Fallout 3

[Tom_Violence]

I really thought Bethesda were gonna drop the ball massively (though thankfully not as MMOassively as possible) on this one, but this little trailer (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/36197.html) makes me think that there might actually be hope yet.

Admittedly that video only shows off a few minutes of combat, but the VATS thingy looks enjoyable and the setting suitably well-done. Obviously, someone still needs to very quickly make a patch to remove the nuke slingshot thing, and I really hope that they've got a whole new bunch of people working on the dialogue side of things since I don't actually think Besthesda have managed that yet, but still, its not actually as bad as it could be!

Thoughts?

[Myatar_Panwar]

Looks awesome. I have not played the first or second games, and am kind of glad they decided to put it in third/ first person. And whats wrong with many nuke launchers? :smalltongue:

[warty goblin]

Having played far more Oblivion than can possibly be healthy, and being a fan of slo-mo killcams, I'm pretty jazzed. Yet another game on my massive and ever-growing list of excellent games coming out this fall- with any luck they'll be enough money left after all the games for a few computer upgrades...

[Tom_Violence]

with any luck they'll be enough money left after all the games for a few computer upgrades...

Opposite way round for me, sadly!

[Erloas]

Well the trailers and stuff I've heard since E3 gives me more hope for the game then I had a little while ago.

The game looks like it is worth a play through, but if its going to have the lasting appeal of the first two is another question. I don't agree with most of the gameplay changes they've made. It might be Fallout, but I don't think its going to be Fallout "3." At least when Interplay decided to try something different with the IP they made that clear, Fallout Tactics and Fallout Brotherhood of Steel (the crapy console version everyone loaths) they didn't try to call them Fallout 3, because that clearly wasn't what they were.

As for a Fallout MMO, Interplay still owns the rights to it. It might happen but it seems unlikely. They have the rights so long as they put them to use within the next couple of years, if they don't then they default to Bethesda with the rest of the IP rights. Considering Interplay isn't anything more then a couple people probably working for other companies right now it doesn't seem likely.


Fallout 1&2 did a lot of things very well (granted fixing bugs wasn't one of them) and very differently from most other games. That was a lot of what made them great. While Fallout "3" has changed drastically from Fallout 1&2, but most of what they changed was to make Fallout "3" a lot like many other games out now, just set in a post-apocolypic setting. For me it has very much changed from a "must have" to another new game thats probably worth checking out some time.

[Tom_Violence]

Well the trailers and stuff I've heard since E3 gives me more hope for the game then I had a little while ago.

The game looks like it is worth a play through, but if its going to have the lasting appeal of the first two is another question. I don't agree with most of the gameplay changes they've made. It might be Fallout, but I don't think its going to be Fallout "3." At least when Interplay decided to try something different with the IP they made that clear, Fallout Tactics and Fallout Brotherhood of Steel (the crapy console version everyone loaths) they didn't try to call them Fallout 3, because that clearly wasn't what they were.

As for a Fallout MMO, Interplay still owns the rights to it. It might happen but it seems unlikely. They have the rights so long as they put them to use within the next couple of years, if they don't then they default to Bethesda with the rest of the IP rights. Considering Interplay isn't anything more then a couple people probably working for other companies right now it doesn't seem likely.


Fallout 1&2 did a lot of things very well (granted fixing bugs wasn't one of them) and very differently from most other games. That was a lot of what made them great. While Fallout "3" has changed drastically from Fallout 1&2, but most of what they changed was to make Fallout "3" a lot like many other games out now, just set in a post-apocolypic setting. For me it has very much changed from a "must have" to another new game thats probably worth checking out some time.

Yeah, I'd agree with all of that really. Especially the last sentence. Except, the last time I saw it it was more of a "avoid like the plague" rather than a "must have", and now its just a "might not actually give me brain plague". To be fair, I don't really think it would be possible to do a Fallout 3 that is in line with the originals. Its just been too long, times have changed too much. The entire industry isn't what it used to be, and what was once a cult game is now a real cash cow.

[Nibleswick]

Honestly, I'm not seeing anything that screams "Fallout" to me, 1&2 had a very strong, but subtle style. This looks alright, but you can't feel it in the pit of your stomach, if you know what I mean.

