True, unless the devs figure out a way to force the player to make the choice as soon as they enter Megaton.

Hopefully Bethesda learned its lesson from Oblivion, which didn't have any mutually exclusive quests (that I'm aware of) and let the player do every quest in one play-through. Of course, Morrowind suffered from much the same problem (excluding the "House" quests), so if they haven't learn that lesson already, chances are they won't.

Still, Fallout 3 might be an improvement on Oblivion. Regardless, I enjoyed Oblivion enough to make it well worth the purchase (it just doesn't have any replay value for me), so I can't complain too much. I'm sure Fallout 3 will be worth the money, which is one of the biggest compliments games can get nowadays.

This comment was edited on Sep 5, 09:37.

99% of players will do all of the other quests in Megaton, then blow it up, then get access to the new area, thus missing out on nothing and rendering the choice meaningless.

True, unless the devs figure out a way to force the player to make the choice as soon as they enter Megaton.

There might also be long-term repercussions for blowing up Megaton aside from the quests lost in that area.


This comment was edited on Sep 4, 17:23.

If you do the quest, you blow up the town and lose all the potential quests therein. If you don't do the quest, the town survives but you don't get access to a new area with new quests. That, to me, is a meaningful choice.

And it's also stupid design. 99% of players will do all of the other quests in Megaton, then blow it up, then get access to the new area, thus missing out on nothing and rendering the choice meaningless.

If developers were to make games that catered to the hardcore gamer, they wouldn't make nearly as much money.

And that's a problem? Do games really need to be treated as commodities that exist only to provide a return to shareholders? The hardcore gaming market hasn't gone anywhere. If publishers found greater satisfaction in a product well-made than in the bottom line, there is still enough of a hardcore market for them to sell to and still make a modest profit. Gaming didn't have to go mass-market the way it has. The industry wouldn't be worth as much, but much better games would be being made. Which would you rather have Jerryk, a great game or richer shareholders? The fact that you defend Bethesdas decision to pursue profit ahead of quality makes me wonder.
This comment was edited on Sep 4, 17:26.

Could it turn out differently in the final game? Sure, I hold the possibility entirely open. But maybe if we did invade Iran it could turn out well, but that doesn't mean it is at all likely.

I'm not sure if invading Iran is really comparable to Bethesda developing Fallout 3. Invading any country inevitably leads to death, suffering and mass destruction. Bethesda developing Fallout 3 doesn't necessarily mean that the game will be a piece of crap.

We can make all the educated guesses we want but until we actually play the final game, those guesses are fairly worthless.

Likewise, Bethesda has not in the past done a good job of allowing player choice, the Megaton quest seems to be just a matter of choosing whether or not to do it, and as a result we can predict that player choice will probably not be as prevalent in Fallout 3 as in it's predecessors.

Except that's just one quest. In a game of many, many quests. In addition, from what I've read, your choices in the quest have far-reaching repercussions. If you do the quest, you blow up the town and lose all the potential quests therein. If you don't do the quest, the town survives but you don't get access to a new area with new quests. That, to me, is a meaningful choice.

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 17:08.

Why should we as consumers give a crap about about companies that place their net return on investment far above quality of product?

We don't. Unfortunately, the mainstream audience is not quite as discerning as the average Bluesnews reader. They have low standards and want instant satisfaction, leading developers to make simplistic, shallow games with minimal learning curve. If developers were to make games that catered to the hardcore gamer, they wouldn't make nearly as much money.

Except you miss the point: Combat is not the focus of an RPG.

I didn't say that combat is the focus of an RPG, I said it's the focus of previous Bethesda games and looks to be no different in Fallout 3. Hence, Fallout 3 primarily being a console shooter.

However, you can't really judge these things based on a 45 minute press demo. You need to play the full game.

No but we can get a sense of things, compare that with past experiences and draw conclusions from there. What your arguing is tantamount to "Well, how can you know that if we invade Iran things will go badly? The only way we can know is if we actually do it." One doesn't need to invade Iran to predict that such an invasion would be a very poor choice with very negative results. Likewise, one doesn't need to play Fallout 3 to be able to make an educated guess about what it will be like. Bethesda had not had very good writers in the past, and the writing in the demo is poor, hence we can predict that writing will not be Fallout 3's strongpoint. Likewise, Bethesda has not in the past done a good job of allowing player choice, the Megaton quest seems to be just a matter of choosing whether or not to do it, and as a result we can predict that player choice will probably not be as prevalent in Fallout 3 as in it's predecessors. Could it turn out differently in the final game? Sure, I hold the possibility entirely open. But maybe if we did invade Iran it could turn out well, but that doesn't mean it is at all likely.

