Fallout 3: Hands-on preview

[polonyc2]

Hands-on: The first five hours played

"in its early stages at least, Fallout 3 does have that vital feeling of being alone on a brutal and vast frontier"

"Is Fallout 3 Oblivion with guns? No, not really. While it's true that when you enter houses and watch people go about their business it instantly smacks of the last rendition of The Elder Scrolls, it seems that the old Fallout sensibilities and mannerisms are here as foundation not lip gloss"

Preview: Fallout 3 - ComputerAndVideoGames.com

[CrowdAds]

[WhiteEclipse]

That is probably the best preview yet. But I had to skip some portions because it contains a lot of spoilers.

[mindx2]

I think this hands-on piece tells a completely different story and just confirms my worst fears that Bethesda HAS created Oblivion With Guns.

Hands On: Fallout 3 | Game | Life from Wired.com

I've watched all of the trailers and gameplay footage and my first reaction is "Where's Fallout here?". This so-called cRPG looks like any other generic FPS with a Vault Suit slapped on so they can call it Fallout. Also, I've seen almost no demonstration of the conversation system except this:

Fallout 3 PC Screenshot 326054 - GamersHell.com

Not exactly what I call deep conversation. In fact it reminds me of another game... oh what's it's name.... oh yeah Oblivion!!

Fallout was much more than gore and Bethesda's attempt at juvenile humor. It was about choices & consequences where it wasn't clear that "this was the good choice and this is the evil choice". It just seems to me that they totally missed what made the first two games so good, not to mention the isometric, turn-based goodness.

Oh well, I guess I can hope someone else can make a real RPG out of the Wasteland lincense.

[polonyc2]

that preview you linked to is so generic and void of any details at all so I don't know how you can form an opinion based on that tidbit...the most the writer says is "The key problem with the game though is in the writing"...OK, can you explain in a bit more detail exactly why diehard Fallout fans will not like the game?...not to mention that the review is 2 paragraphs at most and the majority of it is spent praising other aspects of the game

seems like you've already made up your mind about the game and are looking for previews that will back that opinion up...the preview I linked to delves into the gameword in a much more detailed way where fans of the original can decide if they might like it or not...I'm not saying the game is gonna be the greatest thing ever but based upon early legit reviews the game certainly has the potential to be very good if not great

same goes for the dialogue you refer to...you stated that you have not found any demonstration of the conversation system yet you are blasting the game for its lack of meaningful dialogue based on that 1 screenshot??

the problem with heavily hyped games nowadays is that there will always be a percentage of people who will already decide to not like it and state that it will never compare to the original without even giving it a chance to succeed

[mindx2]

I base my complaint on the fact that it is exactly like the conversation system in Oblivion, which was awful. Huge font with one sentence responses so the console kiddies can read it on their televisions. All conversation choices (first choice "Aw, I'm the nice guy response, second choice "Erg, I'm the mean guy response) lead to the same destination. It didn't matter which one of the very limited conversation choices you picked you still ended up with the same quest or reward. I don't call that role-playing. Moral choices in the first two games wasn't black and white, good or bad. The ONLY "choice" that Bethesda has talked about for almost a year is you can be a "bad guy" and blowup Megaton or be the "good guy" and not blow it up. Oh yeah, they have a "nuetral choice which is to do nothing. What about the consequences of doing nothing, or blowing it up? Bethesda says blowing it up will close certain quests and thats it. I'm so glad NO ONE is ****** you just blewup an entire town but I'm sure they will want to tell you about the radscorpians they saw the other day (in 3 different voices). That's what they choose to highlight as choices and consequences in their game?! You say I just look for previews that hold to my preconcieved notions but I disagree. I've read every preview I can to look for a shed of hope that this will be a decent FALLOUT game. As I see it now it may be a mediocre FPS game but it is NOT a Fallout game.

