In response to the overwhelming replies to Puff's "How Bethesda Butchered Fallout 3" 

(*Quotes were not edited for typos.)

I tried to take into account everyone's comments. (Yes, all of them, from the ones that had absolutely no reason or logic ('Same Gameplay at heart') to even the one's from those living in a magical idealogical dream world: 'And I'm glade(?) they're improving things for the times, and doing things we could only dream about at the time of the other titles.' -um, sir, Elder Scroll's is the fourth of the series of first-person RPGs and hardly the first of the genre, many have dabbled, Ultima Underworld is one my favorite classic games, what they are doing with Fallout 3 has been done to death, so please...)

In efforts to clarify and in hopes to end this debate; Puff simply was trying to say that Fallout 3 is downright misleading. How so? Spin Offs have occured: see Fallout Tactics, (see Fallout Brotherhood of Steel, *barf). If any of those games were called Fallout 3, god help me, we would not have to have this debate. This game is no different. Besides mythology there is no similiarity. My envisioning of Fallout 3 is that it should have the same isometric view, but take advantage of all that fancy smancy technology of now - I am talking about blood stains that stay forever, the car that we've always wanted -physics like GTA IV with car dents that remain forever,  a horizon that never dissapears, a weather system, your player ages, the spirit of Fallout was in DETAIL, and with today's technology we should be thinking PHYSICS not just Halo-style formulas; the Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 isometric view and turn-based system is lost. 'Turn-based combat is possible using Vault-tec Assisted Targeting System (V.A.T.S.), although once your action points are used up, you will revert to real-time combat until they charge up again.' - (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/15/fallout-3-gameplay-details-revealed/) Revert to real time combat? Then what is the point of action points then? Hmmm...

In the end, Bethesda's Fallout 3 should be called Fallout: The Last Vault or Fallout: The Brotherhood of Steel War. Don't fault me if you do not like my made up names, you are missing the point and that is why I don't work for that particular department. Take the mythology from Fallout, but do not mislead me and my love for Fallout 1 and 2's isometric rpg turn based strategy. 

*Oh and to the person who said Fallout 2 was not a 'true sequel',' WOW, ok, Fallout 2 was bigger and better, the graphics were improved (through attention to detail), the physics were improved, and everything that was fantastic about the first Fallout 1 was not only left intact, many if not most the kinks were worked out. The gameplay stayed true and it included both those new and old to the series. That to ME is a true sequel.

*Also another comment said 'While I can't pass judgment on Bethesda's take on the franchise, it seems like they are evolving and complementing the previous games, something that is much needed for a game like fallout to receive the sequel it so deserves.' I actually agree with this. We cannot pass judgment on a game that has not come out yet. But that isn't the argument here. Fallout deserves a sequel, it does not deserve retooling (evolving). Do not fix what is and was not broken.

 *:-P Also, this comment by this person...he/she must be working for Bethesda: 'Bethesda have taken the game where they feel it can best represent the Fallout story/mythology, and be engaging and entertaining, and make miiillions!'  Oh yeah, we know that, and the millions is whats driving this game to be created, not the hunger to recreate the true spirit of Fallout 1 and 2. This is not like Super Mario jumping to Mario 64, I believe that that was a necessary change because there is really nothing left to do in the Mario side-scrolling series (EXAMPLE: New Super Mario Bros DS) In my opinion, this is more like Final Fantasy X jumping to Final Fantasy x-2... an uncessary evolution  to an already convoluted genre; on top of which, falsely using the role of the sequel.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (32)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Will , June 09, 2008

Welcome, Trick

...
written by Trick , June 09, 2008

I hope to make people very enraged.

...
written by Bobalob , June 09, 2008

another pc classic title RAPED by console greed

...
written by alek , June 09, 2008

i agree 100%.

and you didnt event say anything regarding more idiotic stuff.

example: one of the weapons you carry is a portable nuke launcher. wtf?!?!? what is this? unreal tournament???

...
written by LC , June 09, 2008

I'm glad he fixed the part in his article about the "black isle bankruptcy".

You all knew this was coming when Bethesda bought the rights to fallout which was essentially dead in the water. While I'd prefer the isometric view and unique rpg flavor black isles delivered, you have to face it, their dead and gone. This really comes down to semantics arguing over the title, which ever side your on, Bethesda is a different company that does thing a lot differently.