[Erloas]

Yeah, I'd agree with all of that really. Especially the last sentence. Except, the last time I saw it it was more of a "avoid like the plague" rather than a "must have", and now its just a "might not actually give me brain plague".
Well what I ment by Fallout 3 being a "must have" was really just the idea of a Fallout 3. Much like Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3, those where games that were "must haves" before Blizzard ever announced they where working on them.
As it is, right now I think Fallout 3 is in better shape then what I was expecting after I heard the first round of interviews with Bethesda about it.


To be fair, I don't really think it would be possible to do a Fallout 3 that is in line with the originals. Its just been too long, times have changed too much. The entire industry isn't what it used to be, and what was once a cult game is now a real cash cow.
The more things change the more they stay the same... I think a comparision between Fallout 3 and Diablo 3 is a fairly apt comparision. Both of the originals where released in the same year and both where RPGs using isometric design but went in a very different approachs to the RPG genre. Although in both cases that was a design choice because there were other designs before and durning that same time. Some people try to claim the only reason they used what they used in Fallout 1&2 because it was the only workable approach at that time. I've played first person RPGs from that same time period that used mostly real time combat. Turn based was very much a design decission for the game, it was what they felt fit the game the best and I agree with them.

Both had a second game that did very well building on what the first one did. In the case of Fallout it was 1-2 years between, and Diablo it was 3-4 years. Both games because classics that everyone has been waiting for the next version to come out. Both have an almost cult following, though Fallout seems to be much more cult and Diablo does have a larger following.

When it came to the 3rd one, it was the better part of a decade since the first two. Blizzard has decided to go with a very similiar but updated version of the first two. With Fallout 3 though they've decided to change almost every aspect of gameplay that they could.

Some people say turn based games are gone, but I know I'm not the only person that wishs there where more of them. I know they gave Tactics a real time option but I believe almost everyone opted for the turn based system still, it worked well. Same goes for space games, its a genre thats all but disappeared because they claim there is no market for them now, but I know a number of people wishing for them. No one playes them now simply because there aren't any around to play.

I know that Fallout wasn't about being turn based, there was a lot more to it then that. But so many of Fallout's great gameplay mechanics came from the fact that it was turn based. Things like stim-pack usage, when to go into your inventory and when to just make due, when to do an aimed shot vs a regular, picking two different weapons that complimented each other in terms of action point usage, those sorts of things are all tied to turn based combat. Having that one extra AP handy to hide behind a wall to avoid return fire, or finding that extra large clip for a few more shots between reloads or faster reloading where all much more important then they could possibly be in the new system.

One other thing they've said is that many things that used to be skill based are now mini-game based. This is a trend I've seen a lot in a lot of different types of games. It works great in action/puzzle games, but in RPGs I don't like it. What is the point of putting points into lock-picking or science if you can get past locked doors and hack computer systems with a mini game no matter what your skill is. Given the skills might make it easier, but I don't see that being an issue the majority of the time, and if it makes them too easy its just going to be an annoying waste of time.

They've also implied that outside of VATS the only thing weapon skills is going to do is increase damage. You might be able to hit someone with a rocket launcher, but if you don't have any skill in it then its going to do less damage then a pistol? At least before you could make that wild shot and if you got lucky enough to hit they were going to pieces no matter what.

There is a point where realism is nice, there is also a point where you want a game to be a game. I think that is an idea a lot of companies are forgetting now.

In terms of having to adopt games to the new players that aren't used to old games and won't accept old mechanics, I don't buy. My youngest brother and his friends are all perfectly fine with turn based TT gaming even though they have never played any other games requiring those mechanics. Some recent statistics I've read said that the average age of gamers is 28, that about 50% of players are between the ages of 20 and 40, and that the percentage of players above 40 is actually greater then that below 20... I think it was about 28% to 22%.

[SmartAlec]

Whereas Fallout 1 and 2 were set in mostly-wilderness, this game seems to focus on a ruined metropolis; less Mad Max and more I Am Legend, almost. Both premises could exist in the same universe, but they're going to be very different experiences.

[Erloas]

Honestly, I'm not seeing anything that screams "Fallout" to me, 1&2 had a very strong, but subtle style. This looks alright, but you can't feel it in the pit of your stomach, if you know what I mean.

I don't think they are helping themselves with the way they decided to do the trailer. They are always focusing on the big and powerful, on how great and powerful everything you have is.

