E3 2007: Fallout 3

Part of the intro movie for Bethesda's Fallout 3 made it out onto the net several weeks ago. Their presentation at E3 today revealed the rest. And yes, the entire thing was narrated by Ron Perlman, and yes, he said "War never changes" (the tagline from the original) at least twice.

After we watched the movie, Bethesda Executive Producer, Todd Howard, played through about 45 minutes of the game, revealing a number of weapons, demonstrating the various control schemes and making a lot of things go BOOM.

Permalink

From Wikipedia

"On December 8, 2003, in the midst of serious financial difficulties, Interplay laid off the entire Black Isle Studios staff."

That ended further development of Van Buren about three and half years ago.

So how much money did the author receive from Bethesda, anyway?

I must say this is an incredibly good PR piece.

It's got everything the "journalistic" status quo needs: the obligatory, recurring mantra that Fallout is outdated and needs to change; borderline sycophantic praise of Bethesda and no objective analysis whatsoever regarding the game's design; and the doublespeak and industry buzzwords topping, carefully sprinkled across it to trigger hype alarms in the minds of the more gullible. Grade A.

As an informative or accurate article, however, it manages to be even worse than the Escapist's last foray into Fallout. Is there a pattern here?

Hopefully not, although I have no doubt whatever I say on the matter will be dismissed as 'fanboy antics' by those who have made it their mission to be the standard bearers of Bethesda's company decisions until Fallout 3's release, even if they are hard pressed to explain why such a defense is necessary considering the support it gets from the press. To those about to ignore me, I salute you.

Much could be said about several deficiencies of the article, such as the vexing way in which the opinion that a new Fallout game styled after the originals "would be largely unplayable, and deeply disappointing" is suggested to be a fact no one can disagree with, when the reality, for those aware of the ebbs and flows of the internet, is dissent among many who are slowly realizing the level of changes Bethesda is performing on Fallout's critically acclaimed design. It also begs the question of why Fallout games are still selling, whether individually or through special version, in game stores and online sellers like Amazon.

Another perplexing point is how the author claims that "the game Van Buren was made almost ten years ago", apparently unaware of the fact Van Buren was still in development during 2003 - a mere four years ago until it was cancelled by Interplay after a string of poor management decisions, and was nowhere near a "game" status.

But if there is one blatantly unprofessional and unresearched - if not outright ignorant - segment that stands out, this would be it:

In Fallout, one always felt as if the world was what it was, and you would live or die without making much of a difference. War, after all, never changes. You could stomp out the bad guys if you wanted, but that would leave only a gaping hole, not rejuvenate the world.

It's ok to enjoy recent games. I don't particularly care if you believe that Fallout's design would somehow benefit from being styled after Bethesda's template for the latest iteration of the Elder Scrolls series. To each his own. But the above quote can only lead the more astute readers into thinking you have no idea what you're talking about.

If there was one thing that fans of Fallout remember, is how the player's actions had a definite impact in the virtual gameworld and how making a difference was the defining elements. Siding with the law or with a local hustler could spell success or doom for a town. Saving a nearby town from desert raiders made a difference on its future. Slaying innocents would have players finding wanted posters on several towns, the law on their backs and characters refusing to even talk to the character. Getting branded as a slaver effectively cut the player from accessing several quests. Taking too long to solve the mutant crisis in the first game would see several towns getting destroyed by the Mutant Army. By the end of either game, entire communities could be thriving or laying in ruins thanks to your actions or inactions, possibly even changing the surrounding landscapes.

How is that not making a difference, Russ?

You can't chalk this one up to nostalgia, rose-tinted glasses or whatever newfangled euphemism is used nowadays by those who claim thinking well of Fallout's gameplay is being stuck in the past, either. Anyone who goes back and plays the game can verify this. Unless "making a difference" suddenly has been given a new meaning and I didn't get the memo, there's something terribly wrong with your definition of the term.

After reading that paragraph, I can't help but feel you either have not played the original games and are making blanket statements in a poor attempt to convey knowledge of the subject matter, or are purposedly mitigating the virtues of the games in order to bolster Bethesda's reputation among the newer fans who never played the originals and therefore can't really attest to the factual accuracy of what you have written. Which one is it?