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 15:41.

Because Bethesda wants the game sell as well, if not better, than Oblivion? Game development is a business and developers want to make as much money as they can, even if they have to compromise a game's quality to do so.

Really? No kidding? I always thought game developers wanted to make great games. That is what they all say in interviews. How deceitful.

Aren't you assuming that compromising quality will sell better?

The question was not about making money which is a given. It is about where making money falls on the spectrum of priorities. Why should we as consumers give a crap about about companies that place their net return on investment far above quality of product?

Edit: Bethesda is free to make whatever choices they want. We'll just have to see how it plays out. I think that there will be more complaints before this is over though. After all, the brand value comes from the customers caring, not from anything they did. I am actually still hopeful.

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 15:28.

Why couldn't it be (particularly with the drastically better tools and productivity of today) be a lower funded game just for Fallout fans? Why does it have to appeal to everyone or sell far more than the originals?

Because Bethesda wants the game sell as well, if not better, than Oblivion? Game development is a business and developers want to make as much money as they can, even if they have to compromise a game's quality to do so.

Frankly the name change idea was a very good one in this context. It implies a rebirth rather than continuation, which clearly this isn't even if they do get it right.

Except it really doesn't matter what it's called. As I've mentioned in a previous topic, they could call this Fallout 3 or Fallout: Revenge of the Supermutants. It'll still be the same game. Should Fallout fans expect Fallout 3 to be like the previous two games? Not if they have any sense. No publisher is going to give AAA fundong to a turn-based, isometric, PC-exclusive RPG. It just isn't going to happen.

One of the problems I think many Fallout fans have, is with the general assumption by others that a sequel needs AAA funding. Why couldn't a sequel be, particularly with the drastically better tools and productivity of today, a lower funded game just for Fallout fans? Why does it have to appeal to everyone or sell far more than the originals?

Fact is a game like the originals (and I mean just similar production values, not necessarily way bigger) would probably cost the same or less today and sell better. It might not be a megahit sales-wise compared to console games, etc., but the whole point is it doesn't have to be. The only thing that is more expensive is the labor costs assuming you are using experienced guys (and gals :)) to do it. Everything else has declined in cost especially in dollar/time.

PS> Also, I notice that lots of people assume that game publishers have the right to pursue profit at the expense of all else, but then turn around and deny consumers the right to withhold support for such companies (or complain about consumers doing so). Why do people always defend publishers? If publishers do their jobs well they will be rewarded by the market. If they don't, they won't. That doesn't mean gamers lose all rights to voice what they want.

Obviously big game publishers seem to want to model the big movie companies where everything has to be AAA and therefore appeal to the masses or the sales won't allow the recoup of such a huge investment. This is what happens as game publishers get bigger and bigger and accounting, finance, and marketing guys take over. (and the result of trying to maintain huge staffing levels, which the movies abandoned long ago)

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 14:26.

Are you arguing that profit is a justifiable reason to make a dumbed down product?

It's justification if you're running a business. As a player, I'd much rather have good, complex games but I'm not shocked when developers take the route of most profit.

Combat will play like a first person shooter, most Bethesda games have lots of combat and Fallout 3 thus far looks to be no different, so it is not unreasonable to call the game a first person shooter.

Except you miss the point: Combat is not the focus of an RPG. An RPG focuses on meaningful choice. What factions the player aligns themselves, what kind of characters they play as, what quests they complete, how they complete these quests, etc. Whether or not combat is real-time, turn-based, first-person, isometric, etc, is completely irrelevant. As long as the game offers a wealth of meaningful choices in terms of roleplaying, it is an RPG. Now, if Fallout 3 doesn't have any meaningful choices and does indeed revolve around shooting, then yes, it will be an FPS.

And we all know how good Bethesda has been at executing that in all of their other games.

I agree that Oblivion was pretty sparse on high-level choices. Most quests were very linear and you couldn't choose to align yourself with the necromancers, Blackwood Company, etc. However, you can't really judge these things based on a 45 minute press demo. You need to play the full game.