What they are missing is the sense of danger. Big giant robotic killing tank? We'll just stand here and let it shot at us, its ok, we'll be fine while we find the exact right weapon out of our unlimited supply and then disable it in a single action. Whole group of enclave with power armor come to deal with you? One shot from your weapon will take care of them.

Where are the mutated plants that could very well kill you? Where are the mutant rats that can take you out if you foolishing run in? Where are the encounters that are way out of your league that your choice is run away quickly or feed the carrior?

[Triaxx]

If you have to see any one piece of coverage, make it G4's, since it's the only place I've seen the Teddy Bear kill to date.

Fallout Tactics got the shaft, it's a far better game than it's made out to be. And the fan reaction is a bit over done. It usually devolves into 'OMG it's gas, Tihs is no Fa11out!!1'

And frankly, it's retarded. I've even heard complaints about 2 not being canon. No one seems able to accept that the sequels are expanding the universe, not rewriting it.

[SolkaTruesilver]

What they are missing is the sense of danger. Big giant robotic killing tank? We'll just stand here and let it shot at us, its ok, we'll be fine while we find the exact right weapon out of our unlimited supply and then disable it in a single action. Whole group of enclave with power armor come to deal with you? One shot from your weapon will take care of them.

Where are the mutated plants that could very well kill you? Where are the mutant rats that can take you out if you foolishing run in? Where are the encounters that are way out of your league that your choice is run away quickly or feed the carrior?

Have you looked at the character's stats? He has like, 95 in Big Weapon. The Designer obviously decided to collect a lot (LOT) of Big Weapons to show off during his video. I am sure that unless you actively go look out for these things, you'll end up in a far more difficult spots. The Tank for example; he had to use a rocket launcher AND a EMP Grenade, that think really looks tough. If you wander there with no warning, you'll probably get your ass wiped. Same with the Enclave guys, he used a MINI NUKE! Obviously, the whole presentation was staged.

[Semidi]

I don't think they are helping themselves with the way they decided to do the trailer. They are always focusing on the big and powerful, on how great and powerful everything you have is.

What they are missing is the sense of danger. Big giant robotic killing tank? We'll just stand here and let it shot at us, its ok, we'll be fine while we find the exact right weapon out of our unlimited supply and then disable it in a single action. Whole group of enclave with power armor come to deal with you? One shot from your weapon will take care of them.

Where are the mutated plants that could very well kill you? Where are the mutant rats that can take you out if you foolishing run in? Where are the encounters that are way out of your league that your choice is run away quickly or feed the carrior?

This video was made to look awesome. I doubt they'll be handing out the mini-nuke at the start of the game.

I mean, compare a character at the end of Fallout 2. Gauss Rifle, Sniper Feat, and Adv. Power Armor Mrk 2. A character like that is not at all comparable to the type of character who gets obliterated by mutant rats.

[warty goblin]

This video was made to look awesome. I doubt they'll be handing out the mini-nuke at the start of the game.

I mean, compare a character at the end of Fallout 2. Gauss Rifle, Sniper Feat, and Adv. Power Armor Mrk 2. A character like that is not at all comparable to the type of character who gets obliterated by mutant rats.

Also note that lots of stage demos are played with buckets of cheats enabled. Nothing fails to thrill an audience more than the test character dying. I mean really, what's the poor demoer to do? "And this is our loading screen. As you can see it has a progress bar which halts occasionally for no apparent reason. After it fills there's another second's pause and then we are back in the game!"

[SolkaTruesilver]

Also note that lots of stage demos are played with buckets of cheats enabled. Nothing fails to thrill an audience more than the test character dying. I mean really, what's the poor demoer to do? "And this is our loading screen. As you can see it has a progress bar which halts occasionally for no apparent reason. After it fills there's another second's pause and then we are back in the game!"

They should have multi-games running, and switch between them if you die in the first one. Multi-games, at multiple areas in the game, different style of character.

[Morty]

The combat doesn't look bad, yeah. But Fallout has never been about combat, especially fast, FPS-like combat. I remain skeptical.

[Kane]

The Fallout series has always been one I've wanted to play, along with the System Shock games. The fact that people dislike 3 suggests that I really should try and get 1&2 some time.

But as far as I can see, it seems to be high-tech oblivion in a post apocalyptic DC. The guns look cool, the auto-target or whatever is awesome, and I'm sure there will just be like, a dozen shots for the nuke launcher throughout the game.