I suspect none of these will be addressed, much like The Escapist's last attempt at trying to fix crass mistakes when talking about Fallout. If that is the case, no skin off my back - all I wanted was to point out the severe misinformation concerning Fallout being spread in many recent articles, yours being no different. Even if only one person reads this small quip, it's one more person who will hopefully think twice about what has apparently come to be standard journalistic integrity.

AM.

The beauty of this is a giant community of Fallout fans are already starting to mobalize to counter the PR spin machines...

Go play FO1 and FO2 and discover what made these games so amazing and won't be in the Beth$oft FO3: Just some of the exciting features that you'll miss out on...

-Groin Shots
-Eye Shots
-Int (of your character) impcating your dialog options
-Sex, including traits and perks (Sex Appeal, Sexpert, Kama Sutra(sp?) master)

This has been replaced in FO 3 by:

-Toilet Drinking
-Nuke a City
-Shoot a Nuclear Car to nuke some ants
-The Fatman Nuke-a-pult

I see all Fallout trolls have crawled out of the woodwork again....

You mention "improved Radiant AI" in the article. So, Bethesda has improved the AI over that of Oblivion? 'Cause Oblivion's AI was pretty good at drawing attention to its flaws. But I can live with the same AI if the NPCs don't look like they did in Oblivion. It seems that the reason every video game character is attractive is because all the ugly ones were exiled to Cyrodiil. But I digress.

I can't say for sure without trying it whether a Bethesda-style Fallout would work, but reading the various reports of it I can say that my main concern has been assuaged: they seem to have gotten the tone of the writing down quite well.

Fixed the misplaced 2072 reference. Good catch Brother None. The war (according to Bethesda) was in 2072. Fallout 3 is set two hundred years after that.

Bongo,

Bethesda has improved both the technology and, I quote, "our use of it." Apparently giving the AI characters in Oblivion something to do and someplace to be wasn't exciting enough. So for Fallout 3 they've tweaked the system so that those "things" and "places" are more often in view of the player, and not simply "people rushing to be somewhere else."

It sounds great in theory, but so did radiant A.I. when I first heard about it, so we'll have to see how it pans out in the final. What I saw, however, was exquisite.

Oh my god... The war was in 2077 for Christ's sake... And surely Silent Storm (2005) is largely unplayable and its top notch turn based combat, or Neverwinter Nights 2 (2006) and its topdown unplayable camera...

Fallout is unplayable huh? Well, Baldur's Gate is unplayable, not Fallout... You know why? Because baldur's gate's gameplay style has been largely worked upon and has largely evolved over the year. Fallout's hasn't. Sadly.

And yet another sad uninspired PR bought say-nothing pre-"view" of Fallout 3: A Post Role-Playing Nuclear Game... -_- I feel bad for quoting The Escapist sometimes you know?

From Starcraft 2 preview: "In fairness, though, it's a sequel, and sequels shouldn't turn a franchise on its head."

Well, I didn't really want to insult you guys, I really didn't want... -_- This is sad, very sad... What the hell, I mean, what?! Here you say you don't like Fallout (the first game) and that's ok because the new game has nothing to do with the old except for the world, and then you say you love the first games of starcraft series and that's ok because StarCraft 2 is a faithful sequel.

:EDIT:

"Really, Blizzard's too smart to try to fix what isn't broken, and StarCraft was anything but a broken game. So hey, if you liked StarCraft, you'll probably like StarCraft 2. Which means I'll have another permanent resident on my hard drive in the near future."

Sigh... -_- Don't get me wrong, Joe Blancato did a nice preview, but you, Russ, you didn't.

You, sir, need to do some research before writing such article.
Not only this article is unprofessional but it's salted with PR juice all over it.

Russ Pitts:
Fixed the misplaced 2072 reference.

For the sake of accuracy doublecheck what you have on the Van Buren date. It was only 3 and a half years ago.

It's been a decade since the original Fallout was released, and so much has changed about gaming, and games, that a new Fallout made like the originals would be largely unplayable, and deeply disappointing.

I have absolutely no idea how you reached this conclusion. How exactly would a game made like the original be largely unplayable and deeply disappointing? Your not one of those gamers that prefers graphics over gameplay, are you? Would you care to elaborate?

