Tweet
Brother None and SuAside from NMA got into the Leipzig GC as media types and watched the demo and participated in QA session. What results is the best, most comprehensive preview of the game.
Best lines from the QA:
Here's the Final Judgement:
Best lines from the QA:
NMA: In 2004, Tim Cain stated in a PC Zone interview that Fallout's combat was meant to show "how popular and fun turn-based combat could be, when everyone else was going with real-time or pause-based combat.", so why did Bethesda go against that? Wouldn't it also have been a lot easier to not naming the game Fallout 3 and simply naming it "Fallout: Something", thereby starting your own series with your own views without leaving yourself open to much fan criticism?
Pete Hines: We're making the sequel as we think it would be best in the modern age and how it would work best today. This means taking full advantage of all modern technology and first person to facilitate immersion. There is no reason today not to do so. We also didn't want to make our 'own' series because we want to make a true sequel to the first two Fallouts.
NMA: Apparently not everyone is pleased with Bethesda's interpretation of Fallout. NMA, RPGcodex and DaC are a few of the oldest Fallout communities around and none of them seem to accept Bethesda's view on things, or are at least very skeptical about the game. Why is it that the communication with those communities is difficult at best?
Pete Hines: We are in contact with those communities and they receive the same treatment as all the other communities. We frequently read them and we understand exactly what it is they want. The problem is however that they've had years to think about what they wanted and create a view of what Fallout 3 should be that could never be possible today. They're still stuck 8 years back in their views of Fallout 3. It simply wouldn't work.
Pete Hines: We're making the sequel as we think it would be best in the modern age and how it would work best today. This means taking full advantage of all modern technology and first person to facilitate immersion. There is no reason today not to do so. We also didn't want to make our 'own' series because we want to make a true sequel to the first two Fallouts.
NMA: Apparently not everyone is pleased with Bethesda's interpretation of Fallout. NMA, RPGcodex and DaC are a few of the oldest Fallout communities around and none of them seem to accept Bethesda's view on things, or are at least very skeptical about the game. Why is it that the communication with those communities is difficult at best?
Pete Hines: We are in contact with those communities and they receive the same treatment as all the other communities. We frequently read them and we understand exactly what it is they want. The problem is however that they've had years to think about what they wanted and create a view of what Fallout 3 should be that could never be possible today. They're still stuck 8 years back in their views of Fallout 3. It simply wouldn't work.
Brother None:
The unbearable lightness of seeing
It is kind of hard to make a final judgement based on a demo, when every time you ask for specific it turns out the demo isn't representative of the game. Since I covered most facts above, I'll now go more with the feeling I got from it.
Fallout 3 looks like a well-produced, very pretty, very fun game that'll provide quite a few people with a lot of hours of enjoyment. However, I don't think it's anything more than a very pretty and fun game.
This game is missing a key ingredient: guts, daring, innovation. I'm not even referring to the kind of guts Tim Cain noted when he explained turn-based combat was doing something different in a time of real-time and pause-based combat (ref), though I guess they miss those kind of guts too. I'm talking about the very basic ingredients of an independent vision.
The only times this game really shines is when it is copying from the originals directly. The moments of inspiration outside of that are rare, limited to a few jokes and the Protectron's excellent design.
But what does that mean? Pretty much that we're looking at a pretty bland, uninspired game here, and that people expecting the next big break-through in RPGs or gaming in general to come from here should probably look the other way. And who knows how it'll hold up against competing RPG or RPG-like games in late 2008? Only time will tell. But suffice it to say that despite flashes of brilliances, I'm not overly impressed by this game, and hate to see a franchise tag that once stood for being so different now applied to something that is so humdrum and potentially dull.
Oh, and as a Fallout fan...if it weren't too early in a simple chronological sense (it still being more than a year until release), I'd write this game off as a potential successor and just file it under spin-off, patiently awaiting to see how badly it damages to setting. But I'll leave comments on this topic to my colleague, SuAside.
SuAside:
Impressions of the unimpressed
If I try to be perfectly objective about the subject, there is no doubt in my mind that this game will be a success on the mainstream market. It has everything it needs for such success: nice graphics (which I'm sure will improve in the coming year), a setting that easily sets it apart (one of Fallout's great strengths), acceptable gameplay though without real novelties (unlike Bethesda likes to claim), Bethesda's broad fanbase (of mostly Oblivion fanboys) and excellent contacts with the mainstream gaming press (aka the hype machine). But even when looking at it from a totally objective point of view, I cannot see how this 45 minute demonstration won Bethesda so many E3 awards. It looks like an average fun mainstream actionRPG game which really doesn't offer anything special with the exception of the Fallout setting. Which is fine on its own, but surely that isn't enough to deserve so many awards?
As what today is considered an "Internet Curmudgeon with a Heart of Radioactive Gold", a "fan whose ideas are retarded by 8 years" or even a "Glittering Gem of Hatred", I can't help but see my (and NMA's) expectations about the game being confirmed. It looks as if someone peripherally interested in the Fallout games took a few core elements that they liked and made a game out of it without really respecting the old game, deeply researching what made the old games tick or even trying to please the old but still very alive fanbase. It is as if they took some Fallout flavour and sprinkled it over what "they do best". I wouldn't go as far as saying it is Oblivion with Guns, but it certainly isn't what we'd like call a true Fallout sequel.
