For your bad post,heeres mine:No,just no.

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?

As The Escapist's resident NMA/DAC emissary, I must say that yes, I want to be able to play at both extremes. Being able to kill (almost) anyone, but not having to was present in Fallout.

I'm hoping for great things from Fallout 3. I mean really great things. However, I'm pessimistic. It pains me to be that way; I mean, I loved System Shock 2 and was satisfied with BioShock. But Fallout is different. Changes to the System Shock series from the first to the second were all positive, while the shift to BioShock was acceptable. Fallout, however, has suffered from spiritual sequels that haven't been able to capture that brilliance from the original Fallout, because of adaptation decay.

All I can hope is that Bethesda live up to their promises. I really, really hope that they can, with all the will that I can summon.

If there's not an option to make my way through the game without resorting to direct physical violence, I'm not sure if i'll have any interest in it. I mean... the idea of defeating the 'big baddie' with nothing more than a conversation and some evidence is BRILLIANT compared to the normal, 'it's bad it must die' style of gaming that's so pervasive these days.

i think that this has been a pretty sucessful topic cosidering its my first

I was really hyped for this game until I played Oblivion :C

Right... I decided to re-watch some of the promotional videos. Bethesda definitly knows their corny Americana, which is very important. I have no doubt that the game will have a lot of hilarious moments like the previous ones. The birthday party and the greasers in the vault and the whole vault-tec commercial is spot on to the point of bringing tears of nostalgia to my eyes. (check this if you haven't seen it)
It does look a bit combat heavy though... which is the only part that still worries me. If they're going with their standard approach to quests where the only choice is kill or be killed, that will definitly dull the experience a bit. But I remain positive that Bethesda remembers that the original games were slightly niche and odd and that a lot of people are on edge because the Elder Scrolls company is messing around with their favorite brand.

I sure hope not. Oblivion was one of the few mistakes I ever made in buying a game. What I don't get in Fallout 3 is that freeze the game and shoot at a certain point on the enemy's body. What is to stop me from doing that throughout the whole game? Wouldn't that just make the game to easy? I can stop any enemy in time and aim for his most vulnerable spots? Hmmm!!! A flaw in gameplay maybe?

Just leave it be. We can speculate until the cows come home, but that isn't going to do anyone any good. Bethesda isn't going to change the game because someone on the internet doesn't like what their doing. People who are excited about it or planned to buy the game aren't going to be convinced otherwise, and people who cannot stand the design of the game because it's "Oblivion with gunz!" are not going to change their mind either.

So we can all go and do something more worthwhile now.

nilcypher:
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.

That's impossible. When a nuke touches the ground the warhead gets damaged. When a warhead gets damaged it's completely useless, and can never detonate again.
On topic, I think it looks like an FPS Oblivion aswell, and am I dissapointed in that.

jamie5166:
i think that this has been a pretty sucessful topic cosidering its my first

I'm not sure how much credit you can actually take for that...

nilcypher:

jamie5166:
i think that this has been a pretty sucessful topic cosidering its my first

I'm not sure how much credit you can actually take for that...

I'm going to say 7. He can take 7 credit.

- J

Look at the game deoms so far. Look at Oblivion and Fallout 1 or 2. Which one is it more like?

That's impossible. When a nuke touches the ground the warhead gets damaged. When a warhead gets damaged it's completely useless, and can never detonate again.

Depends on the type of warhead. The relatively unsophisticated gun-type warheads might still work with a bit of technical skill.

Hehe... oh man. This fan interview is pretty funny.

There are not scars or tattoos you can pick. But, there are beards. And not just any beards. We have them all. We have the most ridiculous list of beards in any game, ever. One of our artists went crazy with beards and didn't stop.

Well, that does it. I am now oficially buying Fallout 3, the game that loves beards :D

tiredinnuendo:

nilcypher:

jamie5166:
i think that this has been a pretty sucessful topic cosidering its my first

I'm not sure how much credit you can actually take for that...

I'm going to say 7. He can take 7 credit.

- J

hell yess 7 credit to me :D

Why are there people worried about this? Just because developer A made game 1, it doesn't mean A's next game will be like 2 in a different package. Why not wait for the game to come out and then decide!