Wow, when did you guys make the jump to a satrical rag? This is some seriously good shit. Onion quality, but far more subtle in execution. Can we expect to see more parody of the PR waste that permeates the gaming media? This could be a hilarious reinvention of The Escapist to rival the hilarious reinvention of Fallout 3. I say run with it.

Bongo Bill:
I see all Fallout trolls have crawled out of the woodwork again....

All I see is people calling attention to Russ's lies. If stating objective truth is considered trolling nowadays, then I would happily wear the troll label as a badge of honor.

Also, Morbus, thanks for pointing out how hopelessly archaic and outdated Starcraft II is. Now I know better than to spend my disposable income on a game that is evidently unplayable and disappointing.

Bongo Bill:
I can't say for sure without trying it whether a Bethesda-style Fallout would work, but reading the various reports of it I can say that my main concern has been assuaged: they seem to have gotten the tone of the writing down quite well.

Agreed. I've been following it fairly closely since I "researched" (played, though not to completion) the Fallout games for my article on player alignment models a while back. Previously the only Black Isle title I'd gotten to play was the exemplary Planescape: Torment. In any event, I was initially skeptical that Bethesda would be able to live up to Black Isle's excellent atmosphere and dialogue, but what I've seen so far has convinced me that at a minimum they're going to really make a go of it.

However, it's already clear that nothing will satisfy the Fallout fanatics.

Ratty:
Also, Morbus, thanks for pointing out how hopelessly archaic and outdated Starcraft II is. Now I know better than to spend my disposable income on a game that is evidently unplayable and disappointing.

I'm not sure you understood my tone there... I think you are being ironic? If so, yes, no problem, always doing my best for the community: StarCraft 2 is unplayable because it's the same game from 10 years ago. [/sarcasm]

Brother None:
Seriously, is this the standard mode of reacting to criticism? "You're being critical of our articles, you're a troll!"

We said that?

On the plus side, it looks like our tech team has done a marvelous job making it easy for new members to register for forum accounts. Thank you, team tech, and welcome, once again, to our friends from NMA.

I also have to add (and I can't believe I forgot to put this in the article) that having seen the Van Burn tech demo over at NMA, and having now seen Bethesda's Fallout 3, I have no doubt whatsoever that Bethesda's will (or would have been) the finer game.

Russ Pitts, could you please answer my question.

Sponsor The Escapist, and you bring your message to an influential audience of opinion-makers, industry insiders, developers, hardcore gamers and entertainment enthusiasts.

Link

Wow, seriously? My message is something along the lines of "Bethesda are completely incompetent when it comes to game design, and place no value on any of the aspects that make Fallout great."

What's a ballpark figure for the "sponsorship" you guys would ask for to get that message out? I'm being deadly serious here.

I hope Bethesda did pay you for supporting their marketing department, otherwise this article wasn't very profitable for the escapist. You have Buck, the admin of Gamebanshee, calling this article ridiculous, the whole NMA justifably pointing their fingers at you, the codex telling everybody like it is: A truly idiotic Fallout 3 article - read it your own risk. Plus there are all those who liked your site and thought that the last Fallout article was just a single misstep. I was one of those and it's obvious to me that this is what I can expect from the escapist now. The industry gained another PR henchman and lost an objective observer. The escapist gained the trust of thousands of fanboys, but lost the respect of perhaps just as many interested readers. Touchdown.

PS:
I'm no Fallout fanatic. Just liked your articles.

psycojester:
How about you go back and finish the games and the comment?

Who's that for?

Russ Pitts:
On the plus side, it looks like our tech team has done a marvelous job making it easy for new members to register for forum accounts. Thank you, team tech, and welcome, once again, to our friends from NMA.

I was here already.

And yes, this is a huge let down... Oh boy...

Sites like No Mutants Allowed or the Codex aren't useful samples of community outcry, thanks to the public perception they have gained (or earned, depending on where you're coming from). As such, I doubt anyone over at the Escapist will lose any sleep over their concerns, even if anyone with an education should know ad hominems aren't proper counter arguments.