I thought 2K published Oblivion..?

2K Games did some of the marketing. It was a relationship similar to the relationship between id and Activision. Activision's name is on the box, and they market the title, but id funds the title and has complete authorial control. The point is that Bethesda, like id, is not beholden to the wishes of a publisher.

Regardless, Bethesda obviously believed that a turn-based, isometric cRPG would not sell as well as a first-person, real-time console RPG. Sales charts would not prove them wrong.

Are you arguing that profit is a justifiable reason to make a dumbed down product? I don't care how much money they make, Michael Bay films are a blight on American cinema. Likewise with the EA-model videogame. Its not as if Bethesda's Fallout 3 was the only way that a Fallout 3 could be profitable. Traditional RPGs and the franchise still have enough appeal to make a tidy, if not enormous, profit. NWN2 is the prime example, it didn't sell anywhere near as well as Oblivion but it made enough of a profit to justify an expansion pack and routine, high quality patches and updates. The point is that Bethesda valued profit above a quality product, and I don't see how that is remotely laudable.

still think it's a bit premature to call Fallout 3 an FPS. An FPS is an action game. A game that focuses on and revolves around action and more specifically, shooting.

First Person Shooter are action games, I agree. The action revolves principally around placing your cross hairs on a target and clicking until its dead. This is how combat is handled in Fallout 3. The only changes are that your damage and accuracy are character-skill determined and that you can have a recharging special targetted attack that you pause the game to execute. Combat will play like a first person shooter, most Bethesda games have lots of combat and Fallout 3 thus far looks to be no different, so it is not unreasonable to call the game a first person shooter.

An RPG is a game that focuses and revolves around meaningful high and low level choice.

And we all know how good Bethesda has been at executing that in all of their other games. Couple this with the "stellar" writing we've seen in the press demo, and it's looking increasingly likely that fans of Fallout 1 and 2 and CRPGs in general need not apply for Bethesda's outing.

2. Bethesda fully funds and publishes all of its own titles.

I thought 2K published Oblivion..? Regardless, Bethesda obviously believed that a turn-based, isometric cRPG would not sell as well as a first-person, real-time console RPG. Sales charts would not prove them wrong.

The community is upset with Bethesda not because Bethesda made changes, that was expected, but because Bethesda has thrown the baby out with the bathwater and made a console first-person shooter.

I still think it's a bit premature to call Fallout 3 an FPS. An FPS is an action game. A game that focuses on and revolves around action and more specifically, shooting. An RPG is a game that focuses and revolves around meaningful high and low level choice. Given that nobody has even played the press demo, letalone the full game, I don't think anyone is qualified to determine just what genre Fallout 3 belongs to.

A couple of points:

1. There is a perception out there that Fallout 1 and 2 did not make any money. That is false. I don't have the sales figures handy, but both games made enough money to be considered financial successes. The franchise would not have persisted the way it has had Fallout 1 and 2 merely broken even like Planescape: Torment. The decade long wait for Fallout 3 is attributable to Black Isle mismanaging it's product development (Torn anyone?), legal issues at Interplay (losing the D&D license which screwed up Black Isle's development schedule) and finally Interplay's death, not the supposed financial failure of Fallout 1 and 2.

2. Bethesda fully funds and publishes all of its own titles. The arguments about getting the green light from a publisher are all well and good so long as we are talking about a developer dependent on outside funding, Bethesda is not. Had Bethesda decided that creating a Fallout sequel faithful to the originals was worth merely breaking even, they could have chosen to do so. They could have chosen not to go for AAA production values [i.e. hiring an oscar winning (read: much more expensive) actor to voice a character] to ensure that they didn't have to sell a million copies just to make a profit. Bethesda, by virtue of being independent and self-funded, was completely free to set whatever financial goal they wanted for Fallout 3 and to develop the game accordingly. They chose to make a Fallout 3 that will be most profitable but will have least to do with its predecessors. In other words, Bethesda chose greed. They certainly can do whatever the hell they want, I just wish they didn't have to destroy what was left of the franchise, the franchise that got me hooked on PC gaming to begin with.