[quote=[zonking great] post=9.69735.670845]Why are there people worried about this? Just because developer A made game 1, it doesn't mean A's next game will be like 2 in a different package. Why not wait for the game to come out and then decide![/quote]

we arent worried mate we are just discussing it

RAKtheUndead:

That's impossible. When a nuke touches the ground the warhead gets damaged. When a warhead gets damaged it's completely useless, and can never detonate again.

Depends on the type of warhead. The relatively unsophisticated gun-type warheads might still work with a bit of technical skill.

I think most do.

zonking great:
Why are there people worried about this? Just because developer A made game 1, it doesn't mean A's next game will be like 2 in a different package. Why not wait for the game to come out and then decide!

If you read the interviews with the developers, it's clear that they recycled a lot of the same mechanics and concepts from game 1 (being Oblivion) in game 2 (being Fallout 3). The most apparent ones being a reduced number of skills, real time combat, unkillable NPC's, radiant AI and fast travel. Knowing that, the phrase "Oblivion with guns" suddenly doesn't seem so far-fetched.

I still think it will be cool though. I didn't hate Oblivion. I was just expecting something else.

I didn't like Oblivion, but I did like Morrowind. I loved Fallout and I'm very dissapointed with some of their choices.

poleboy:

zonking great:
Why are there people worried about this? Just because developer A made game 1, it doesn't mean A's next game will be like 2 in a different package. Why not wait for the game to come out and then decide!

If you read the interviews with the developers, it's clear that they recycled a lot of the same mechanics and concepts from game 1 (being Oblivion) in game 2 (being Fallout 3). The most apparent ones being a reduced number of skills, real time combat, unkillable NPC's, radiant AI and fast travel. Knowing that, the phrase "Oblivion with guns" suddenly doesn't seem so far-fetched.

I still think it will be cool though. I didn't hate Oblivion. I was just expecting something
else.

HOO RAH

Oblivion lacked soul, which I think was the problem. All the characters where flat characetures and while there were thousands of missions to be completed, there was little incentive to as:

a) The missions themselves were very boring. There was no story "reward" as in snappy banter or a good joke, or an unexpected plot twist. The people all seemed incredibly dull.

b) While you gained experience and items, everyone in the world was levelled around you, raising them to an equal bar and negating any sense of empowerment that comes with other games.

c) Everything apart from combat was really not very well fleshed out. Sneaking was an exceptionally simple simulation with none of the finesse of system shock 2, deus ex, or thief, magic just seemed to be point and release and lock picking was a pretty crappy subgame. Also, the splitting of levels into "rooms" which had to be loaded between fairly ruined the sneaking experience, as you would just "appear" in the the next place.

The game looked incredible and there was certainly a lot to do, but it was all a little dull.

Fallout 3 should fix most of these problems.

From what I've seen of the dialogue screens there hasn't been any particularly snappy dialogue but they say they're taking the black humour of fallout into account and as stated above, they seem to have a good feel for post apocalyptic 1950s Americana. Also, someone over at RockPaperShotgun.com spent half an hour drinking out of a toilet bowl, and you certainly couldn't do that in oblivion.

The levelling has been removed, so there's definitely going to be a sense of progression and with the VATs system in place at least combat will be a lot more interesting, even if the other subsystems are a little bare boned. I'm currently playing fallout 2 and, to be honest, most of the other systems in it aren't particularly complex anyway. Things like sneaking are just clicking a button.

All in all, I'm really looking forward to it.

tiamat5:
I sure hope not. Oblivion was one of the few mistakes I ever made in buying a game. What I don't get in Fallout 3 is that freeze the game and shoot at a certain point on the enemy's body. What is to stop me from doing that throughout the whole game? Wouldn't that just make the game to easy? I can stop any enemy in time and aim for his most vulnerable spots? Hmmm!!! A flaw in gameplay maybe?

So I take it you never played the original games?

In response to others:

The biggest problem I had with Oblivion wasn't the similarity in many quests, the essential characters, or any other number of things people often complain about. I didn't much like the leveling of everyone around you, and I didn't not being able to target a specific body part (i.e. no body part specific damage). Fallout 3 has neither of these problems, and given that I loved the original games, and like basically everything else that they are carrying over from Oblivion, and have also liked what I've heard about the new stuff, that makes Fallout 3 an absolute must have on my list of games I want to buy.

Now, whether or not it lives up to the hype of varied missions, hilarious dialogue, and improved AI remains to be seen. Every person who's had hands on time with it for preview demonstrations seems to think it's fantastic, so that gives me good hopes.

