I know that certain discussions have been had about this game, certain people pointed out and various "your idea sucks" threads have been made.

But a curious thing, I can find none of these things on these forums. Is fallout 3 a non-issue here? Or is everyone afraid that a Bethesda moderator is hiding here, waiting for you to have just typed the "3" to hit you with his ban stick?

But, regardless of these things, I wish to ask this: What do you think? Yes, you! As long as you type coherently enough and make a valid point, you've done nothing wrong. Express how you feel about Fallout 3, everyone!

Personally, I think the removal of dumb character conversation will greatly undermine the game, as well the lack of any real updates. Every skill still doesn't have equal usefulness in general. I mean, why can't a scientist or a sneak be as good in combat as a gunner?

And do not get me started on groin and eye shots. Damn you, Bethesda! Damn you!

I'm cynical about the whole thing, but I've done this rant too many times in too many forums to want to type the whole thing out again here. Let me just put it this way: Bethesda is great at making sandbox style games, no doubt about that, but what they lack is skill in writting creative and intelligent dialogue as well as the sharp wit and dark humour that Fallout had. And in my oppinion it's the dialogue and humour that made Fallout so great! I don't care about the perspective, first person is fine, Fallout never really used the isometric view that well anyway. New setting? Kinda wierd, but whatever, as long as the post-apocalyptic spirit is still there. New combat? Didn't much like the original Fallouts anyway. But take away the clever dialogue, the intriguing story that's more than simple good vs. evil, and the dark sense of humour and... well, it ain't Fallout! But hey, that's just me. Alls I know is that Oblivions dialogue was stiff as a board and barely passable, Morrowind was a bit better but still read more like a history textbook than any great dialogue. They've just never shown any real skill in that area, and I don't see how they'd suddenly change now.

Fallout 3 will without a doubt be a very fun game. The question is whether or not it'll be a fun 'Fallout' style game in anything but name. With any luck all my worries will prove for nothing and Fallout 3 will be fantastic, who knows, but untill the games released I'll continue to be cynical about Fallout 3.

Damn purists and their "in name only" bullshit.

I loved Fallout, I really liked fallout 2, I quite enjoyed Tactics. I also loved Daggerfall and Morrowind, and spend many an hour enjoying Oblivion. Need I add I'm pretty hopeful about this game?

It might turn out a disappointment. It might turn out a pretty good game. But if it's a pretty good game, why would it be a good "Fallout" game? Does attaching the "Fallout" game instantly mean the rating system is different? If it's a good game, and it's called "Fallout", it's a good Fallout game. That's a nifty thing called logic.

Also, Bethesda has the rights to the Fallout license. Despite all the claims of the rabid fanboys, Bethesda now gets to decide what's Fallout and what's not. Claiming Fallout 3 will not be a real Fallout game is as stupid as claiming Quake 3 is not a real Quake game.

On a different note: If I could make one addition to Fallout 3, I'd make them hire Tim Schafer and the guys from Old Man Murray.

Edit:
@The Madman: This post was not directed at you or your post. I've just been hanging out at the official Bethsoft forums for a while and got quite annoyed by some posts there. I also just cleared out some of my more explicit sayings in this post, I didn't mean to be so offensive.

Edit2:

Personally, I think the removal of dumb character conversation will greatly undermine the game, as well the lack of any real updates. Every skill still doesn't have equal usefulness in general. I mean, why can't a scientist or a sneak be as good in combat as a gunner?

As far as I remember, they haven't yet confirmed the removal of "dumb" dialogue. They have confirmed intelligence will take the backseat while your skills determine your dialogue. Having a science skill of 0 might very well make you say stupid stuff about science things.

I find it just logical that a scientist is less adept in gunning compared to a gunner. I'm a webdesigner, meaning I can't beat a mechanic in car maintainance.

*Lightbulb goes North*
*Lightbulb sees an old Hermit*
Hermit says, "Are you the hero of Kva... I mean Vault 28?"

FO3 is gonan be:

Pretty

FO3 is not gonna be:

Just like FO1 and 2

Seriously there is no point in getting excited about remakes. They will almost always be messed up and if not then you are pleasantly surprised. I have come to the conclusion that following game development closely only leads to disappointment. They are called SPOILERS for a reason. :)

There's also no point in being all pessimistic about a sequel (which is something different then a remake). It only makes you a bitter pessimist nobody likes. There's just no point in wanting a game being exactly like you imagined. That's the sure key to disappointment.

