1 month from Fallout 3 today!

[BlackDeath5150]

I think they could have taken the tech demo and improved it bigtime. But they choose to keep there own people do what they already knew how to do using the oblivion engine and not need to hire the old crew from interplay and fire bethesda people. Its also cheaper for them to use what they already know how to do and have already setup.

It was a business decision not a fan base choice of what we want. Its about money. To maximizes profits.

Other note for something to consider FO3 is mainly a console platform game. FO1&2 was a PC platform game.. Both aren't the same. The whole interface is different from the UI to the Keyboard mouse and consoles. Yet their trying to merge the worlds...

As far as fanbase is concerned I'm a huge fan and I want 3d for the realism. I own a PS3 but I'm going to purchase the game for PC. Consoles are as powerful (and big) as a computer. Consoles are computers. The lines between console and computer are dissappearing and will ultimatley dissappear in the future. What system the game is on has little to do with whether it is a sequel or not that is fact.

Vault jump suit for Fallout 1 and 2 was 13. Has to do with canon

How do you know the suit is not in the game somewhere for CANON? If it's not it still can't change that it's irrelevant to the status of sequel.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by BlackDeath5150

As far as fanbase is concerned I'm a huge fan and I want 3d for the realism. I own a PS3 but I'm going to purchase the game for PC. Consoles are as powerful (and big) as a computer. Consoles are computers. The lines between console and computer are dissappearing and will ultimatley dissappear in the future. What system the game is on has little to do with whether it is a sequel or not that is fact.

How do you know the suit is not in the game somewhere for CANON? If it's not it still can't change that it's irrelevant to the status of sequel.

At the moment I don't have that answer. But if your in a sequel you have to continue within the main story line. Or its another book with another title.

[BlackDeath5150]

At the moment I don't have that answer. But if your in a sequel you have to continue within the main story line. Or its another book with another title.

That is simply not true. Also the game I do beleive is still in the main story line of fallout universe living in the universe already produced by the first two games. Is this not true. I mean the trailer shows a world set in the fallout stroy line and universe. Unless the trailer is the only part that is set in it. However that seems very unlikley.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by BlackDeath5150

That is simply not true. Also the game I do beleive is still in the main story line of fallout universe living in the universe already produced by the first two games. Is this not true. I mean the trailer shows a world set in the fallout stroy line and universe. Unless the trailer is the only part that is set in it. However that seems very unlikley.

I said it was a fallout universe or world but not a fallout sequel. Bethesda should have started a new chapter, which they did in a sense but choose to call it a sequel which it is not. Jump suit is one example. There are other and you have the resourses to do the research if you like.

Good Hunting BD5150

[BlackDeath5150]

In conclusion I am thankful that Bethesda has revived my favorite game series and for producing my second favorite game series. I am very excited to play the game then subsequently downloading all the mods for it for years to come. I am also thankful it's 2008 and I can now enjoy the post-nuclear world in more realistic more immersive 3D environment. Others are beating a dead horse was what then was then whats now is now. I'll let you all know if I enjoyed my experience. I'm playing fallout 2 as we speak and am going crazy with anticipation. Good topic bad arguments but I did enjoy it. Time to download some sub mods.

[Captain Vlad]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

I don't have that answer. But if your in a sequel you have to continue within the main story line. Or its another book with another title.

Well if that's the case, we won't know whether or not it's a sequel until we get more information on the game's main plotline. The game may very well advance some part of the stories started in Fallout 1 and 2 without you being a descendant of the original Vault Dweller or having a suit with '13' on the back.

[GlobalExplorer]

@Wolfehunter: this could be something for you

Originally Posted by BlackDeath5150

In conclusion I am thankful that Bethesda has revived my favorite game series and for producing my second favorite game series.

Like a lot of people I do not only care if Bethesda is striving for a sequel to Fallout, but what they will actually deliver. There were umpteen so called sequels to "Jaws" or "From Dusk Til Dawn"? Do I like them? No.

Originally Posted by BlackDeath5150

I am also thankful it's 2008 and I can now enjoy the post-nuclear world in more realistic more immersive 3D environment. Others are beating a dead horse was what then was then whats now is now.

No one said games must be third person. Fantastic first person rpgs like System Shock or Thief or VtMB or Ultima Underworld come to mind. I am sure you know these games. How do you think Oblivion is compared with these games, as you say it was realistic and immersive, was it more or less of that compared to these classic games made by Looking Glass, Origin, Troika?

