I wish that I had good things to say about Fallout 3, I really want to like it, and, hell, deep down I actually do like a lot of what I see....but....well, frankly, I just plain feel betrayed and insulted by Bethesda. It's like at every turn they've gone out of their way to say to me that all the things that I hold the most dear from the first two Fallouts are old fashioned and not fun.
Now, to be honest I may not be any fun, and I'm certifiably old fashioned, but I know what I like, and I can tell the difference between what is innovative and what is merely crass pandering. Turn based tactical games are not everyone's cup of tea, sure, I get that, but just because everyone and their cousin is making FPS' or TPS' (third person shooters), it hardly means that is the only viable or fun choice. Look, I really enjoy the FPS genre...I even have enjoyed the rare TPS...in point of fact, my favorite FPS games are those that blend in some RPG elements. However, that doesn't mean that I want every single game I play to feature bobbing weapons in the bottom right of the screen. Innovation does not mean cut-pasting every old franchise into the newest genre.
Ultimately I guess this isn't that big of a deal. I mean, certainly the big picture on this is that it's just a damn game. Why should I get so worked up about it then? Well, look at it this way; it's already taken, what, 10 years to get a sequel produced? Fallout 3 has the press and, annoyingly , the (misguided) dedication and creative force behind it to make it (and any sequels Bethesda makes) a success, and it's taken about 2 years to make. So what that means is that if (when) FO3 hits big we'll have to wait through at least another 2 years for a sequel, then another who knows how long for people to clamor for a true sequel. If, somehow, it flops, that would likely be worse...FO would become anathema, and it we'd likely see a new Planescape:Torment game before it reared it's head again. That's the worst thing about this whole debacle; not only is it not the game I want, the fact it is even being made means the game I want will never exist.
Feh. Well, at least I can look forward to the Wasteland remake (you know, with the wisecracking Ranger that breaks the fourth wall while mindlessly Contra-ing it up through hordes of enemies and being frowny face to people).
Now a quick list of REALLY annoying things that people who defend FO3 like to say:
1."It's too early to judge!" Just give me the go ahead when I can start judging the information I've been given about this game, ok? Thanks.
2. "Turn based combat isn't that important to what is Fallout" Sure, and pieces and a board aren't all that vital to chess, really. I can't wait for Bethesda's Chess 2, with a first person king running around whacking pawns with a scepter.
3. "Bethesda is shaking things up! Why do you want the same thing but in 3d?" This one is kinda cute, because they are essentially making a blessing out of raw change, as if to suggest that the absolute best game they could make would be the game that was as diametrically opposed to the original Fallout as possible. I say, please Bethesda, go make that game, now...and as a topper call it something other than fallout, so someone can make an evolutionary game from my favorite franchise, not burn it down.
|
Fromage's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
2. The combat system is obviously of more importance to you than it is to me. And I can respect that. For my bottle caps, Fallout has always been about the story, memorable characters and wry humor. So, frankly, I could give a shit less how the combat works so long as it can retain those elements.
3. Now you're just using hyperbole.
I'm worried about it too (hell, one look at my avatar should show where my gaming loyalties lie), but I'm just happy to know that I'm going to be getting something Fallout. It may not be perfect, but the time of turn-based isometric combat in RPGs is probably long gone and certainly would be viewed by any corporation (whose primary concern is maximizing revenue) as an archaic concept that will be appreciated by a minority of the modern gaming populace. Particularly when you have as revered an IP as Fallout is.
The VATS system looks to me like it's basically taken the AP requirement for movement out but kept much of the rest. So, I don't see the same distance between the two that you do, apart from the obvious perspective change. Time will tell. I'm going to pick it up and I may be disappointed. But, just as you refuse to buy into hype Bethesda is attempting to produce, I refuse to accept the anti-hype from the more rabid Fallout fanbase without seeing the product for myself.
An isometric view can be cool too you know, just look at diablo 3. And just like the cheese guy I like FPS but I also happen to like a few turnbased games like fallout 1 & 2 and HOMM games. A heroes of might and magic RTS would just SUCKK ASSSSS. The same goes for fallout (now an fps..)!
I mean, its ok they make this kind of game, but why does it have to be called fallout 3. Why not some sort of spin-off title. Because that simple 3 means that we'll never see some real fallout turnbased strategy again. It's like bethesda is doing it on purpose. I hate the fuckers working on F3. They make a mockery of fallout and claim the isometric view and turnbased element were just there because at that time they couldnt do any better. WRONG BETHESDA, you just dont have the skill to make anything deviant from fucking oblivion..
Seriously, don't be such a whiny fanboy.
I don't know which side I'm on yet.
The Fallout series has been raped twice already. Once by misguided developers (MicroForté, now dead) and once by absolute aberrations (Chuck, I'm looking at you). This time, it's being handled by politicians. They promise a lot, show very little, and when the game hits, it was all lies and te game sucks, but their t-shirts and pens are cute, so let's all give their work a 10.
What's more, it's not like Bethesda was the only hope for this game...Obsidian wanted it, Troika wanted it, but Bethesda snatched it up from under them. Would or could they have made the Fallout I want? I can't say for certain ...but I am certain that Bethesda is not even trying.
Here is a new one: Stop fucking complaining about a game that isn't released yet you fucking piece of shit son of a bitch.
Plus I try not to be so cruel as to suggest that people I disagree with would be so crude and pointlessly insulting over a game.
I doubt bethsda will ruin the franchise. ANd lets face the music here, if they were to sell a game just like the old fallout combat system nobody would buy it, and that whole idea would simply suck ass on a console...thats like putting diablo on consoles. No cusor, fuck that.
I don't see how your defense #3 isn't valid. We're talking about a 10 year old game that's using a dated system and has technically been made twice. Imagine if they hadn't made any Mario games since Super Mario World and revealed the new one to be the same game except in 3D. It would be a wasted opportunity. And like I mentioned elsewhere, this only works for games like Starcraft and Diablo because those games are all about combat and to dramatically change that would make them a completely different game. Fallout is about so much more than combat so it works to go the route Bethesda is going.
I'm getting really tired of these flame-bait Fallout 3 posts. Dude, please get a life or at the very least an avatar...
I can feel good, thinking "maybe this game will be great." And if it isn't good, then that's okay, it doesn't hurt the old ones that I still like.
Or I can feel bad, be grumpy, complain, whine, etc, because I don't think the game will be good. If the game *is* good after all, it'll be hard for me to notice, because that's how people's brains work. It's hard to get out of your groove. If it's bad, I'll be right, but who the hell cares? Not the internet. So all you succeed at doing is ruining what might be an okay game, and also making yourself feel bad.