And I sincerely hope Fallout 3 will not be like 1 and 2. If I start the game, I want to be surprised. I don't want to see a rehash of the old ones, I want to see changes, innovation. That's why I liked part 2 less then part 1.

And what's with the entire "It's gonna be Oblivion"-thing? That was old six months ago, and even before that it wasn't funny or smart. I don't hear anyone mixing Starcraft 2 with World of Warcraft, so tell me, what's the point of those remarks?

Quistnix:
There's also no point in being all pessimistic about a sequel (which is something different then a remake). It only makes you a bitter pessimist nobody likes. There's just no point in wanting a game being exactly like you imagined. That's the sure key to disappointment.

And I sincerely hope Fallout 3 will not be like 1 and 2. If I start the game, I want to be surprised. I don't want to see a rehash of the old ones, I want to see changes, innovation. That's why I liked part 2 less then part 1.

And what's with the entire "It's gonna be Oblivion"-thing? That was old six months ago, and even before that it wasn't funny or smart. I don't hear anyone mixing Starcraft 2 with World of Warcraft, so tell me, what's the point of those remarks?

Actually, your remarks are starting to slide into fanboi territory. Maybe if you feel so strongly about Fallout 3 you should go back to the Bethesda forums and suck from their black tit some more.

There is plenty of reason for being pessimistic about sequels, they tend to suck. You don't like them rehashing old stuff, which is essentially what a sequel is, and yet you can see no reason for pessimism? A different developer is making the game this time, that doesn't cause you worry?

And it will be Oblivion with guns, mark my words. The analogy you draw doesn't make any sense so I won't bother. But people think it's going to be Oblivion because Bethesda is making it.

As a tangent, I went to the Fallout 3 site a few weeks ago. They had a contest for fans to make up perks. I was so embarrassed that the winner was from Montreal (where I'm from) and his perk doesn't even make sense. "Grim Reaper Sprint" is the best that could come up with? What does that mean? Was the Reaper known for his running prowess? It's clearly the work of someone whose first language isn't English. I think it's a poor sign of where things are headed.

Also quis, you liked tactics? fail.

I remember Master of Orion III coming out, and not liking it because it was a different game than the previous ones. I remember XCom Apocalypse coming out, and not liking it because it was a different game than the previous ones. I remember Grim Fandango coming out, and not liking it because it was a different game than all the point and click games I'd played before it.

People like stuff staying the same. It's not rational. People just adopt as theirs the first opinion on things that they're given and don't disagree with. It's very difficult to keep an open mind, people are creatures of habit: all anyone can do is try to encourage everyone to consider it open-mindedly.

And what's with the entire "It's gonna be Oblivion"-thing? That was old six months ago, and even before that it wasn't funny or smart. I don't hear anyone mixing Starcraft 2 with World of Warcraft, so tell me, what's the point of those remarks?

bad comparison. Blizzard have made good RTS and a successful MMORPG. Bethsoft is a company that made a series of sandbox games with bloom and soil erosion and not much else. Your analogy would work if a seperate company (say... Net Devil) got the rights to starcraft and started working on it.

Regardless, just because they own the rights, doesn't mean whatever they do makes it canon. Interplay owned the rights. The last two cash ins weren't considered canon by the fans (thankfully by Bethsoft also). An example of an ok game and a poor Fallout game would pretty much be Tactics. It was an OK game. It was a weak Fallout game.

But don't mistake me for someone who wants it to be exactly like Fallout 1 and 2. But I sure as hell don't want it to be anything like Oblivion.

I remember Master of Orion III coming out, and not liking it because it was a different game

Didn't have anything to do with MoO3 being... bad?

rawlight:

Quistnix:
There's also no point in being all pessimistic about a sequel (which is something different then a remake). It only makes you a bitter pessimist nobody likes. There's just no point in wanting a game being exactly like you imagined. That's the sure key to disappointment.

And I sincerely hope Fallout 3 will not be like 1 and 2. If I start the game, I want to be surprised. I don't want to see a rehash of the old ones, I want to see changes, innovation. That's why I liked part 2 less then part 1.

And what's with the entire "It's gonna be Oblivion"-thing? That was old six months ago, and even before that it wasn't funny or smart. I don't hear anyone mixing Starcraft 2 with World of Warcraft, so tell me, what's the point of those remarks?

Actually, your remarks are starting to slide into fanboi territory. Maybe if you feel so strongly about Fallout 3 you should go back to the Bethesda forums and suck from their black tit some more.

