testing isn't being conducted, or the results are being ignored to simply get the game on the market by a deadline, and worry about patching and making the game actually work properly later.

• agree 8
• disagree 7
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Nov 6, 2008 8:29 am PT

Interesting

• agree 2
• disagree 2
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Oct 14, 2008 12:59 pm PT

I'm a huge fallout fan and I'm glad to see that there will be a sequel, and I know that the only team other then Interplay that could ever pull it off is Bethesda.
(sorry for not puting all the posts in one, mistake.)

• agree 6
• disagree 5
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Oct 14, 2008 12:56 pm PT

I just want to point out that if Bethesda was not makeing Fallout 3 then the Fallout Franchise would have ended with the fall of interplay.

• agree 10
• disagree 3
• = +7
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Oct 14, 2008 7:34 am PT

Fallout is one of the best games to ever come out, but Interplay was sacked, sad as it is THEY picked Bethesda, they didn't sell out. And any one who has ever played an elder scroll game would know that bethesda is an RPG company thru and thru. They won't disapoint us fallout fans trust me.

• agree 12
• disagree 3
• = +9
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Oct 11, 2008 4:59 pm PT

Fallout 1 and 2 were great games but the third person top down views were just a way of getting around the fact that computers were crap then... fallout 3 is the way interplay would have wanted to make the game originaly but couldnt.. first person is the way to go man... immersion baby.. Du it.. Du it

• agree 9
• disagree 4
• = +5
• Sign in to rate this comment