Fallout 3 to be developed by Bethesda

Remove all ads!

It should be interesting, hopefully they do something completely idiotic like put it out primarily for console. IT IS NOT a console game, Fallout has been and I think always should be a computer game, you can't do all the proper motions with console. Ofcourse I'm something of an anti-console person, I have most of them, but I enjoy computer games far more. If they do not follow the (tried and proven) fallout formula, quite simply, they will be dealing with a bunch of angry and probably armed fans, heh. One thing all of you can do is to send them an e-mail exclaiming how you want this done, maybe they will listen, maybe not. One thing I found disturbing on that press release is what they said about Morrowind. "The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind® won every national and international award of note in 2002, including Game of the Year and RPG of the Year, and is one of the best-selling games ever released on XBOX." While this is true, it also makes me wonder whether they will be releasing it on Xbox before PC, which would almost immediately set the game back on gameplay. Though maybe they can avoid f*ck-ups like Deux-Ex 2, which was horribly ported over to PC. So, everyone, e-mail Bethesda your ideas and opinions, the least it will do is annoy them.

[ July 13, 2004, 23:44: Message edited by: Moo in techni-color ]

 

Frankly I don't see why they can't just use the Fallout: Tactics engine. It was brilliant, adding control over NPCs, vehicles, greater tactical decisions (not just fire, hide behind corner so enemy can't see you for his turn, come out, fire, hide behind corner so enemy can't see you for his turn... etc.) and more nifty graphics.

I'm not saying make Fallout 3 another 'Fallout: Tactics' but 'use' the engine, then modify it for a more RPG oriented game. Should be fairly easy, they are game designers after all.

 

That is a very good idea, if they used the better engine it would provide better game play. All they would have to do is modify it slightly for the more RPG style game, avoiding the mission-based styling. One thing I will be hoping for is better working physics engine; while it is fun sometimes to walk through walls and deathclaws, it gets a bit annoying when you get shot by someone through three walls. I really hope they deal with all the breaks somehow as well, Fallout had so many errors it wasn't funny; And ofcourse they never fixed them.

[ July 13, 2004, 23:44: Message edited by: Moo in techni-color ]

 

What Abomination said. Look what happened to Arcanum's engine with TToEE.

Still, now after reading that interview I really am becoming sceptical about this. It's not that I don't believe they could make a fairly good Falloutish game. Just that Falloutish is not the same as Fallout.

Explanation: With the person primarily responsible of Fallout 3 being the same as with Morrowind, and with their admittance of sticking to what they do best (and the constant reminders of how well Morrowind was received), there's a lot reason to believe Fallout 3 will in fact be Morrowind in a Fallout setting. And while that might not result in a bad game, it sure as heck won't be Fallout.

I for one do not like 1:st person games. What I hated in Morrowind was its extremely shallow emotional roleplayingvalue. Basically it felt like reading a history novel while doing boring dungeon bashing. Fallout on the other hand needs a far more personal atmosphere.

As I've said before, isometric view serves the purpose of showing the character IN the world, making the world seem more alive. 3:rd person view has a bit of the same but it makes you as a player more attached to the character than the world. 1:st person on the other hand removes the character completely as you can't even see them, their clothes and expressions, how they react when damaged etc. It seems as if your character was some fictional being that doesn't really exist. And I hate that feeling.

Here's a list of what I find essential to be in there for the game to be Fallout:

- Map. It can't be a world where you can just walk the whole distance (too much trouble, costing something more important), or "teleport" from one set place to another. It has to be the same style where you have certain areas with certain borders, and when you enter a border you get into a map from where you will select your next location. That location can be anywhere, even in the middle of nowhere, for it gives a sense of freedom.

- Random encounters. Essential in the map.

- Followers etc, loads of much more involved dialogue than in Morrowind. The character must be a part of the world. All of the flirts and intelligent banter etc must be in there. This also includes NOT taking the Morrowind keyword system. It's annoying and does not suit the Fallout style. Multiple choice, as it was before.

- If not isometric, the game still must NOT be like Morrowind. It must then be a more consolish behind-the-shoulder type of view. Preferrably with an option to zoom and scroll about with the camera so you can distance yourself from your character and look at the wider picture.

- Definitely no scaling levels or linearity/limitation in strength level of items based on your advancement in plot. Like in Fallout 2, you must be able to have control over the game so that if you know what you are doing, you can in fact go fetch that powerarmour quite early on. Note, this is an option, not an assumption.