There is plenty of reason for being pessimistic about sequels, they tend to suck. You don't like them rehashing old stuff, which is essentially what a sequel is, and yet you can see no reason for pessimism? A different developer is making the game this time, that doesn't cause you worry?

And it will be Oblivion with guns, mark my words. The analogy you draw doesn't make any sense so I won't bother. But people think it's going to be Oblivion because Bethesda is making it.

As a tangent, I went to the Fallout 3 site a few weeks ago. They had a contest for fans to make up perks. I was so embarrassed that the winner was from Montreal (where I'm from) and his perk doesn't even make sense. "Grim Reaper Sprint" is the best that could come up with? What does that mean? Was the Reaper known for his running prowess? It's clearly the work of someone whose first language isn't English. I think it's a poor sign of where things are headed.

Also quis, you liked tactics? fail.

I'm not a Fanboi by far. Yes, I look forward to playing this game. It's been a while since i've seen any new Fallout stuff (My lack of console made sure I never tried BoS) and I enjoyed the Elder Scrolls games. But I'm not claiming this one will descend in a silver chariot to deliver us to the promised land. I don't expect this game to be as good as Fallout 1. I can honestly say there's some stuff going on I don't like. You mention the "You make the perk"-contest, and I agree that the winner sucks.

And yes, I liked Tactics. I loved Jagged Alliance 2, and happily try out anything that looks like it. Just like Silent Storm, Fallout Tactics was quite a nice game. I'm not saying it's great, but it delivered a solid, enjoyable experience. If this makes me "fail", that just proves you're shallow.

You say I'm sounding like a fanboy. I say I just try to keep an open mind, and judge each game by it's individual merits.

I loved Grim Fandango (and Gabriel Knight 3 and Broken Sword 3, for that matter), despite it being very different from its predecessors. I wasn't very happy with Deus Ex 2, because the changes didn't work out for the better.

The way I see it, Fallout 3 can go both ways. There's a lot of stuff that makes me happy, and a lot of stuff that makes me frown. But I remain optimistic, if only because being an optimist makes me a happier person.

I guess I'm the only person here who actually enjoyed Oblivion. Personally, I have no problem with Bethesda making Fallout 3, yes it will use the same engine of Oblivion, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

I enjoyed Oblivion, the game itself was brilliant... it just somewhat lacked depth. Now... morrowind, while the actual dialoge was somewhat lacking the amount of material in the game giving it depth was amazing.

The more I encounter fallout fans the more I think SomethingAwful was spot on about them...

I don't think there's much hope of Fallout 3 being as good as the original, and anyone who thinks it should be is quite delusional (let's face it, Fallout was an instant classic upon release, few other games can match up to it). However, in my eyes it's almost guaranteed to be a good game - post-apocalyptic RPG made by an experienced and respected studio. Yeah, it'll have flaws, but it will still have many of the same elements that made the first two games great, with a lot of new input from the makers of the great Morrowind and Daggerfall (and the slightly less great Oblivion, which was still a good game). Only if they do something colossaly stupid could they mess up a great combo like this. Of course, that possibility is always open...

Archaeology Hat: I'm curious, what did SA say about Fallout fans? I imagine something rude and funny - link would be welcome.

Quistnix:

I find it just logical that a scientist is less adept in gunning compared to a gunner. I'm a webdesigner, meaning I can't beat a mechanic in car maintainance.

I didn't mean like that. I meant, why can't each different class have it's own sub-options?

The sub-options being: Combat, non-combat.

Doctors jamming needles into people and using poison syringe firing devices. Scientists making things... like a doctor Eggman chair with a minigun on the bottom, sneaks snapping necks and outdoors men knifing people in the back.

Options is what I like in games, it's what I always liked... it's what I always will like about them.

I'm hopeful about Fallout 3. I like Bethesda. I'd only heard good things about the Elder Scrolls until Oblivion. I have been reassured by the interviews that say that the developers at Bethesda are all big fans (fanboys? I don't quite remember that clearly) of Fallout.

Booze Zombie:

Quistnix:

I find it just logical that a scientist is less adept in gunning compared to a gunner. I'm a webdesigner, meaning I can't beat a mechanic in car maintainance.

I didn't mean like that. I meant, why can't each different class have it's own sub-options?

The sub-options being: Combat, non-combat.

Doctors jamming needles into people and using poison syringe firing devices. Scientists making things... like a doctor Eggman chair with a minigun on the bottom, sneaks snapping necks and outdoors men knifing people in the back.