[Smight]

I have not played the first or second games,

you have answered your own question

[Tom_Violence]

I'm sure there will just be like, a dozen shots for the nuke launcher throughout the game.

I'll still argue that one is one too many. The odd thing is, I'd probably be quite happy with a similar weapon that just hurls a crapload of TNT at enemies for a massive bang, but making them nukes is just not right. Nukes are what made the world of Fallout, one ended the first game, and one can end the second game as well (I think, if I remember correctly that was cut from the original release and re-added later by fans). But to have nukes as something that the player can just sling around willy nilly ain't on.

[Erloas]

This video was made to look awesome. I doubt they'll be handing out the mini-nuke at the start of the game.

I mean, compare a character at the end of Fallout 2. Gauss Rifle, Sniper Feat, and Adv. Power Armor Mrk 2. A character like that is not at all comparable to the type of character who gets obliterated by mutant rats.

Obviously you just missed the context in which I made my comment. The previous poster had said that it was missing the feel of Fallout and I was just saying that they did themselves some discredit with how they decided to do the trailer. I'm sure its not going to be standing infront of tanks wearing nothing but a vault suite flinging rockets and nukes at everything. But the demo went out of its way to trivalize what should be big encounters and I think that did a lot to detract from the Fallout feel.

[Semidi]

I'll still argue that one is one too many. The odd thing is, I'd probably be quite happy with a similar weapon that just hurls a crapload of TNT at enemies for a massive bang, but making them nukes is just not right. Nukes are what made the world of Fallout, one ended the first game, and one can end the second game as well (I think, if I remember correctly that was cut from the original release and re-added later by fans). But to have nukes as something that the player can just sling around willy nilly ain't on.

I don't see the logic. Just because a horrible event occurred does not mean that everything causing said event vanishes. Now you, as the protagonist, has the choice of whether or not they want to fling nukes around "willy nilly." A nice character might not want to. But I doubt an evil bastard who kills children will care much at all.

Hand held nukes are a logical item in the Fallout universe, they are part of the retro-50s idea of future technology (what the design and and types of weapons are seeking to replicate). See: Starship Troopers. They don't seem at all out of place in a world where people can carry around Gatling laser guns and powered armor.

Yeah, I don't really want to defend a game or detract from it until it's released, but here I am.

[Tom_Violence]

I don't see the logic. Just because a horrible event occurred does not mean that everything causing said event vanishes. Now you, as the protagonist, has the choice of whether or not they want to fling nukes around "willy nilly." A nice character might not want to. But I doubt an evil bastard who kills children will care much at all.

Hand held nukes are a logical item in the Fallout universe, they are part of the retro-50s idea of future technology (what the design and and types of weapons are seeking to replicate). See: Starship Troopers. They don't seem at all out of place in a world where people can carry around Gatling laser guns and powered armor.

Yeah, I don't really want to defend a game or detract from it until it's released, but here I am.

I disagree. In Fallout 1+2, despite people carrying around Gatling Lasers and whatnot, nukes still had this feel about them of being these giant world-destroyers, and finding the bomb sitting at the bottom of the cathedral really did give off that vibe that you'd stumbled across something awesome, like you'd pretty much just walked in on Krishna before he spouts his famous line. And so to take the nuclear bomb, which has served as the sublime focal point of the series, and trivialise it by making it something which you fling at people a few hundred yards away kinda sucks out a lot of the magic.

[Cespenar]

I just hope Bethesda would miraculously disappear from the face of the earth.

[Tekar]

The combat doesn't look bad, yeah. But Fallout has never been about combat, especially fast, FPS-like combat. I remain skeptical.
My toughts as well.

It definatly looks more like an FPS adventure mix than an RPG. I will await the reviews and then some to see if it's worth it. Bethesda has to make up for what they did with Oblivion.

[Triaxx]

The fast paced FPS style seems to be an option, rather than a requirement. I'll be happy once I see some out of combat footage though.

[Krrth]

As I recall from past information, you can choose a turn based system. OF course, that information was released a year or so ago, but I don't think they've changed it.

[Tom_Violence]

The fast paced FPS style seems to be an option, rather than a requirement. I'll be happy once I see some out of combat footage though.

I'll be happy once I see a conversation, just to know that for once Bethesda have actually put one in a game!