Bethesda bought the rights to the fallout brand and though I personally have my doubts about their ability to develop good games after oblivion, its there IP now and they can do whatever they like with it, Including trashing it like they did with the elder scrolls.

...
written by jb , June 09, 2008

please, shut up about the butchering, jesus christ, i LOVE the first 2 fallout games, but this game will eclipse them both

...
written by ray , June 09, 2008

guy's it's just a game for criss sake , gate a feaking life and dont by the game ...me i'll buy it and enjoy it even do i never play fallout 1 or 2 ...

...
written by Trick , June 09, 2008

Just a reminder, again, the whole point is not butchering what hasn't even been released yet, but abusing the term sequel.

It is misleading and some responsible game developers who understand not to alienate their original fanbase know this: System Shock 2 vs Bioshock

...
written by Tony , June 09, 2008

Uh, Isometric should stay where is was born in a generation of technology that could not provide 3d games. Now it should only be used on the DS where the technology for 3d is still sketchy, or in strategy games where the rigit chess board style graphics actually contribute to gameplay. Metroid/Mario/Zelda/Final Fantasy/Prince of Persia and many others have successfully transfered over to 3d, so I don't get the point of obsessive fans trying to cling on to the old format. Plus except for the tiny group of rabid fans, that's right you Fallout nutjobs are not a dime a dozen, everyone would laugh at an isometric game, and it would struggle horribly to sell a 100,000 copies, and knowing the small audience it would either never be made, or be made terribly low budget, As a 3d game its telling everyone that this great series is getting with the times and offering something for everyone, and can now probably sell well over a million. I think with how annoying the fallout fans have been they should have made a new IP and let Fallout franchise die since they don't seem to appreciate what they are getting.

...
written by Puff , June 09, 2008

3d is not the "best" future for video games. When will you graphics jockeys learn something about "gameplay over graphics"

Let me just quickly de-construct all FPS arguments:
It starts with the creation of Fallout 2 in 1999. A year before this, the first installment of Half-Life had made its appearance. The FPS was acutally released first in this case. So did FPS and graphics play a major role in this case? No, gameplay and narrative were the attributing factor to the success of both games, not the focus on FPS vs Isometric.

And for you graphic jockeys...
Look at Katamari Damacy, a wildly successful game with graphics worse than Final fantasy VII which was also released in 1999.

Good day sirs...

...
written by gameh0lic , June 10, 2008

I'm honestly more worried about getting this game to run. Bethesda has a reputation for releasing buggy, non-optimized games with system requirements of Crysis proportions.

...
written by Trick , June 10, 2008

This comment from tony: 'Uh, Isometric should stay where is was born in a generation of technology that could not provide 3d games.' ...this unfortunately is the mentality of a whole generation.

First of all, 3d games have been around since before that win3.1 maze screensaver. As technology improves, we can just add more snazz and jazz, but you are virtually still doing the same thing. Which is OK! It is fun! I love it those games too.

Also the games you named that "successfully" ventured into 3D (Zelda, Mario, Prince of Persia, Metroid") used the themes, mythology, character development, and set pieces carried over from their originals (along with fancy tricks and gimics.) But ultimately all those 3d games are the same type of games with the similiar gameplay because ultimately you are dealing with a 3d world. You move around virtually the same, yada yada.

If Starcraft 2 came out and it was Oblivion style, and Blizzard just acted like it was no big deal, their would be an uproar. But a generation has arose with the mentality that an isometric view is outdated technology, that 3d is the benchmark for what a modern game looks like. The unpopularity of Fallout's Isometric style is unfortunate because with today's technology my imagination explodes with the possibilities of what could be achieved in that particular genre.

...
written by Tony , June 10, 2008

As for starcraft 2 I've already made the exception of strategy games, thereby acknowledge that graphic style to have some gameplay advantage. But as Puff called me a graphics jockey(which I'm not)you seem to not actually make a case for isometric gameplay. What is all the great gameplay that isometric games would include this generation for an rpg? You don't seem to name anything. You seem to agree then the isometric graphics do look worse, and thereby automatically have better gameplay. I don't see the logic in that.