Options is what I like in games, it's what I always liked... it's what I always will like about them.

Unfortunately, I think that kind of unbridled imagination are forced to remain part of tabletop gaming because with infinite possibilities, you'll have to have infinite programming, instead of being able to react on the fly like a DM/Storyteller/GM.

Randomly, doctors running onto a battlefield with hypodermic needles seems kind of like having your brainiac melee. Just not the safest strategy.

Darren Grey:
.Archaeology Hat: I'm curious, what did SA say about Fallout fans? I imagine something rude and funny - link would be welcome.

The "No Mutants Allowed" Fallout Community forum made Something Awful's Worst Link of the Day:

"It's okay to be skeptical, but NMA takes it to a whole new level. Most of their comments ignored the ambiance of the Fallout 3 trailer and the fact that it was rendered in the actual game engine with real art assets, focusing instead (with a gleeful viciousness) on the only thing they could possibly criticize: a suit of power armor that was slightly different than it was in the first game.

Every miniscule detail of the suit itself was discussed off and on over the course of the next 23 pages, which also included a thoughtful debate as to whether Bethesda is evil or retarded. You can guess what the rest of the site is like."

This is my biggest Biff with Bethesda taking over. Oblivion was big and had alot of missions but you didn't have a choice of how it played out. Fallout was all about choice... "Do I kill Gizmo? You know what, how about Junktown just dies in general!"

I got bored one day and decided to break Oblivion... I made a new character and I killed everybody! I pretty much wiped out two towns before comeing after The Imperial City. After a good while of killing most gaurds I went off to jail, spent a little time there and noone seemed to care that I was the same serial killer that wiped hundreads of people. If you did that in Fallout, everyone will try and kill you. ou will be hated and no redemtion at all.

beoweasel:
I guess I'm the only person here who actually enjoyed Oblivion. Personally, I have no problem with Bethesda making Fallout 3, yes it will use the same engine of Oblivion, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

I'm fine with Fallout 3 using the Oblivion engine. However, the actual game was horribly bland (and even required me to format a HDD to get it off thanks to a corrupted uninstall file). Personally, it felt generic, boring and completely directionless with the only real choice you had was if you used a fireball or a sword to kill something. A non existant dialog system and minigames abound practically killed any requirement for character stats for security and made it more into reflexes and timing. I like my stats, and I also like my stats to actually be useful, and simply additions of minigames to undermine those skills is like telling someone that those skills are a waste of time and a waste of skill points. And don't get me started on level scaling...

But what does this have to do with Fallout? It's the past experiences with which you evaluate future productions, and this goes for practically anything in life (ie: resumes). It's like expecting Obsidian to use their NPC influence system in their next game, simply because they have done so for every one of their games in the past.

And please. Don't lump me in with those tards from NMA. I'm a proud lazy DACer. While NMA whine, we just tend to not give a shit at all. Hell, I liked the trailer. I just thought the rest of the information was pretty ordinary.

Archaeology Hat:
The more I encounter fallout fans the more I think SomethingAwful was spot on about them...

Fallout doesn't have fans so much as fanatics.

I am one of those freaks who would have been happy with an isometric, 2D rpg in the style of the first two games, but I don't automatically assume Bethesda = Oblivion in Fallout's clothing either.

I have a novel approach to the revival of one of my favorite franchises; wait and see how it plays before praising, or condemning it. In the meantime I'm cautiously optimistic.

PurpleRain:
This is my biggest Biff with Bethesda taking over. Oblivion was big and had alot of missions but you didn't have a choice of how it played out. Fallout was all about choice... "Do I kill Gizmo? You know what, how about Junktown just dies in general!"

I think perhaps you don't know enough about Bethseda then. Have you played Daggerfall? It allowed 4 very distinctly different endings (and not simple black or white endings either). Morrowind unfortunately didn't include this (though in the game it looks like they considered multiple endings) but it does allow several very different paths to the ending (one of which involves committing a disputably very evil act). On top of that were the various mutually exclusive quests and factions that unveiled different stories and politics etc, most of which were not plain good or evil.

Don't assume that Oblivion is everything about Bethseda, and that any game of theirs will follow its format. I'll admit none of their games have the same degree of choice and endings that Fallout did, but that doesn't mean they can't learn from Fallout and make a try of that themselves. They've already stated that for every quest/problem/etc in the game they're trying to make sure there are at least 2 different solutions. If they manage that then it means you can maybe get through the game without firing a single shot. Hopefully...