[Eita]

Whereas Fallout 1 and 2 were set in mostly-wilderness, this game seems to focus on a ruined metropolis; less Mad Max and more I Am Legend, almost. Both premises could exist in the same universe, but they're going to be very different experiences.

From what I've heard, in the beginning, you need to get the hell out of the city, because things will kill you there. The idea is to go into the wastelands to get your skills up before you return.


As I recall from past information, you can choose a turn based system. OF course, that information was released a year or so ago, but I don't think they've changed it.

They better not of. Otherwise I'm getting rid of reservation. And keeping the soundtrack.


I'll be happy once I see a conversation, just to know that for once Bethesda have actually put one in a game!

Have you played Fallout 1 and 2?

[Myatar_Panwar]

As I recall from past information, you can choose a turn based system. OF course, that information was released a year or so ago, but I don't think they've changed it.

In the live-demo shown at E3, the guy playing seemed to switch between first person fps and third person turn-based quite often. Almost reminded me of Neverwinter Nights.

[Eita]

He kept activating VATS, besides that, it was all FPS, which is rather disconcerting.

[Jube]

Have you played Fallout 1 and 2?

They weren't made by Bestheda. It was something I was seriously interested in too, a Fallout video that didn't show the choices of character, or decisions or converations... Seems odd to focus soley on combat.

Still it looked great and hell even kind'a fun. The FPS nature of it puts me off a lot but meh, we'll see.

[Myatar_Panwar]

He kept activating VATS, besides that, it was all FPS, which is rather disconcerting.

VATS? I'll I know was that time stopped, it gave him time to pick his target, and when he did they didnt move through the still firing animation. Looked very turn-based to me.

But, very differnt from what other people seem to think, I would perfer to play this in an FPS style. Just like with Oblivion, I wasn't pulled down by expectations the previous games had put on me, and was able to whole-heartedly enjoy it, because I haden't played the other games. Note that I am not saying that the previous games were better or worse, but I just think that sometimes, when fans see the games they loved and still love get so drastically changed, they freak out and dont try to accept the changes as improvements.

And I just perfer real-time, usually western RPG's, over turnbased RPGs. Games such as Mass Effect and Oblivion.

[Tom_Violence]

Have you played Fallout 1 and 2?

Have you been following this thread but at all? :smalltongue: Not only have I referenced the originals several times but, as Jube neatly pointed out, Bethesda didn't make them - the genius powerhouse that was Black Isle did. And Bethesda have a very bad track record in the conversation department (maybe even the RPG department as a whole, recently at least).


VATS? I'll I know was that time stopped, it gave him time to pick his target, and when he did they didnt move through the still firing animation. Looked very turn-based to me.

But, very differnt from what other people seem to think, I would perfer to play this in an FPS style. Just like with Oblivion, I wasn't pulled down by expectations the previous games had put on me, and was able to whole-heartedly enjoy it, because I haden't played the other games. Note that I am not saying that the previous games were better or worse, but I just think that sometimes, when fans see the games they loved and still love get so drastically changed, they freak out and dont try to accept the changes as improvements.

And I just perfer real-time, usually western RPG's, over turnbased RPGs. Games such as Mass Effect and Oblivion.

VATS is the name they've given their 'pause time while you select a target' system. I don't think its actually turn-based, but rather just the ability to pause real-time action.

As for the issue of people's reluctance to accept change, there's a lot of factors involved. But I think one of the big ones here is that the entire nature of the combat system has changed. Basically, if you were a fan of isometric turn-based goodness, tough luck, you'll probably never see it in a Fallout game again. Moving to an FPS style can't be called an improvement, since its a sideways move, so the only actual improvement that I've seen so far is the graphics.

[SmartAlec]

VATS is the name they've given their 'pause time while you select a target' system. I don't think its actually turn-based, but rather just the ability to pause real-time action.

I dunno... looking at the video again, weren't there little numbers next to the bodypart of each person, like the percentile chances to hit in the original games? And we already know there are weapon skills in this game - although it looked like he was just picking a target, maybe there was actually a chance he'd miss and he didn't because his skills were maxed out.

[Tom_Violence]

I dunno... looking at the video again, weren't there little numbers next to the bodypart of each person, like the percentile chances to hit in the original games? And we already know there are weapon skills in this game - although it looked like he was just picking a target, maybe there was actually a chance he'd miss and he didn't because his skills were maxed out.