- Take the balance lightly. Let there be a few weapons better than others, armour better than others, feats and skills better than others. What that made in Fallout 1 & 2 was that everything was different, not just a different version of the same. While this might seem obvious, it certainly isn't considering the problems many modern games have had with this.

- And finally, only because at the moment I remember nothing else, is this: Make the game for a mature audience. Morrowind certainly wasn't for kids, so I have high hopes for this one. However, there must be violence, swearing, drugs, sex, betrayal, lies, death, etc. I don't want it to be a splatter. Just make it realistic and fun the way it was in Fallout 2.

- Oh and as an extra note. Bloody Mess must be in. And please, don't gank away gifted either. It was a very helpful trait in Fallout 1 & 2. Even if not balanced, remember what I said about balance. For it is the player's own choice wether to make his game a little easier or not.

- And one more thing about the dialogue. Make it look like social interaction. Not just "you speak and I read" (Morrowind style). Make it actual social interaction. Just like in Fallouts.

Ok, that was it. For now. Considering the length of this, I probably should've mailed this to Bethesda instead of posting it here.

Edit:
@ Moo in techni-color:

Aye, I probably will as soon as I get my mail working (which must be done soon anyway) and verify the right address.

 

Good, now are you going to send that to Bethesda? I have sent them an E-mail, I don't know if it will have any effect, but it is worth a try. Your list would probably get their attention far better then my simple E-mail. So will you, or have you already sent it?

 

I think one BIG map gives more sense of freedom than a 1000 little ones can.

 

I suppose, but that is not the play style of Fallout either. You can change it, but with a great game like Fallout, you have to be really careful not to ruin it. The huge maps would be really difficult to use in 3rd person as well, consider walking, and walking, and walking, and walking, probably for even longer then in Morrowind, and you walk ALOT in that game. I'd rather just have the 'semi-auto' journey, you can still control almost exactly where you go, but there are set areas where things actually happen. Minus the random encounters ofcourse.

 

The map should stay as it was, grey wastelands with green circles presenting cities and encounters.

In fact I certainly want the pipboy including the interface to remain those cool green writing style. Nothing is more fulfilling to see in green writing:

Raider was critcally hit in the groin for 58 hit points, that had to hurt even if she is woman!

Nothing beats that

 

Apeman - the people at RPGCodex are diehards. There is no compromising with them.

Which is, IMO, a good thing, because I fully agree with their demands.

Seriously, if Bethesda do this in first person Morrowind style, they're crazy. Suicidal, even. The die-hards would spread the word in such a negative way that well ... see FOoS for details.

And the map for FO was perfect. Shows the 'travelling the empty wasteland' thing. Big empty spaces rather than the instant teleport of say - BG.

 

I agree Aikanaro but if you read some of their posts on the morrowind boards. They are already making vague accusations, and saying I will never buy this game stuff like that, a bit presumptious I would say. But then again someone must say to wake up Bethsoft and make sure they won't make a first person morrowind with guns.

I found an interview on Gamespot BTW, the beginning looks promising but on the end I fear for Fallout3

Mixed Feelings.

Bloody mess is in, but I always thought that one of the least appealing perks out there. Not one of the role playing choices in my opinion and it raises serious doubts with me as to how well those producers *KNOW* fallout.

Get ready to laugh or to cry!

[ July 14, 2004, 11:43: Message edited by: Apeman ]

 

That interview essentially says that they don't know what they're doing - and have no plans at all, with no idea how they're going to implement their goals...

Not what I would call promising or useful in the slightest

 

I might be a bit biased, due of BG2, that it might be better to aim for a regular 2D game and timeless graphics. That would ensure there will be enough detail in the sounds and gameplay when they do not need to concentrate on the graphics engine (try coding one and you'll know what I mean).

Oh, well; I'm sure they will aim it for the younger audience and make a kiddy-kiddy game with shooting teddy-bears and farting kings.

 

Well I say again. I believe these people can and will make a good game. But I'm unsure as to wether they'll stick to what Fallout really is.

And I certainly disagree with "the platform is 100 percent irrelevant" part. It is a huge amount of extra trouble to design a game so it fits both PC and a console. There's not much difference between other consoles, but just the screen and the target audience make a big difference with PC in the equation. Fallout was clearly PC player oriented, you can't say the same about Morrowind even if that was PC:ish as well.