Originally Posted by BlackDeath5150

I'm playing fallout 2 as we speak and am going crazy with anticipation.

What do you like most about Fallout 2? And did you also play Fallout 1 it's shorter but I think is a better game, especially at the beginning of the story.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Captain Vlad

Well if that's the case, we won't know whether or not it's a sequel until we get more information on the game's main plotline. The game may very well advance some part of the stories started in Fallout 1 and 2 without you being a descendant of the original Vault Dweller or having a suit with '13' on the back.

Again the jump suit is one example. There are plenty of others to view from various source to make a judgment. It doesn't take rocket science to figure things out. Also it does take some perception to understand the questions being answer by Pete Hines and associates when in interviews. Like polititians they use words to manipulate their vision of grandeur about Fallout.

Sometimes there ego slips up and you can make out what there real goals are. In my view its not a sequel.


In the end for myself Bethseda has failed its fan base many times since hines has taken control.

EA fails its fan base because its relentless loosing battle against pirates

THQ fails its fanbase because it puts out beta software.

Blizzard well we know what they did to the fan base with WOW. Maybe they have learnt from there mistakes and give us a good sequel to Diablo? Hardly.

Stardock failed its fan base by using central and now its revamped version called Impulse to release unfinished games and force you to use it to get the latest downloads.

Relic intrusive DRMs but atleast they give the fans good games and support the mod communities.

GSC has failed its fan base because they never are able to finish game without the mod community fixing it for them.

So-on

What? Am I the customer paying for these games just suppose to shutup and take the crap? Sorry dudes no. I will pay for what I want. If I don't like what I want their not going to get a cent from me.

Thats just me a hard core PC gamer who wants good PC games like the way they used to make them before Console vs PC wars, Government censorship, Politically correctness and poor QC with a touch of Corperate Greed.

I'm not going to take it anymore... right.

[Dr. Britain]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye

That's too good. So you mean to say with this logic developers have been making nothing but board games with pretty textures that play THEMSELVES? Even when they've had working real-time for years? Think what you will of me man, i'm not the one who's been getting scammed for DECADES. :lol;

Your idiocy. It...It knows no bounds.

If turn based didn't come about because of technological limitations, then just why DOES it exist?

Does one need to point out the obvious for you to understand? I answered this question in my first post. Real-time and turn-based are both capable of offering gameplay that the other can't. Do you get it now, or will I need to dumb down all of my posts and point out the obvious for you every time?

Anyways, real-time video games have been around since the beginning. If a developer wanted to make a real-time game he could have since the tech to do so has been around since video games began. If a developer made a game turn-based it wasn't because of technical limitations, that much is obvious.

Take Fallout for example. Bethsoft used this same weak argument, saying the developers only made it turn-based because of limitations...yet Daggerfall had been made years before that. If they had wanted Fallout real-time then they would have made it that way, but they instead chose turn-based because of the gameplay it can bring to the table.

Your argument that games were only turn-based because of technical limitations was brittle and now broken.

Yes, they are meant to be forgotten. Do you know how many old fanhards have tried to tell me that "2D graphics aren't obsolete"? The only responce to a claim like that is to stare blankly at them and acknowledge their sheer un-negotiable lunacy.

Ah, I see. You're a 3D graphics whore. I pity you, being unable to enjoy what could be a good game just because you're unable to look past its graphics, be they outdated 3D or 2D sprites and backgrounds.

[CaptHawkeye]

Originally Posted by Dr. Britain

My idiocy. It...It knows no bounds.

Anyways, real-time video games have been around since the beginning. If a developer wanted to make a real-time game he could have since the tech to do so has been around since video games began. If a developer made a game turn-based it wasn't because of technical limitations, that much is obvious.

I asked you provide a REASON why they would. But you can't, because like all the broken old fanboys desperately clinging to the past, their is none.

Take Fallout for example. Bethsoft used this same weak argument, saying the developers only made it turn-based because of limitations...yet Daggerfall had been made years before that. If they had wanted Fallout real-time then they would have made it that way, but they instead chose turn-based because of the gameplay it can bring to the table.

Like WHAT? "Spam +10 roll on attack until lower HP dude = dead?" You STILL missed the entire crux of my argument.