Yeah, it definitely operates under those lines, but that doesn't make it turn-based really, right? Rather, it seems to be first person action where success is based not just on where you aim your crosshairs, but also on the numbers, and where things occasionally slow down and get a little cinematic.

[Telok]

it seems to be first person action where success is based not just on where you aim your crosshairs, but also on the numbers

Man, that's just going to annoy the FPS purists. They won't be able to go 100% headshot based on their skill from the start, the character's skills will make them miss.

Personally I might find the FPS style acceptable if Beths did the rpg aspect of the game as well or better than the originals. Hundreds of things to do, engaging and entertaining NPCs, multiple ways of succeeding at tasks. If they did that well I could call their F3 a good part of the Fallout series. Unfortunately they don't have a good track record for that. Oblivion had hundreds of things to do, if you include killing everything in every dungeon as half of those 'hundreds.'

Then there's the freedom aspect. In the Fallout series (and Wasteland too, as much as it could) you were free to play the character any way you liked. From an angelic do-gooder to a child murdering, sex crazed, psychopath. Bethsenda is... a corporation concerned with profit and image that will probably be unwilling to let players be free to choose between good and evil.

Perhaps I'm too old school to jump at every new game just because it has pretty graphics. I want plot, development (more than just "moar leet pwnz"), depth, and more challenge than just hand-eye coordination. I'm thinking that I still have an old App ][e clone in my basement and the original Wasteland disks, and that could turn out to have more replay value than the latest and greatest from Bethsenda.

[DeathQuaker]

Everytime I watch this, I get a warm feeling inside: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg9t7uXkLyA

I've done a lot of reading up on detailed previews of the game as well as FAQs provided by Bethesda as well as third parties (including Fallout fans who assembled the FAQ on the Fallout Wiki). Anyone who has not done the same, I recommend they do so and do so carefully, taking time to absorb the information without preconception. Google, Bethesda's website, and the No Mutant's Allowed forums can all provide you more than enough info.

I just played Fallout 2 a couple months ago, so its story and gameplay are very, very fresh in my mind. Everything I've read about Fallout 3 seems to capture the spirit of the Fallout-verse very well, while using today's technology to deliver a visually exciting game, and that's the best I could ask for.

If the previews and accompanying media are to be believed (and sure, take the excitement with a grain of salt, too) Fallout 3 is going to have tons of dialogue, well-developed NPCs, and yes, lots and lots of moral ambiguity. And of course lots of splattery, bloody, bloody death, complete with your optional targeting system and action points, just like the old game had (only with more graphically detailed blood splatters). Every single thing I've read about this game has said you can be a shining hero or slaughter every innocent you come across (just in the beginning of the game, you can opt to nuke a whole town if you feel like it), or behave anywhere in between. It has SPECIAL, the PipBoy, and Dogmeat. It has a story line you can follow--or you can ignore it and just wander at your leisure, fighting the beasts that inhabit the Wasteland, just like you could with the first two games. And it has all that lovely shiny Fifties-Future vs. apocalyptic wasteland gleam to it, giving it the right flavor.

Me, I'm excited by what I see so far. I hope folks who are less hopeful will at least wait and see for themselves what it will be like on release, rather than write it off just because they're afraid of reality clashing with their sense of nostalgia. Along with hoping that what I've seen so far is indeed what I'll get, that's the best I can wish for.

[warty goblin]

VATS is the name they've given their 'pause time while you select a target' system. I don't think its actually turn-based, but rather just the ability to pause real-time action.


I'm really not sure how a system wherein everything stops, you spend points to choose your actions, and then watch them carried out without further input can be considered not turn-based. The game isn't purely turn based clearly, but rather seems to layer a turn based combat system over top of real time at the user's disgression. Seems a quite elegant way to get a more deliberate feeling into a game while still being able to use a first person perspective. While there are people who undoubtedly object to the first person camera, I rather like it. It makes me into the character, confines my perceptions to those of the character, and generally increases immersion. Never a bad thing.

Also for those bothering about the lack of conversation in the videos on display, think about this: the longest video I've found about F3 (granted my search has not been exhaustive) has contained about four minutes of gameplay. Once you toss in full voicework and the player selecting a response, that's not a hell of a lot of conversation, like maybe two exchanges or so. Also, read this article (http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/fallout-3/preview/fallout-3-hands-on/a-20080714133932662026/g-20070327151320531089), it might reassure you that there are plenty of conversation options, as well as the potential to be a murdering scumball.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Also, they have announced that there will be over 200 endings or so. 10 of which are completly unique, while the rest are re-itterations of those ten. Not something you usually see in your standard fps.