PurpleRain:
I got bored one day and decided to break Oblivion... I made a new character and I killed everybody! I pretty much wiped out two towns before comeing after The Imperial City. After a good while of killing most gaurds I went off to jail, spent a little time there and noone seemed to care that I was the same serial killer that wiped hundreads of people. If you did that in Fallout, everyone will try and kill you. ou will be hated and no redemtion at all.

Interesting... I've not tried that in Oblivion. In Morrowind there's a point of no return when killing people - normally about 4 kills in a row means you're eternally outcast and the guards will always attack you on sight. I really hope Fallout doesn't have any of the same universal guard/jail crap, and that if you commit an open crime against a certain faction then that faction will all be hostile to you (unless perhaps you then bribe their boss or something, and even then people won't like you much).

As yet there's no real indication that Fallout 3 will have any gameplay factors from Oblivion. On the other hand there's plenty of info out there on gameplay factors that are being lifted straight from the first Fallout games or heavily influenced by it. It will have thread based conversations, not the Elder Scrolls "topic" style. It will make use of some form of action point system, and so won't be a glorified FPS (hopefully). It'll have most of the stats, skills, perks and traits from the original game, which are nothing like Oblivion's system. And obviously it's going to have the same setting, with post-apocalyptic fun and blowing mutants heads off.

On the subject of the idiot Fallout fanboys, what makes me laugh is that most of them are probably going to go buy the game when it comes out, then spend forever whining about every little detail they don't like. These sort of people are unfortunately inevitable in any fanbase, but thankfully most of them grow up at some point, or at the very least stay out of the genepool...

Quistnix:

@The Madman: This post was not directed at you or your post. I've just been hanging out at the official Bethsoft forums for a while and got quite annoyed by some posts there. I also just cleared out some of my more explicit sayings in this post, I didn't mean to be so offensive.

No problem! Fallout fans tend to lean a weeeeeeeee bit towards the slightly nutter side of fanboyism sometimes, ie No Mutants Allowed.

I'm just cynical about the whole thing... can't help it, I reall can't! I really enjoyed Morrowind, Oblivion not so much, but morrowind was great, yet I still just can't muster any enthusiasm towards Bethesda's Fallout 3. It just doesn't sit right. It's not Bethesda's type of game I say.

Personally I'm of the oppinion Troika should have done Fallout 3. Sure their games were buggy as hell, but anyone who's played Vampire: Bloodlines or Arcanum can tell you they had a knack for great dialogue and dark humour. Plus alot of the Troika guys were the ones who made Fallout! Sadly, Troika is gone and Bethesda's got Fallout now and I'll always be going "Fallout 3 woulda been so much better if Troika had made it" regardless of how good Fallout 3 actually turns out.

I've kinda ruined it for myself really. Pity me!

Darren Grey:
Don't assume that Oblivion is everything about Bethseda, and that any game of theirs will follow its format. I'll admit none of their games have the same degree of choice and endings that Fallout did, but that doesn't mean they can't learn from Fallout and make a try of that themselves. They've already stated that for every quest/problem/etc in the game they're trying to make sure there are at least 2 different solutions. If they manage that then it means you can maybe get through the game without firing a single shot. Hopefully...

I've only played Oblivion. The others sound quite different so I wonder why they changed it to its linear path we see today.

I also remember playing one character in Fallout 1 that went through the whole game without killing one thing. Hard and not really worth it, but at the end of the day I can boast to all my non-existant friends.

people expecting it to be like Fallout 1/2 will be disappointed. i just don't think the market is there for a game like that (cuz you and i don't form a sizable market), and bethesda as a business should recognize this and act accordingly (hey, they have people's wages to pay). otherwise, there's no reason to doubt it'll be a fine game.

FavouredEnemy:
I remember Master of Orion III coming out, and not liking it because it was a different game than the previous ones. I remember XCom Apocalypse coming out, and not liking it because it was a different game than the previous ones.

I'm also a big fan of the X-COM series, but as different as Apocalypse was, it still was a good game and kept a lot of the original XCOM style, since it let you keep the time based combat. I figure the best way to look at a huge style change for XCOM would have been XCOM Alliance if it had been completed, for those that aren't familiar with it, it was going to be a FPS XCOM game with vision cams a lot like Tom Clancy's Advanced Warfighter. Too bad Microprose went under.