And just because Half-life came out earlier doesn't make much of a case, 3d was still early technology back then and alot of developers weren't comfortable with it. Now they are, and it's being used in every genre.

Oh and I fail to see your point about Katamari I love the game myself, but it only works because it is in 3d. My arguement is not about graphics, it's about 3d gameplay. The 3d gaming world gave birth to that gameplay. And that leads me to my overall point, acknowledging the third dimension in a game offers alot more gameplay options. Plus it's more engrossing, even playing Lost Odyessy has been driving me nuts, I'm in another world I want to feel like I can look around and explore it in detail, and yet I can't zoom in or turn the camera, RPGs are supposed to be engrossing, and engaging and it's hard to feel engrossed in a game world that I can only view from 30 feet off the ground from an angle.

...
written by some hu , June 10, 2008

What is all the great gameplay that isometric games would include this generation for an rpg?
Turn-based combat perhaps?
I don't care if a hypothetical Fallout 3 would be 3D or not and I don't think there's a lot of Fallout fans screaming for 2D either.
I just want a topdown view alá NWN2 or Van Buren, the cancelled Fallout 3, to support turn-based gameplay.
First person wouldn't give you a decent overview and wouldn't really be conductive to turn-based combat and as such is a bad idea. Not to mention that Fallout was created with pen n paper gameplay in mind.

Perhaps it could even be like that engine Troika (y'know, the original Fallout creators' new studio) were working on before Bethesda bought the rights to Fallout right under their noses. It supported both isometric view point and first person. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYmQyHl2bc

...
written by Trick , June 10, 2008

Tony you seem to contradict yourself when you say that you make an exception to strategy games in terms of better gameplay vs graphics (Starcraft 2). You understand then that gameplay can be more important than graphics in the genre of strategy. You say, and I quote, What is all the great gameplay that isometric games would include this generation for an rpg? You don't seem to name anything. You seem to agree then the isometric graphics do look worse, and thereby automatically have better gameplay. I don't see the logic in that.

First, I DO NOT AGREE THAT ISOMETRIC GRAPHICS LOOK WORSE. (Personally, Starcraft 2 looks graphically amazing to me.)

Second, an RPG, in first-person perspective still has the gameplay of a first-person shooter, with the exception of maybe pacing and objectives. Ultimately, you are doing the same thing in every first person game!

Tony, what great gameplay can be achieved you ask?
I can name off so many possibilities (I have already in the article) but the problem is, we will never know, because you believe that isometric view is a limitation, you fail to see that it is a platform/genre/foundation to take off game designer's imaginations from. All games boil down to their engines, the isometric view is programmed in, camera angles can always change, zoom, and rotate! (Think World of Warcraft)

I think about the old games I used to love and play, and always imagine them revamped with today's physics. I will probably never get to see a game like, oh let say, Populous with intensely crazy physics and details.

...
written by Trick , June 10, 2008

Tony, I also refuse to agree with your overall point too: you say: 'acknowledging the third dimension in a game offers alot more gameplay options.' How can you say that and then say a statement like Starcraft 2 is an exception? 3d games seem like they offer more gameplay options because that's all developers are working with. Ever since the HAVOC engine came out, I can hardly play a 3d game that doesn't use that or a variation of it. I guess that is your idea of "alot more gameplay options?"

...
written by Jonah , June 10, 2008

I disagree completely: Fallout should not be defined by its isometric turned-based combat. Fallout is about an open-ended, engaging post-apocalyptic roleplaying univrese. This is what Bethesda is striving for, and as a long-time Fallout fan, I stand by them. Just because they are modifying the gameplay does not mean they are butchering the series, as Trick and Puff are arguing. Games have evolved a lot over the past 10 years... I'm sure when virtual reality games come out that offer smell, tactile sensation, and life-like graphics, people like Trick/Puff will still complain how game series are being "butchered" as pathetic spin-offs.

...
written by Trick , June 10, 2008

Jonah, the argument has become convoluted. Regardless of our personal opinions, the bottom line has and always is, that it is misleading to call it Fallout 3 and for it to not have that turn-bassed combat/isometric view. Why should it not be defined by that when that was Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

Technology was not the reason why Fallout 1 didn't morph into a first-person game when it jumped to Fallout 2. It was called Fallout 2 because it was a sequel in the truest sense of the term. So now, in the same coin, that is why calling it Fallout 3 is misleading.