What it really comes down to is that the article takes the usually agreed upon contract between reader and writer that a personal stance on a particular topic is commonplace, sets fire on it and leaves it in a package at our doorstep. It's a shrewd move - an opinion piece is obviously centered on the writer's own perceptions of something, therefore claiming it to be somehow wrong or misleading would mean you were being unfair to the nature of such a piece. Ergo, anyone complaining about can only be a Fallout fanatic or troll, since everyone else accepts it just fine! God bless the little children, for they are the lambs of PR and make for tasty snacks.

You still have to admire anyone who can firmly claim that technology at the time of Fallout's development didn't allow the creation of "living, breathing worlds" when Fallout, Ultima VII and Bethesda's own Daggerfall are often celebrated for achieving just that.

Fortunately, not everyone has blinders.

Automatic Meat:
Sites like No Mutants Allowed or the Codex aren't useful samples of community outcry

Ahah, of course not. They are niche. Just like fanbases such as Fallout's aren't useful samples of gaming community. They are niche fanbases.

Automatic Meat:
As such, I doubt anyone over at the Escapist will lose any sleep over their concerns, even if anyone with an education should know ad hominems aren't proper counter arguments.

It doesn't really matter, as you say.

Automatic Meat:
It's a shrewd move - an opinion piece is obviously centered on the writer's own perceptions of something, therefore claiming it to be somehow wrong or misleading would mean you were being unfair to the nature of such a piece.

Then it is my opinion that Oblivion is a Real Time Strategy game released in 2010 by GameCo bullet Inc, and plays like Tomb Raider and is the best rally simulator in existence. You can't say I'm wrong because that's my opinion.

Yeah, it's important to distinguish opinions from FACTS, and the article has quite a few errors and mistakes. That's what people are complaining about.

Automatic Meat:
Ergo, anyone complaining about can only be a Fallout fanatic or troll, since everyone else accepts it just fine! God bless the little children, for they are the lambs of PR and make for tasty snacks.

No really, I believe it's quite the opposite. The other side is the one that should be blamed as Fallout never really made into what Fallout Tactics is so people are happy about it and some do not complain. At least not now that there is so much fuss about game rating and all...

Speak about troll huh?

Automatic Meat:
You still have to admire anyone who can firmly claim that technology at the time of Fallout's development didn't allow the creation of "living, breathing worlds" when Fallout, Ultima VII and Bethesda's own Daggerfall are often celebrated for achieving just that.

Again, even though I agree with you, I don't think that was the point. The point is that the article says fallout had no consequences... Huh... like... humm... erm... I don't know, like, you know... Fallout and all... huh...

Gentlemen, here's the deal. Point out errors of fact. Disagree, even vehemently, with an opinion. But don't confuse fact with opinion, and don't confuse disagreement with dishonesty.

Suggesting that Russ is a "liar" and "fucking corporate PR monkey" who lacks "integrity" because he personally likes Bethesda's take on Fallout confuses fact with opinion, and confuses disagreement with honesty. As such, it's just an ad hominem attack.

One can disagree vehemently and express disappointment with another's writing in a clear and reasoned way - Automatic Meat did so, for which I applaud him. I appreciate that he feels passionate enough about Fallout to write up where he's coming from and why he's upset.

So here's two simple rules for this thread going forward: (a) Understand the difference between fact and opinion, and argue accordingly; (b) Don't engage in ad hominem attacks.

Now that I've laid out the above, please continue the conversation accordingly. Anyone who can play by these rules is welcome to post here, whether or not you think Russ is totally wrong and whether or not you think Bethesda is ruining everything.

But anyone who disagrees with or can't play by the rules above should find another forum. There are plenty of forums on the internet that welcome ad hominem attacks and conflation of fact and value. This isn't one of them.

Thanks.

What's a ballpark figure for the "sponsorship" you guys would ask for to get that message out? I'm being deadly serious here.

We've never run negative ads before, but it works in politics - why not in gaming? You can purchase a skyscraper, medium rectangle, or leaderboard for about $3-$6 per thousand views. One of the large interstitial ads costs $2,000 per issue. Advertisements can't be defamatory (in the legal sense), illegal, pornographic, or obscene. We also don't accept ads for illicit gold farming / cheats / exploits / virtual property traders. Contact advertising@escapistmag.com if you're genuinely interested.

Morbus:
Speak about troll huh?

Now there's something Bethesda should invest in: giant sarcasm compass arrows. I know there's a market there.