A few of my "gripes" about this game:
1. Level scaling appears to make a return but "reduced". Don't want to challenge our target audience now do we. Why poor Johnny would throw his controller down and cry if he can't walk into that Enclave camp at level one!!
2. Compass arrow is back! What... can't find Caius Casodes? We'll point you in the right direction!
3. Turn-based combat is so 10 years ago!! FPS for the win baby!!
4. Got bored of VATS after five minutes watching the E3 demo. Every shot hit regardless of the percentages, and what's with the headshot making the whole body explode?
5. Nuclear catapult?! I mean come on that's as stupid as someone drinking from a toilet that.... oh yeah forgot... thats in the game too. I mean I'm glad to know indoor plumbing will survive 200 years AFTER nuclear war.
6. Killer teady bears that take off your head?!!!!!
7. I'm sure looking forward to Oblivion's revolutionary Radiant AI. It was so awsome I have a hard time even remember it being in the game.
8. Speaking of AI... Did you see EVERY enemy in the demo race forward to greet you with guns blazing?
9. ....fast travel.... Exploration takes way too much time don't you know, just get me to the next fight!!!
10. Super Mutants are the new Orc, complete with club and shield.
11. Let's spend our entire voice budget on a BIG NAME STAR and make sure EVERYONE knows that BIG NAME STAR is your father in every preview, isn't that kewl?!! Of course, just like Oblivion where we had a BIG NAME STAR do a voice we won't be able to afford many others so don't expect too much variation.
12. Perks and traits all rolled up into just perks. I mean, everyone wants bloody mess right off the bat because it looks sooooo kewl seeing that same exploding body animation over and over and over......
13. You get a new perk EVERY level now. No waiting for you, no siree! Who cares if perks were special and rare in the first two games, we need to give everything to every type of player right away. Don't want them to get bored. Level 3 and 5 would just SUCK without getting a new shiny (not so rare now) perk.
14. FALLOUT 3 IS OBLIVION 2!!!!!!

Look, I understand that the business model makes Bethesda go console all the way. That's where the dollars are (at least in the USA as Europe and Asia have huge PC sales). It just doesn't look or feel like Fallout to me based on info from many different (pro & con) previews and videos.

[WhiteEclipse]

mindx2,

I am of two minds (no pun intended).

1) I agree with you that this does not look like it will be Fallout for all the reasons you described. (BTW, fallout is coming to gametap and gog.com for anyone that has not played them).

2) However, I will probably buy Fallout 3 anyway -- as compared to many games coming out, I will still probably like it better even if it is not the same as the originals.

Of course, there is the issue that by purchasing it I encourage the dumbing down. This is true, but I also want to continue to support PC development.

As another note, I remember playing MotB and you had to make choices. You could not do or get everything. I thought, wow, remember when all the games where like this? In the interview with PC Gamer, Bethesda claims that they are specifically making fallout so that it is not like Oblivion where you can do everything, and be everything.

[polonyc2]

Originally Posted by WhiteEclipse

2) However, I will probably buy Fallout 3 anyway -- as compared to many games coming out, I will still probably like it better even if it is not the same as the originals.

that is my main point

why does everyone feel that in order for a sequel or even a new game to be considered great it has to be exactly like its predecessor?...games evolve...games can take on new directions and still be excellent...developers need to have the freedom to expand on their ideas without certain fanboys crying over how this or that is not exactly how it was in the previous game...who cares!!...as long as the game has an excellent story, characters, graphics etc it should be able to stand on its own without comparison

same thing happened with Bioshock...where it seems some people could not bring themselves to enjoy it because it was not exactly like System Shock 2 (it's 'spiritual successor')...the game was an amazing experience and stands on its own as an all time great in my opinion...Diablo 3 is probably going through the same thing...Far Cry 2 looks completely different then the original Far Cry and it might be a lot better because developers took the original premise and expanded upon it in new and interesting ways

appreciate games for what they are and not what they were

[mindx2]

Originally Posted by polonyc2

that is my main point

why does everyone feel that in order for a sequel or even a new game to be considered great it has to be exactly like its predecessor?...

polonyc2, I never said I wanted a carbon copy of Fallout. However, if your going to take a classic cRPG I hope they would actually MAKE a cRPG. Did you read my criticisms? There making a FPS not a cRPG and alot of their design decisions look and play out terrible. I'm critizing their game for what it is being shown as. Look again at my points and you'll see I'm disappionted in the game mechanics and design. This doesn't look like anything but an average FPS and frankly the PC market (and console market) are flooded with them. We haven't had a real cRPG like a Fallout or Baldur's Gate in MANY years.

To show I don't mind "change" I am really looking forward to Dragon Age, the "spiritual successor" to BG. Oh, and I really didn't like BioShock. It was a straight-up linear, on rails shooter with very little innovation. Game world design... spectacular.... everything else was average.

I don't just accept that change for change sake suddenly means the developers are "pushing the envelope". In fact, most of the "changes" being made are of the dumbing down variety and that's not innovation to me.