I am very excited to play "Fallout 3". I just want a game like Fallout 2 (a faux 2d game/ the term isometric is being abused semantically) with today's physics technology. Find me that.

...
written by Dot , June 11, 2008

GTA 1&2 anyone? Then came GTA 3 that revolutionized the whole series. It became the first free 3D "sandbox"-game, then came Vice City, San Andreas and so on, but the newest one in the series is called GTA IV, or GTA 4. The whole engine has gone through some really heavy modification but the game is still called GTA IV because it is a part of the series. It has graphically or gameplay-wise nothing to do with the first and second one in the series. I think that this talk about FO3 is comparable to a hypothetical debate that all the "Alien" movies must take place in the spaceship.

...
written by Tony , June 11, 2008

Let me just take a step back to explain my position. I'll say every day of the week a car is the best mode of transportation but that doesn't mean I'm selling my bike, it's still fun to ride. Sometimes isometric gameplay can be fun and useful, it's a strategy view, like leaning over a chess board. Hence it's use in Starcraft 2. So I'm admitting isometric has it's place in the world much like my bicycle. But for a rpg 3d is a great way to experience the world, Ocrina of Time blew my mind I felt like I was now living in Links world and not just playing there. I've never felt like I lived in the Starcraft or C&C world, and that's why there is great potential for this graphics change, we may feel more apart of the Fallout world, may feel like we are living there, I love all those great 1920/30's style ads, and now you can walk up to them and check 'em out up close.

Plus I'm not one really for fps view in the rpg realm, the game is going to be interchangable between 1st person and 3rd person, 3rd person is how I plan on going, except when I want to examine something closely, which I enjoy having the option of doing.

With that said, I'll just say I'm more concerned with the unique gameplay elements and the fallout humor missing from the game. It sounds like they definitely plan on leaving chunks of that out, I do hope that is the case. Plus with the size of the world I hope it doesn't get repetitive like Oblivion, and I hope it doesn't have Oblivion's forsaken load times.

...
written by Tony , June 11, 2008

But getting back to the original point, this is the next and biggest entry to the franchise, why should it be tossed a side as a spin-off, as if it is something lesser then the originals, and why should only the fallout series consider a 3d counterpart a spin-off when GTA/Mario/zelda/metriod etc. considered their 3d remakes proper sequels? And who cares? It's just the title, what difference does it make? Are you afraid that Fallout 1 and 2 die-hards that can't wait to buy the latest isometric game are going to be horrified by the 3d graphics that they were fooled into buying because they failed to read the box and just assumed a proper sequel would be isometric? The truth remains that no one seems to have wanted to make a isometric game, so why not be happy on some level we are getting something? Because the bottom line is, we don't have to buy it.

...
written by Ryan , June 11, 2008

Trick,

You are lucky Fallout 3 is even being MADE. How many times has it slipped through the cracks? Interplay was never going to get to remake the game. And here comes Bethesda, (creators of one of the greatest next-gen RPG's by the way), and picks up the dead game and brings it back to life. You are going to complain about that? We are lucky we are even seeing the name Fallout again! Sure, I know everyone wishes that we could have the old turn based up top view that we had before, but that was 10 years ago. Bethesda is obviously going to remake the game with their "spin" on it, and from all that they have read it seems like they are trying their darndest.

So to criticize a game that people are putting so much time into and trying their hardest to make to please US (the people that bought fallout 1 ten years ago) I think is very unfair. You should at least wait until the game comes out, play through it 4 times (because we all know we will), and then say you didn't like it.

If someone was just reading YOUR ignorant article after never have playing a Fallout game before, I'd say they would never give the new one a chance, which is sad, considering how much fun those old jumps into the wasteland used to be, and how much fun you know this new one will be.

I just can't believe you people would rip on the best franchise is computer gaming history, only because SOMEHOW (amazingly) the franchise is being reborn, and thousands of new halo-generation gamers are going to get their chance to join us in the quest for that new red ryder BB gun LE edition.