So does this mean what it usually means? "We have already decided to change all of this but it wouldn't be wise to say it yet because the fans might get scared away"?

While there is a point there, it sounds dangerously much like ignoring what Fallout is, and what it means to the fans. And instead just making an own version of Fallout. While some innovations are of course required, they have to be very careful to remain true to what Fallout really is, including the fans.


@ Apeman:

Bloody mess being in is a very good sign of "how well those producers *KNOW* fallout". The fact that bloody mess is useless is exactly the point. It's there for fun. One of the most marvelous examples of the humour that made Fallout so great.

@ Morgoth:

Fallout's map is an essential part of the game. Seeing yourself in a "satellite picture" wandering around while time passes by is crucial in that it really makes you realise the huge distances between the different locations and makes the game more immersive. And content-wise, there's no point in allowing the player to walk or drive all the way when the average journey would take from a few days to weeks anyway. Many good games (Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy, X-COM: Ufo Defense (I think of that as roleplaying gamish)) use the "one big map, hundreds of smaller playgrounds" idea. Even then, the pipboy + map is Fallout, no doubt about it.

 

No no a real fallout player recognizes that with a nice shot with any weapon to the eye you have a 80% chance to get the same bloody effect. Why would anybody want to experience that effect at every lousy shot they make, it gets tedious very quick.

Now 'gifted' is one of those traits that must be included just for the reason that it is unbalancing which makes fallout fallout, you want the best armor in the game after 10 minutes playing? Fallout is the way to go.

Actually Bethsoft should be the frightened one in that case

 

Bear in mind that there are many players who prefer the mental gains to the material ones. It takes some time to get the the eyeshots reliable, and even then I'd wager it was far less than 80% probability that you made enough damage over 0 hitpoints to cause the gory death.

I don't think I've played Fallout 2 more than once or twice with bloody mess (having played tens of times, that's little). But I do find it somewhat amusing, and I've a friend who thinks of it as a must every time. To him the fact that he of all the people in the game is the only one to make everyone pop and splurt when dying, adds hardcore roleplaying value to his character.

But you are quite right about gifted. That's exactly one of the things that should NOT be balanced out. Like bloody mess and so many other things, it allows for true control and ability to the player to decide their own way. Damn the "fans" who whine about that trait being 'overpowered'. Who ever forced them to pick it?

 

Spotted this at NMA and sadly (or gloriously) it's dead on

 

It cannot be stressed enough.

Atmosphere, atmosphere, atmosphere, atmosphere.

 

A come on, shouldn't we give them a chance. I mean nothing is clear about the game yet and you have already given up hope. I'll wait to i hear some more and see some screens before I make my Judgement.

 

Give a chance?

They practically admitted that every major characteristic of Fallout will be changed or not implemented at all.
- turn-based/not likely
- isometric view/they admitted that they are no good at it
- special/will require some tweaking
For Pete’s sake how anyone can stay optimistic. And when I hear the too early to say I’m too terrified to draw my own conclusions

 

Oh I'm gonna give it a chance alright. But it's better to say your fears and thoughts and wishes out straight at this point, when the game is still in pre-production so to say.

But from the looks of it, they are indeed going to make a Fallowind, not a Fallout. Now since my opinion doesn't count anywhere anyway, I don't need to pretend I won't buy the product. Undoubtedly it will be a good game and the dialogues will be worth it unlike in Morrowind. And we need more good games. I just feel regret over that the legend that is Fallout is thusly abused only to create a new game with similar ideas and a very nice sound to it in terms of marketing.

Whatever the developers say, the fans are right about quite a few things there. Namely, Fallout MUST be turn-based or at least quasi-realtime (yes, I say it can work this way too, note CAN, didn't say it will). The view must NOT be first-person. Although there are a few examples in my social circle to prove otherwise, I believe first-person and isometric view are not normally compatible in the minds of players. I believe the people who liked Fallout in fact prefer isometric view in such a gametype.

I didn't spot anything about modifying SPECIAL. But I'd like to point out anyway that SPECIAL needs very few modifications. It worked nearly perfectly. Only thing it needs is more features such as extra perks, traits, perhaps abilities, and above all what it needs is that they include these abilities in the game so that they are all useful enough to be used.