Unfortunately, I think it's going to play quite similarly to Oblivion. Bethesda never had any intention of going isometric, and with the success Oblivion had, and continues to have, why not? They have the engine, a few tweaks, some updates, and viola! TES V: Fallout.

I don't necessarily blame them, as only the real diehards are going to cry foul, myself included, they'll make a killing and set themselves up nicely for Fallout 4.

And, as we all know, this is made for consoles, and top down RPGs and consoles just don't mix. However, I do wish they would have simply it the bullet and sacked up the way Blizzard did and did a top down RPG specifically for PCs, like Diablo will be. But, the almighty dollar rules the day, and if they did that they'd be missing out on probably 70% of the gaming market.

Fallout fans just have to understand that video games are a business. Just like I gave up on Lucas Arts Adventure games a long time ago, so it goes with the Fallout franchise.

fallout 3 will be much better than oblivion

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.

After watching the trailer for Fallout 3, I fear the same myself.

tiamat5:
I sure hope not. Oblivion was one of the few mistakes I ever made in buying a game. What I don't get in Fallout 3 is that freeze the game and shoot at a certain point on the enemy's body. What is to stop me from doing that throughout the whole game? Wouldn't that just make the game to easy? I can stop any enemy in time and aim for his most vulnerable spots? Hmmm!!! A flaw in gameplay maybe?

No, you get a specific amount of action points that regenerate over time. You spend action points going into VATS so you can't constantly spam it. Its risky too. Maybe you can find the weak spot but depending on how large it is, the chance of hitting it might be relatively small.

Too much like oblivion? You mean with bugs jumping out of the box and a million and a half key-combos to remember? I hope not.

No. Next question.

Umm... are people really saying you could finish the entire game of Fallout 2 without killing anything? Okay then tell me how to complete the Tyler's gang guarding the church quest without killing someone? How about the Rat god quest? The raiders attacking Vault City quest?

Well I guess if you meta-gamed the hell out of it, avoided any quest that ended in violence, ran away from every random encounter. You'd be breaking the game but then you'd still end up looking at Frank Horrigan and well...

Your point I guess is that Fallout contained a lot of quests that had diplomatic endings, more so then perhaps any RPG before it, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking that every quest had a non-violent solution. And don't complain if Fallout 3 has horror of horrors quests that can only be solved with violence. Would it be good if Bestheda added more diplomatic quest solutions then they usualy do? Of course it would but lets not hold them to an unreasonable standard.

Hell I wouldn't want every quest to end in non-violence because a really big thing thematically about Fallout and post-apocalyptic fiction in general is that humanity when pushed to desperation is a violent beast.

n01d34:

Your point I guess is that Fallout contained a lot of quests that had diplomatic endings, more so then perhaps any RPG before it, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking that every quest had a non-violent solution. And don't complain if Fallout 3 has horror of horrors quests that can only be solved with violence. Would it be good if Bestheda added more diplomatic quest solutions then they usualy do? Of course it would but lets not hold them to an unreasonable standard.

Very well put. I couldn't have said this any better.

n01d34: Indeed. I get extremely annoyed when someone complains about not being able to complete the game without killing anything, like it's all Bethesda's fault. You're right, in Fallout 2 there was no conceivable way of finishing the game if you didn't kill anything. Frank Horrigan wouldn't budge, even if your speech level, intelligence and charisma were high enough to persuade a nun to wrestle a bear.

I DO hope there's multiple ways for quests to be dealt with, and hope for a lot of quests to end with diplomatic conclusions; but we can only hope for the best.

Fallout is in the same basic genre as Oblivion, but otherwise, looks like it will be very good. Saying that Fallout is too much like Oblivion is like saying Halo is too much like Quake. They are both FPS games with a strong multiplayer aspect but otherwise, are pretty different.

no offense mister topic creator sir, but it's ridiculous to ask if this will feel like oblivion. the game is a first-person, role-playing-game. can you think of a different games series that was a first person rpg? bioshock doesn't count. oh wait, you could ask if this is might and magic with guns.

Ya know, they say it isn't like oblivion, but after seeing the videos, it STILL looks like oblivion, no matter how much they changed.

I'd be more comfortable if it was called like...Fallout: [some weird subtitle, like "tactics"] - I'd be less nitpicky.