It is rather ironic that Bethesda didn't want to name the game differently. I think the old fanbase might have reacted considerably differently if Bethesda had chosen to name it something else, like "Fallout: The East Coast (part 1)", and had promoted it as a kind of freeroaming actionRPG game inside Bethesda's take on the Fallout universe. This might actually have worked, and I do believe it would have received far more support from the community. However, if you insist on making a sequel to a game series that is welknown for its opinionated fanbase, you'd better make sure you deeply research what made the series work in the first place, before simply removing core elements of both the gameplay and the setting.
Is there still hope of a Fallout 3 true to the series and original development mindset? I sincerely doubt it. However, regardless of the mess made by Bethesda by making this game aimed at the oblivious mainstream, maybe some good can come of this... Both the Oblivion and Fallout communities house very skilled modders and perhaps if those two meet on equal ground there might be hope for a few moments of Fallout bliss. Could these communities create a hors-serie freeroaming 'Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines'-like game in a universe true to the Fallout lore? Time will tell...
In short, it will likely be an interesting game for the average gamer who has little to no knowledge of the Fallout games, but for the run-of-the-mill Fallout fan I doubt the experience will be anywhere close to the originals or even worthwhile at all for some. What is certain, is that -while this game might be fun for a short while, as it looks now- it will not create the cult-like following that has set apart Fallout for so long.
The unbearable lightness of seeing
It is kind of hard to make a final judgement based on a demo, when every time you ask for specific it turns out the demo isn't representative of the game. Since I covered most facts above, I'll now go more with the feeling I got from it.
Fallout 3 looks like a well-produced, very pretty, very fun game that'll provide quite a few people with a lot of hours of enjoyment. However, I don't think it's anything more than a very pretty and fun game.
This game is missing a key ingredient: guts, daring, innovation. I'm not even referring to the kind of guts Tim Cain noted when he explained turn-based combat was doing something different in a time of real-time and pause-based combat (ref), though I guess they miss those kind of guts too. I'm talking about the very basic ingredients of an independent vision.
The only times this game really shines is when it is copying from the originals directly. The moments of inspiration outside of that are rare, limited to a few jokes and the Protectron's excellent design.
But what does that mean? Pretty much that we're looking at a pretty bland, uninspired game here, and that people expecting the next big break-through in RPGs or gaming in general to come from here should probably look the other way. And who knows how it'll hold up against competing RPG or RPG-like games in late 2008? Only time will tell. But suffice it to say that despite flashes of brilliances, I'm not overly impressed by this game, and hate to see a franchise tag that once stood for being so different now applied to something that is so humdrum and potentially dull.
Oh, and as a Fallout fan...if it weren't too early in a simple chronological sense (it still being more than a year until release), I'd write this game off as a potential successor and just file it under spin-off, patiently awaiting to see how badly it damages to setting. But I'll leave comments on this topic to my colleague, SuAside.
SuAside:
Impressions of the unimpressed
If I try to be perfectly objective about the subject, there is no doubt in my mind that this game will be a success on the mainstream market. It has everything it needs for such success: nice graphics (which I'm sure will improve in the coming year), a setting that easily sets it apart (one of Fallout's great strengths), acceptable gameplay though without real novelties (unlike Bethesda likes to claim), Bethesda's broad fanbase (of mostly Oblivion fanboys) and excellent contacts with the mainstream gaming press (aka the hype machine). But even when looking at it from a totally objective point of view, I cannot see how this 45 minute demonstration won Bethesda so many E3 awards. It looks like an average fun mainstream actionRPG game which really doesn't offer anything special with the exception of the Fallout setting. Which is fine on its own, but surely that isn't enough to deserve so many awards?
As what today is considered an "Internet Curmudgeon with a Heart of Radioactive Gold", a "fan whose ideas are retarded by 8 years" or even a "Glittering Gem of Hatred", I can't help but see my (and NMA's) expectations about the game being confirmed. It looks as if someone peripherally interested in the Fallout games took a few core elements that they liked and made a game out of it without really respecting the old game, deeply researching what made the old games tick or even trying to please the old but still very alive fanbase. It is as if they took some Fallout flavour and sprinkled it over what "they do best". I wouldn't go as far as saying it is Oblivion with Guns, but it certainly isn't what we'd like call a true Fallout sequel.
It is rather ironic that Bethesda didn't want to name the game differently. I think the old fanbase might have reacted considerably differently if Bethesda had chosen to name it something else, like "Fallout: The East Coast (part 1)", and had promoted it as a kind of freeroaming actionRPG game inside Bethesda's take on the Fallout universe. This might actually have worked, and I do believe it would have received far more support from the community. However, if you insist on making a sequel to a game series that is welknown for its opinionated fanbase, you'd better make sure you deeply research what made the series work in the first place, before simply removing core elements of both the gameplay and the setting.
Is there still hope of a Fallout 3 true to the series and original development mindset? I sincerely doubt it. However, regardless of the mess made by Bethesda by making this game aimed at the oblivious mainstream, maybe some good can come of this... Both the Oblivion and Fallout communities house very skilled modders and perhaps if those two meet on equal ground there might be hope for a few moments of Fallout bliss. Could these communities create a hors-serie freeroaming 'Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines'-like game in a universe true to the Fallout lore? Time will tell...
In short, it will likely be an interesting game for the average gamer who has little to no knowledge of the Fallout games, but for the run-of-the-mill Fallout fan I doubt the experience will be anywhere close to the originals or even worthwhile at all for some. What is certain, is that -while this game might be fun for a short while, as it looks now- it will not create the cult-like following that has set apart Fallout for so long.
)
I have songs that take of more memory than that. That is just hilarious. 
.
Comment