And don't quote me on those numbers, I cant seem to find the article right now where I saw/ heard it the first time, but I know it was close to those 2 numbers.

[Tom_Violence]

I'm really not sure how a system wherein everything stops, you spend points to choose your actions, and then watch them carried out without further input can be considered not turn-based. The game isn't purely turn based clearly, but rather seems to layer a turn based combat system over top of real time at the user's disgression. Seems a quite elegant way to get a more deliberate feeling into a game while still being able to use a first person perspective. While there are people who undoubtedly object to the first person camera, I rather like it. It makes me into the character, confines my perceptions to those of the character, and generally increases immersion. Never a bad thing.

Well, all actions are happening simultaneously, instead of people taking turns. So I guess that's where I draw the distinction. I'm not saying it doesn't look good. I'm just saying that its not turn-based. Its just real-time action that you can pause. Turn-based would involve one person acting, then another, then back, etc.


Also, they have announced that there will be over 200 endings or so. 10 of which are completly unique, while the rest are re-itterations of those ten. Not something you usually see in your standard fps.

And don't quote me on those numbers, I cant seem to find the article right now where I saw/ heard it the first time, but I know it was close to those 2 numbers.

Now that definitely sounds like a boast I've heard many times before, from all kinds of games, and they rarely ever deliver. So again, I remain skeptical.

[warty goblin]

Well, all actions are happening simultaneously, instead of people taking turns. So I guess that's where I draw the distinction. I'm not saying it doesn't look good. I'm just saying that its not turn-based. Its just real-time action that you can pause. Turn-based would involve one person acting, then another, then back, etc.



It's plenty possible to have a turn based game with simultanious resolution of turns. Laser Squad Nemisis did it for example, both players issue orders to their units for the next ~10 seconds of combat, which is then played out in real time according to those orders and the actions of the enemy. The overland map in Age of Wonders is also turn based simultanious, there can only be one collection of units moving on the map at a time, and who's units are moving is determined by how fast they issue orders. It's clearly turn based, but the order of turns isn't set but proceeds essentially as people issue orders.

For an even more obvious one, the combat in Axis & Alllies, although played out attacker, defender, et cetera is essentially simultanious turn based, because casualties aren't cleared until all units have fired, and units declared as casualties still get to defend. There's even a subtle difference between attacking and defending, because the defender has to declare casualties before they get to roll their counterattack, whereas the attacker only declares casualties after they attack and after the defender rolls as well, so they have slightly more information available to them.

[Tekar]

Also, they have announced that there will be over 200 endings or so. 10 of which are completly unique, while the rest are re-itterations of those ten. Not something you usually see in your standard fps.

And don't quote me on those numbers, I cant seem to find the article right now where I saw/ heard it the first time, but I know it was close to those 2 numbers.
Well if you recal the radiant AI demo Bethesda showed for Oblivion you see how much BS they throw at the fans just to get the hype up.

I remeber this post on the official Oblivion forums with a list of quotes from the developpers that all turned out to be very exagerated or just plain false. I just can't seem to find it back, if anyone could point me back to it I'd be gratefull.

[Evil DM Mark3]

One thing that does concern me, i am not worried about the heavy violence levels because the guy said he was going the violent way about it and to be fair you could play fallout 1 & 2 with as much asploding as we saw in that clip if you wanted to. My concern is, do you get the impression that you can't leave Washington DC? Like the whole game just takes place in that one city? Cos my favourate part of 1&2 (and tactics, I loved tactics too) was forging out and exploring the wilderness, the frontier explorer shtick.

[Morty]

Well if you recal the radiant AI demo Bethesda showed for Oblivion you see how much BS they throw at the fans just to get the hype up.

I remeber this post on the official Oblivion forums with a list of quotes from the developpers that all turned out to be very exagerated or just plain false. I just can't seem to find it back, if anyone could point me back to it I'd be gratefull.

Indeed. I remember being all excited over Oblivion. But I know better now.