[polonyc2]

your gripes are valid but even though you didn't explicitly say it you are disappointed because it is not a carbon copy of Fallout...reading your gripes that seems very clear...if you think about it, you subconsciously are wanting the game to look and feel exactly like Fallout 1 or 2...it does look like Fallout 3 will be incorporating more FPS elements but I'm not prepared to say that it will not be mainly RPG...we have to wait for more info to trickle out...I believe the developers have stated that the game is more RPG then FPS

there was an article that came out a few months back which stated that most gamers don't finish a lot of games they start...unfortunately long epic games are not the norm anymore...shorter, tighter games are what people seem to want now and developers realize that games like the original Fallout might not sell as well nowadays...I guess people have short attention spans now and they don't have the time to devote to 100+ hour games with lots of choices and consequences...sad but true

as far as Bioshock...yes the game was fairly linear but it was not your typical FPS...the atmosphere, environment and story...oh that game told a story!!...a great story...the game might have been a standard FPS but the presentation made it so much more...you were pulled into this world of Rapture...yes the later levels tailed off and I wish it could have sustained the quality of its first half but it still deserves to be recognized as an all time great

"a man chooses, a slave obeys"...'would you kindly"...Andrew Ryan...the Sander Cohen Fort Frolic level

the game was a sum of its parts...taken as a whole the game was more then that, it was an experience

[mindx2]

Originally Posted by polonyc2

there was an article that came out a few months back which stated that most gamers don't finish a lot of games they start...unfortunately long epic games are not the norm anymore...shorter, tighter games are what people seem to want now and developers realize that games like the original Fallout might not sell as well nowadays...I guess people have short attention spans now and they don't have the time to devote to 100+ hour games with lots of choices and consequences...sad but true

I think it has more to do with production cost for games nowadays. It's easy to say "Oh, people HATE long games" but companies spend so much money on the graphics that actual content gets cut first. I would love the hand painted locales of BGII over the next polygon-induced, photrealistic concrete anyday.

[polonyc2]

16 minute narrated demo of Fallout 3...

IGN: Fallout 3 on Live Wire

the gameworld looks amazing...hacking reminds me of Deus Ex...gameplay looks pretty good as well

[Wingit]

another "viewpoint" on Fallout 3...looks like some work is yet to be done..I had high hopes for this title, but some of this is worrisome...

No Mutants Allowed - Your Post Nuclear News Center!

[WhiteEclipse]

Originally Posted by Wingit

another "viewpoint" on Fallout 3...looks like some work is yet to be done..I had high hopes for this title, but some of this is worrisome...

No Mutants Allowed - Your Post Nuclear News Center!

I was just about to post the same thing. Oh my, some lowlights:

"is adding NPCs to the wasteland still on Bethesda’s TODO list? I could wander through a ruined village without finding any indication that there was something to do."

"Oh yes, I think that on the PC the interface will prove unwieldy. Bethesda has chosen to put all the menus inside the Pipboy affixed to your arm. If it is a question of immersion, the intention is commendable, ergonomically it’s an absolute disgrace"

"I’m a half hour into the game, level 3 and I manage to take down three super mutants [with a bat] and some unidentified thing without much trouble and find myself in possession of a Gatling fun. All is good."

"Looting items from inside affects your Karma negatively. Where it really hurts is that your Karma is lowered regardless of whether anyone saw you. Omniscient NPCs that know all my crimes reminds me gloomily of Boiling Point."

And last by not least:

"Does the AI suck as much as it appears in the gameplay videos?

Yes, unfortunately, it’s one of the main faults of the full version of Fallout 3. The mobs are totally stupid, with NPCs that flee in the direction of their aggressors, enemies that find themselves running on the spot, blocked by a too-low platform ( enabling me to re-arrange their faces during combat), rats that charge you so close as to bump into you then jumping up and down in a vain attempt to cause you harm. It is the one point that Bethesda should be taken to task over."

[Cogar]

Originally Posted by Wingit

another "viewpoint" on Fallout 3...looks like some work is yet to be done..I had high hopes for this title, but some of this is worrisome...

No Mutants Allowed - Your Post Nuclear News Center!

I liked the video and the gameplay seemed to capture the atmosphere of Fallout.

Still, although there is a method to adjust stats and so forth like any other RPG, the real question that remains is how do the player's actions affect the game? By that, I don't mean merely that "this faction likes you and that faction gives you better prices," but rather that the events of the game change based on player decisions. Fallout was unique in this respect when compared to many other RPGs. The "Oblivion standard" was not bad, but the main quest and conclusion were predetermined and unaffected to any real extent by any of the player choices.

[Wingit]

Looks like we have a release date...

Fallout: Welcome to the Official Site