I'm not going to be quick to jump on the bandwagon against Bethesda, probably because I enjoyed Oblivion, as bland as it was. Since the dialogue being all messed with hasn't been confirmed I'll ignore that till it's proven, the first person perspective never bothered me, I think it could bring a new edge to Fallout. I'm trying to image this as the worst case scenario, it becomes The Elder Scrolls V: Fallout IV, so it should be fun with a bland storyline, Oblivion kept me entertained for about 60 hours, so if this can do the same then I'll complain when I realize how many hours of my life I've wasted on it. It better at least look really nice.

I think perhaps you don't know enough about Bethseda then. Have you played Daggerfall? It allowed 4 very distinctly different endings (and not simple black or white endings either). Morrowind unfortunately didn't include this (though in the game it looks like they considered multiple endings) but it does allow several very different paths to the ending (one of which involves committing a disputably very evil act). On top of that were the various mutually exclusive quests and factions that unveiled different stories and politics etc, most of which were not plain good or evil.

As yet there's no real indication that Fallout 3 will have any gameplay factors from Oblivion.

From what I understand of TES, it's been progressively "stream lined" and as such more of the little things (example: alternative endings in Daggerfall) are kicked to the way side for vaunted radiant AI, a pretty graphics engine and Mr Stewart doing a voice over. Also keep in mind that Daggerfall was over 10 years ago. Companies change, and the development team and it's principles (no matter what PR spin they add) also change. Hell, look at Interplay, between making Fallout and now it's turned from a premier development and publish house into some gimpy prick screwing his employees.

Mini games. Level scaling. And that's from someone who doesn't really care to follow the development that closely.

Sorry Quis, I was just trying to stir up trouble I don't really think you are a fanboi. Although I stand by what I said about tactics being full of fail.

I'm not one of those crazies from NMA but I'm pretty sure that Bethesda will turn Fallout into some crap FPS/rpg (note that FPS is in caps and rpg is not) that is playable on a console. This is what they did to their own series, so why not to Fallout? They also have bullet time or something like it in this game. It's all real-time, but you can use this bullet time to do aimed shots.

I'm going to play it, but I can smell another Bioshock coming...

rawlight:

I'm going to play it, but I can smell another Bioshock coming...

Uhhhhhhh...........what's wrong with Bioshock again?

Edit*

If this game is Bioshock in a more sandbox format- Best. Game. Ever.

Ranzel:

rawlight:

I'm going to play it, but I can smell another Bioshock coming...

Uhhhhhhh...........what's wrong with Bioshock again?

Edit*

If this game is Bioshock in a more sandbox format- Best. Game. Ever.

it was system shock 2, without the part where you die. every time.

I just doubt they can even get the skills to work properly in FPS, i mean, i dont think they will even get weapon skills right :S your aiming the gun at someone, how can it miss if your perfectly aiming it yourself... skills seem kind of illogical here.

Saltiness:
From what I understand of TES, it's been progressively "stream lined" and as such more of the little things (example: alternative endings in Daggerfall) are kicked to the way side for vaunted radiant AI, a pretty graphics engine and Mr Stewart doing a voice over. Also keep in mind that Daggerfall was over 10 years ago... Mini games. Level scaling. And that's from someone who doesn't really care to follow the development that closely.

That's a completely valid point, things do change. I don't always think it's a bad thing (maps with waypoints, level design that doesn't look like a 10 year-old's work, and better inventory management, for example), but I feel that Bethesda took the truffled foie gras of Daggerfall, and made it into a spicy chicken sandwich with Oblivion, all while wrecking the balance of the game. What I always really liked about the Fallout series was that if you were a clever little boy, you could beat both games barely firing your gun at all, Daggerfall less so, but it provided more options than just charge in, guns a-blazing. The side quests in Oblivion (especially the Mages Guild and Dark Brotherhood) retained some of this quality, but without a combat oriented character, the main quest was impossible to finish.

So I guess all of this sums up by saying this: if Bethesda keeps on its quest to streamline its games for console users, I think Fallout 3 will be "teh sux0rz." That's not to say I won't buy it, what substitute do I have? No console game is EVER going to ship with an instruction manual of more than 30 pages (and that's a stretch), so RPG's can't have 14 hojillion skills like in older PC and pen and paper games. While this makes games easier to play, it also makes greatly diminishes the variety of in-game challenges. If the only problem to solve comes in the form of "where can I find a bigger gun?" the game loses my interest. I think this can be solved with better balance and better writing. If the writers create problems with both violent and non-violent solutions, both the old school PC dorks and the console twitch players will be happy, but for this to work, the balance must allow both play styles to flourish.