3. Finally, there is a perception that Fallout fans would only have been happy if the game was a-2D, tilebased, isometric, turn-based, stat-heavy game that included the ability to play a child-killing, drug-using, transvestite prostitute. There are certainly individuals within the Fallout community that feel that way but there are also individuals out there who believe the world is flat. I think if you were to look at the Fallout community as whole, you would find that they would not only accept a 3D game, but also expect one. With regards to perspective significant "concessions" would be happily made there as well. Look at how NWN2 handles the camera, it can be played from a third-person perspective like WoW or a free-roaming isometric camera just like Baldur's Gate, and everything in between. A 3D engine frees you up in that respect, and a system where by you can explore in 3rd person WoW style and fight in isometric BG style would've been gladly accepted by most of the community. I could go on but the point is that the Fallout community is not the arch-conservative it is made out to be. Rather, changes and improvements around a very successful core design were not only acceptable but also desired. The community is upset with Bethesda not because Bethesda made changes, that was expected, but because Bethesda has thrown the baby out with the bathwater and made a console first-person shooter.

Bestselling game the last couple of years/ever? The Sims, an isometric game with rpg elements.

The Sims is not a turn-based, isometric, stats-heavy cRPG. It is a daily life simulator and if you've looked at statistics, you'll notice that most buyers are female.

Comparing the Sims to Fallout is about as far off as you can get.

Puzzlerrs, simulations (of any type) and rythm games sell more than FPS'.

Really? I haven't seen too many flight sims or space sims on the top 10 charts, except for MSFS. I have, on the other hand, seen BF2142, Halo, and a multitude of other FPSes on there. Puzzle games? Sure. They cost $10-20 and have mainstream appeal. Rhythm games? Mainstream appeal. What do puzzle games or rhythm games have to do with turn-based, isometric, stats-heavy cRPGs? Absolutely nothing. They only prove that simplistic games tend to sell better than complex games.

Jerykk, before you spout bullshit, you should have a look at the sales charts yourself.

Bestselling game the last couple of years/ever? The Sims, an isometric game with rpg elements.

And the rest of the best selling games? Well, whichever chart you look at, FPS' are not as well represented there as you seem to think. Puzzlerrs, simulations (of any type) and rythm games sell more than FPS'.

In your mind, a "true Fallout 3" has to be identical to the originals, ie the isometric, turn-based games we all grew to love.

Sigh. Have you noticed how I put quotation marks around "true"? That denotes sarcasm. If you've actually read any of my posts pertaining to Fallout 3, you'd realize that I don't believe that a "true" sequel to Fallout has to be exactly like the previous games. If I honestly believed that that is what a Fallout sequel had to be, I wouldn't put quotation marks around "true". Comprende?

Uh, have you noticed that's been happening for years now?

Uh, duh? Why do you think I pointed it out? I pointed it out because you didn't believe me when I said that big publishers won't fund a turn-based, isometric, stats-heavy cRPG. Those kind of games are "inaccessible" (notice the quotation marks) to mainstream audience because they have too many numbers and aren't first-person or real-time.

Versus that metaphorical mountain of bullshit I have called you out on in the past, Jerykk?

Bullshit? Like what? Stating that consolitis does exist and that it is never good for PC gaming? Oh, wait, that's just bullshit. Cross-platform development is great for PC games.

You were the guy who said (again, in absolute terms) that anyone who liked anything popular was automatically a sheep.

Really? When did I ever say that? Please, do provide a quote or link to the post.

You know, I wasn't that upset that Fallout 3 would be Oblivion with Guns.

Then I saw the Troika Fallout 3 tech demo on youtube.



Trioka would have done this game so much justice

Went to NMA and their preview is a great read. It isnt the standard hype that we ussually get in previews and it actually offers frank opinions at the end. Makes me realize just how crappy game previews generally are.

I don't know why anyone still holds out hope this game will be anything but OWG; every preview fairly well screams this fact. If anything, NWA is providing a public service, lowering any misplaced expectations that still may exist. This game was doomed to mediocrity from day one, for one simple reason, no one at Bethesda can write. Morrowind and Oblivion are notable only because the writers managed to string together so many tired and abused clichés.

I don't give two shits that the game isn't isometric or turn based, those mechanics died years ago, but it's obvious that the game designers don't appreciate the nuance of the Fallout universe. Even if they did, I don't believe anyone there is clever enough to pen a story even remotely true to the originals. Fallout 3? Whatever.

Hmm I smell a wives and girlfriends pic thread in the offing