in my eyes oblivion was a really good game but will fall out 3 be too much like it. so far it look like they have just changed the skin of the game and replaced swords with guns and trolls with mutants anyways post your opinion on it

Low content posts FTW right?

PC Gamer UK have a preview article in their latest issue. One of the points they stress early is that it doesn't play like Oblivion. They give the example of the town of Megaton, so called because it has an unexploded nuke at it's centre.

Any guesses about what you can do with the nuke?

That's right, you can detonate it, wiping out the town.

Imagine the same thing in Oblivion:

Uriel Septim: You, I've seen yo...
You: Shut it old man! *stab*
Guards: OMFG! You stabbed the Emperor!

(Yes, I know that little exchange wasn't relevant, but I like it so much after I'd typed it that I decided to keep it)

now that does sound pretty good but in the demo it looked like it played a little like oblivion but im not sure as i havent played it you have me plotting now it would be awesome if you could hold the town at ransom unless u get loads of moneyu will blow the nuke mwhahaha

They seem to have the same font style in the conversations. And the Graphics do seem to be 2 years better and Fallout-y.

well naturally you would expect the graphics to be loads better than oblivon but thats what i mean will the comversations be the same like when your talking to someone it seems almost as if their robots even though im sure u will be able to talk to robots on fallout 3

For me the problem is they have taken the soul of Fallout,As it is really a time less masterpiece that really as much as I wanted a third didn't need one. It is like making Citizen Kane 2: The remake. Could you? Yes would it be the same? No.

I'm expecting an all new game,

it's like Nelcypher said, It's likely to have a whole lot more freedom as far as storyline goes than oblivion did. although he said it a whole lot funnier than I did

There was a quote awhile back from Bethesda where they said, When people ask me if Fallout 3 will be Oblivion with guns, I say, "In all the best ways."

Take that as you will. My attitude towards Bethesda products is best described as "cautious", nowadays. Being able to detonate a nuke is one thing, but can you finish the entire game without ever killing anyone?

- J

Well, Oblivion was set in your generic fantasy setting, complete with swords and plate armor. Fallout 3, however will be in a unique twist on the post-apocalyptic setting established by movies similar to Road Warrior, and includes it's own set of weapons like a nuke launcher or the 'Rock-it Launcher' that shoots anything from stuffed animals to lunchboxes. Also, the choice of gameplay between Shooter or RPG is a different approach in my opinion.

shatnershaman:
They seem to have the same font style in the conversations. And the Graphics do seem to be 2 years better and Fallout-y.

This is either subtle sarcasm or cautious optimism. Neither is acceptable. This is the InterNet. Every response to a question about Fallout 3 must be fueled by either an eternal hate of Oblivion or raving fanboyism.

With that out of the way, I think the game will feel like Fallout but play more like Oblivion. The only request I have is that Bethesda does not create a console game, then edit the line of code that says "run on this system:" replacing "Xbox" with "PC" and call it a multi-platform game. Because then I will be very sad and destroy them.

I don't know if it's going to be Oblivion 2, but so far I'm not impressed. The shooting doesn't look very interesting, and I would have preferred a turn-based and isometric game.

PCZONE a UK game magazing had 5 hours with the game and said the dialogue and voice acting was much MUCH better than Oblivion. Which would could mean its good or just, well, much better than Oblivion.

i spose you could but would you really want to go through the game without killing someone i mean look at that vault-assisted-targeting now that looks awesome in this months issue of 360 they say that it does feel similar to oblivion just more pruned and polished also it sounds like it has alot of freedom for example you can find a rocket launcher but with no ammo usless right ? nope not in fallout 3 you can fire anything that fits in the barrel just imagine firing a barrel full of trout at a mutant

poleboy:

shatnershaman:
They seem to have the same font style in the conversations. And the Graphics do seem to be 2 years better and Fallout-y.

This is either subtle sarcasm or cautious optimism. Neither is acceptable. This is the InterNet. Every response to a question about Fallout 3 must be fueled by either an eternal hate of Oblivion or raving fanboyism.

Well if its the "Internet" then where is the l337 and swears in your post.

Its subtle sarcasm by the way.

I don't think it will be to much like Oblivion, I'm sure it would have similarities, but I bet they want to change a lot of stuff

jamie5166:
i spose you could but would you really want to go through the game without killing someone i mean look at that vault-assisted-targeting now that looks awesome in this months issue of 360 they say that it does feel similar to oblivion just more pruned and polished also it sounds like it has alot of freedom for example you can find a rocket launcher but with no ammo usless right ? nope not in fallout 3 you can fire anything that fits in the barrel just imagine firing a barrel full of trout at a mutant

You're missing the point. Fallout games have, in the past, been about being able to do pretty much anything you wanted. You could literally finish the entire game in Fallout 2 while never once directly killing anyone.

Try that shit in an Elder Scrolls title. Bethesda hasn't, in the past, been all that good at coming up with non-combat solutions to problems. This worries me because I don't want Fallout 3 to turn into a game where the solution to every quest is "Kill everyone", with maybe a few side quests where you're not allowed to be seen so you do the "I duck and am now completely invisible" move, and the "free choice" really boils down to "You can kill people who aren't attacking you if you want (but it's a really bad idea)".

But, again, I'm just cautious. Bethesda has both impressed and let me down in the past. I think this franchise may be bigger than they can handle, but I'm willing to see what they do with it before making any broad claims.

- J

My prediction is that while the game is in first person and the gameplay might be similar to Oblivion, the general atmosphere will be so vastly different that it won't be that noticeable.