[Falkus]

I'll still argue that one is one too many. The odd thing is, I'd probably be quite happy with a similar weapon that just hurls a crapload of TNT at enemies for a massive bang, but making them nukes is just not right. Nukes are what made the world of Fallout, one ended the first game, and one can end the second game as well (I think, if I remember correctly that was cut from the original release and re-added later by fans). But to have nukes as something that the player can just sling around willy nilly ain't on.

Why? Fallout's based off of a fifties view of the universe, back when nuclear was the magic word that could do no harm, and would be the future in all things. This is the era in which Ford designed a nuclear powered car.


Now that definitely sounds like a boast I've heard many times before, from all kinds of games, and they rarely ever deliver. So again, I remain skeptical.

Part of the allure of Fallout 1 and 2 was that at the end of the game, it would give a brief bit of narration for each of the areas in the game, telling you how your actions affected it. I imagine that's what they're talking about when they talk about the number endings.


Well if you recal the radiant AI demo Bethesda showed for Oblivion you see how much BS they throw at the fans just to get the hype up.

They've also acknowledged many of the errors they made with Oblivion,

[Tom_Violence]

It's plenty possible to have a turn based game with simultanious resolution of turns. Laser Squad Nemisis did it for example, both players issue orders to their units for the next ~10 seconds of combat, which is then played out in real time according to those orders and the actions of the enemy. The overland map in Age of Wonders is also turn based simultanious, there can only be one collection of units moving on the map at a time, and who's units are moving is determined by how fast they issue orders. It's clearly turn based, but the order of turns isn't set but proceeds essentially as people issue orders.

For an even more obvious one, the combat in Axis & Alllies, although played out attacker, defender, et cetera is essentially simultanious turn based, because casualties aren't cleared until all units have fired, and units declared as casualties still get to defend. There's even a subtle difference between attacking and defending, because the defender has to declare casualties before they get to roll their counterattack, whereas the attacker only declares casualties after they attack and after the defender rolls as well, so they have slightly more information available to them.

Yeah, that actually occured to me last night, in one of those awkward "oops" moments. But I still argue that there's an important difference between pausing real-time action and proper turn-based combat, and that Fallout 3 is more in line with the former than the latter. It seems no more turn-based than an RTS in which you can pause the game to give orders. I suppose if you like you could consider it to be a kind of real-time game in which you get to make your own turns, but that seems kinda twisting things a little. I think the thing that stops it from being a turn-based game, certainly in my eyes, is that the player gets to decide the length of turns.

I'm also one of those people that will mourn the loss of the isometric viewpoint, and all the joys that brings, but that's another issue all together. :smalltongue:


Why? Fallout's based off of a fifties view of the universe, back when nuclear was the magic word that could do no harm, and would be the future in all things. This is the era in which Ford designed a nuclear powered car.

To that, I say this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4569587#post4579804). :smalltongue: 'Tis Fallout, not Unreal Tournament, etc.

[Coffee_Dragon]

V.A.T.S. is not turn-based but could be described as "real time with pause and bullet time". As such it is fundamentally different from turn-based.

Laser Squad Nemesis isn't technically turn-based either. That system is sometimes called "phase-based" (though personally, having played some wargames in my time I associate phases with something else).

Here (http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=21) is an article that deals with the pros and cons of various models and also touches upon some common misconceptions about them.

[Cespenar]

I'm also one of those people that will mourn the loss of the isometric viewpoint, and all the joys that brings, but that's another issue all together. :smalltongue:


So true. Deducing from the "modern" games, it seems like every game is going to be a first-third person something at a certain point, with the settings being the only differing factor. Because apparently, it's the best way to stuff in "even better graphics".

[tyckspoon]

My concern is, do you get the impression that you can't leave Washington DC? Like the whole game just takes place in that one city? Cos my favourate part of 1&2 (and tactics, I loved tactics too) was forging out and exploring the wilderness, the frontier explorer shtick.

Not at all. The trailer under discussion just takes place in the city and makes it look like a big focus because it's a continuous segment. A lot of the other known material (screenshots and interviews and whatnot) is set in or talks about the wilderness areas. To the best of our current knowledge the arc of the game goes along the lines of: You leave/get kicked out of your Vault, sneak/fight your way out of the city (things like the robots and sentry turrets are probably intended to encourage you to gtho instead of wandering around a place that will kill you), wander around the local waste do-gooding or do-eviling, and then come back to DC to explore/reclaim/whatever the main storyline asks for later when you're tough enough to handle the things that live there.