Ah, I see. You're a 3D graphics whore. I pity you, being unable to enjoy what could be a good game just because you're unable to look past its graphics, be they outdated 3D or 2D sprites and backgrounds.

Still grasping at those character attacks.

[CaptHawkeye]

Death, don't even BOTHER. They take EVERY criticism of their fanatical devotion to an age old series as a deep personal assault. I mean, christ, Explorer and Britain accused me of having no leet skillz when I said that turn-based games are just stat-lists. That's like your opponent claiming the Earth is round, and you come back at him with "well you wear glasses."

[wetwarev7]

WOOOOOOOOOO.....let me look at my crystal ball.......woooOOOOooooo....

I predict someone will buy Fallout 3 and hate it....woooOOOoooo

I also predict some who would have enjoyed it will not buy it because of a preconceived notion.......wooooOOOooo

I predict that yet others will buy it and play it and some will like it and some will not and we will all still be sitting here arguing over whether or not "Microsoft Flight Simulator 12: Bill Gates Flies a Kite" is gonna suck or not.......

I have spoken......please insert 25 cents and I will also guess your weight....

[GlobalExplorer]

No need for a crystal ball. Excerpt from Swedish PC Gamer, who gave FO3 a 83%:

And everything would be wonderful but that feeling that the game is missing something. I cant quite define it, Call it a feeling, call it whatever you want, but when the gates of vault 101 lies far behind me, the eyes have adapted to the light and 15 hours have passed i start to think. About hopes that have fallen short.
Because in fallout 3 i get most things served on a silver plate right away. Bethesda has tried to fit as much content as possible on a little area. One second im running into a pack of Radscorpions while 30 meters further ahead theres a little settler town. Around the corner i meet some slavers with their captured slaves and beyond the hill some raiders have set up camp. A few minutes of running brings me to some ruins swarming with lethal deathclaws that wants to eat me. Its compressed, maximized and anonymous all at once. It feels like a huge orgy where no ones want to actually “do it”. A lot of bumping and grinding but no friction and no excitement. Many parts but they don’t paint a whole picture.

http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=577758

The something he is missing, and desperately trying to define, is called inspiration.

I am actually curious for the reviews this time. Will the gaming media repeat the shameless bj competition as with Oblivion? Or will they stay honest and save what credibility they have left ..

83% is honest. A decent game (never argued about that), but far from great.

[flux_c]

I think one of the main differences between Fallout 3 and the original two has to do with the fundamental design philosophies. Many people (including Bethesda) seem to fail to understand that the whole point of Fallout 1/2 was to try and emulate a PnP-like experience as closely as possible. That's why they were turn-based. That's why 'old-school' stats were used. Without following similar ideals, any game really shouldn't be a part of the series.

If turn based didn't come about because of technological limitations, then just why DOES it exist?

Some of the first computer games, like 'Spacewar!' and 'Tennis for Two' came out in the '50s and '60, and were real-time. Turn-based has little to do with technology.

Turn-based games were probably established because many people like that sort of gameplay. Why do you think so many people still play board games? Why do you think the casual computer game market, which is full of turn-based games, is booming? The potential consumer base for those willing to play turn-based games is probably much, much larger than those who want to play real-time ones. Its just that those who play real-time ones are willing to pay more for each game, buy many more games, and spend much more time playing games. However, the casual market is quickly expanding, so this may change in the future.

Yes, they are meant to be forgotten. Do you know how many old fanhards have tried to tell me that "2D graphics aren't obsolete"? The only responce to a claim like that is to stare blankly at them and acknowledge their sheer un-negotiable lunacy.

Quite frankly, this doesn't even make sense. Again, the casual market is full of games with what you would consider '2D graphics', and its doing quite well.

Second, there isn't a game in existence that doesn't use at least some 2D graphics. Particle effects are just a large group of sprites. Bump-mapping is used on a 2D object in order to simulate the presence of more polygons than are actually there. These are two techniques that are used considerably in games. A lot of 3D graphics is about cheating, by using so-called 2D graphics and 2D graphic techniques.

I get the feeling that the bleeding edge game market is going to start cutting back soon. With the ever growing cost of video games (mostly due to assets) vs their return, games will need to be priced higher. Fewer people are going to be willing to pay the current prices, let alone higher ones, given the current state of the economy.

[Wolfehunter]

Welcome aboard Flux_c Interesting first post.