In other words: No.

Moonraker:
PCZONE a UK game magazing had 5 hours with the game and said the dialogue and voice acting was much MUCH better than Oblivion. Which would could mean its good or just, well, much better than Oblivion.

Well whats does that really mean? Like really.. Better than just Oblivion? That's not really hard. The dialogue and voice acting in Fallout 1 and 2 are some of the best or the best (one could argue) in the whole gaming industry.

I think they're gonna have to do a lot better than just better than Oblivion to get on the same level as the previous 2 games.

your in a world full of anrgy mutants who isnt going to be attacking you just like in oblivion i went out for a walk in the woods to find a shrine when a whole family of goblins attacked me of course i slaugtered them all but the point is i think bethesda will incorperate this into fallout 3 i dont want to constantly want to fight but the solution to that is get yourself a mini gun and blast the ulgy son's of bitches to hell

jamie5166:
your in a world full of anrgy mutants who isnt going to be attacking you just like in oblivion i went out for a walk in the woods to find a shrine when a whole family of goblins attacked me of course i slaugtered them all but the point is i think bethesda will incorperate this into fallout 3 i dont want to constantly want to fight but the solution to that is get yourself a mini gun and blast the ulgy son's of bitches to hell

Again, I think you may have missed the point.

My hope for Fallout 3 is that there will be several different ways to accomplish any given objective you come across. If you have to raid an installation, you should have more choices than killing everyone or sneaking through. What if I'm a diplomat and I want to talk them into letting me in and giving me what I need, only to betray them. What if I want to kidnap their leader and tie him to a bomb, then walk through their base waving a detonator, telling them to get back? What if I want to hack their security systems and have base security take care of the opposition for me? What if I just put poison in their water supply and come back in a week?

Fallout, in the past, gave us options like these. My hope is that Bethesda will do the same. My fear, however, is that it will be like Oblivion, and we'll be back to the choices of kill everyone or stealth it.

- J

we share a dream

and i wasnt replying to your post i was just making another point

Ah. Apologies then.

- J

The thing I worry most about Fallout 3 is the humor. Fallout 1 & 2 were satirical gold. I fear that Bethesda will try but miss the mark the way a blind kid misses the broad side of a barn.

I don't really care about the new perspective and real time combat, that's perfectly fine. What does bug me is the storytelling ability of Bethesda as opposed to Interplay. Try comparing Fallout and Oblivion strictly in storytelling.

PS. Unkillable characters are in the game.

The Admiral:
The thing I worry most about Fallout 3 is the humor. Fallout 1 & 2 were satirical gold. I fear that Bethesda will try but miss the mark the way a blind kid misses the broad side of a barn.

Well, if it's anything like the PA comics they are using to promote it then it's good enough for me.

I can't really judge the game til I tried it for myself. Tried Oblivion and didn't like it, yet I love the 2 Fallouts, so I would say I'm optimistic yet cautios.

GenHellspawn:
Unkillable characters are in the game.

Strike one.

- J

tiredinnuendo:
Ah. Apologies then.

- J

no problem

apparently skills have alot less to do with gunplay than originally intended....wtf i say...wtf!

Boris2k:
apparently skills have alot less to do with gunplay than originally intended....wtf i say...wtf!

i agree it would be awesome if you could hone your accuracy skills so much that you can hit a mutant in the eye from a mile away now that would be cool

I most certainly hope it has a more involving story...
Playing oblivion I was mostly busy getting side quests done than the main quest. I found the story shallow. and it's characters boring, save from the king of the shivering isles.
I always liked the gritty fallout style (I never played them but I wasn't into RPG back then).
But I somehow have fate in Bathesda. because dispite it's flaws Oblivion was one hell of great game.
So we'll see I guess just as always.

jamie5166:

Boris2k:
apparently skills have alot less to do with gunplay than originally intended....wtf i say...wtf!

i agree it would be awesome if you could hone your accuracy skills so much that you can hit a mutant in the eye from a mile away now that would be cool

As in, if u point at him and shoot, u hit! no matter how crap your small guns skill is. i believe they only apply in the V.A.T.S Combat :( so its just an FPS! they should have kept it alot like stalker!

they should listen to what us the gamers want to play and make the game around that

I really don't see how being able to finish the game without killing anyone at all and being unable to kill certain people can be used together as reasons the game is bad. You want to be able to kill anyone but not have to kill anyone?

In either case, they have addressed both of these points in various interviews and Q&A sessions. Bethesda has stated that they put as many redundant ways to finish quests as they could and still retain the structure of the quest in order to minimize the number of essential characters. Compared to Oblivion, there's hardly any. And they mentioned that there are very few characters you have to kill, so you can get through with killing a tiny number of people if you are really that dedicated. Even better, at the time of that interview, the guy being interviewed said something about how they were looking into seeing if even that could be changed, but I don't really have high hopes for it.

sounds good

mikekearn:
I really don't see how being able to finish the game without killing anyone at all and being unable to kill certain people can be used together as reasons the game is bad. You want to be able to kill anyone but not have to kill anyone?

I think you may have missed my point. I'm definitely going to be killing people, at least on my first few plays through. The questions I was posing was more to get you thinking about how much free choice you'll really have. Bethesda hasn't always done the greatest job in the regard. So to answer your question, yes. I want a game where I don't have to kill anyone, but I also want a game where I can kill anyone I want to. Most importantly, I want at least four different ways to accomplish most any task.

Making people unkillable takes options away from me, which goes against what I felt Fallout was for, thus "Strike one."

- J