...
written by Puff , June 11, 2008

"trying their hardest to make to please US"

Are you so shallow minded that you think that Bethesda's main goal in buying the fallout 3 name was to make players happy? They saw money bags and they are going to cash in...I should even be responding to your outrageous comments...

If the "halo-gen" players want to experience Fallout, I suggest they buy the first two. If they like Halo, then I suggest they buy the 3rd, which will be more like Halo than the original (or so I assume - which could make an ass outta me, but I'm willing to bet against Bethesda's motives).

...
written by Ryan , June 12, 2008

Well Puff,

First off yes, you should be responding to my comments, because you need to realize that it is not 1994 anymore.

I will agree that they are trying to make money, but isn't everyone who has ever made a videogame just out to make money? Name me ONE game that was made just soley for the fans, where the only purpose of the creators was to please the fans? Yeah, that's right, everyone is out to make money. No-one is going to make a game if it won't make money. But I've read that these Bethesda guys are spending tons of time looking at the old games, trying to keep that old 50's vibe / fallout culture alive. What more do you want? They COULD have just taken the name Fallout 3 and made a game that looked nothing like the old ones/ had nothing to do with the old style (not even you can say that those screens look nothing like the old games).

I think if Bethesda wanted to CASH IN, they could just have made another oblivion game already. They know that sold amazingly well. Why didn't they just start making the next oblivion game then? Oh thats right, because for once in 10 years someone actually has the money and the talent to attempt another Fallout game. How the heck is that just "Cashing in"?

Is that really such a bad thing that someone is resurecting the franchise? I'll bet Feargus himself would agree with me. And if you are too narrow-minded to play it (doubtful, I guarantee you will), then you are going to miss out on another amazing game in the Fallout series.

...
written by Trick , June 12, 2008

ALL, especially Ryan,
It seems so odd, because the comments about my article act like I complain about Fallout 3 being made. (Minus the title, I do no such thing. )

Read before you react.
I should starting quoting myself more and less others:

In the article I said: "Puff simply was trying to say that [the title] Fallout 3 is downright misleading."
In comments I said:
"I am very excited to play 'Fallout 3'"

...
written by Tykk , June 13, 2008

You know what i wanted to see? Every little thing exacly the same as fallout 2, but running on a modified Silent Storm engine, there, much much much improved grafics and combat system, all in 3d, but without losing the fallout style that all us old time fans have grown to love so damn much...

It may not be right to bash a game that hasn't even been released yet... But they're screwing this up, and we all know it... Coming from a big time bethesda fan like myself, this is saying a lot... But if oblivion from the previous elder scrolls is any indication, it's gonna be a new game based on fallout lore, not fallout 3...

I'm with you on this one Trick, let us cry together on the vault dweller's grave, he is gone for good =´(

...
written by Trick , June 13, 2008

Tykk, finally, someone who read what I actually wrote.

We are not hating on whatever game Fallout 3 turns out to be, us strategy fans know it is just not a true part of the Fallout series. It is if Starcraft Ghost turned out to be Starcraft 3... just real disappointing and misleading to fan of the strategy series. I have played Oblivion type games to death. Where is my Arcanum 2?

...
written by Tykk , June 14, 2008

Oh boy, arcanum 2 would be amazing... to tell you the truth, i couldn't bring myself to finish arcanum, not because it's a bad game, but because of the bugs...
The game is so riddled with bugs that i would always end up getting anoyed to the point that i would just stop playing... Great game, great lore, great feeling, but the bug ruined it for me...
Arcanum 2 would probably mean a game as good, but not as buggy, wich would be incredible :p

But back to the point, right before reading your article, i was actually saying the very same thing you wrote to a friend, and he wasnt getting my point either... Coming from bethesda, it's probably gonna be a great game, these r the guys who created the elder scrolls series after all... But without the isometric turn-based gameplay, it's just not the same... It would be like naming C&C Renegade C&C Tiberium Wars 4... Same lore, same world, but renegade, being a FPS, is just not a true sequel...

...
written by Coasty , June 22, 2008

To be honest, I never liked the turn-based combat, preferring the system used in FO:Tactics. I did like the Isometric viewpoint, but that's no biggy. What does upset me is the rumour mill coming out with things like 'no more self-referential humour' and 'no more item descriptions'. I suspect a lot of the comedy value is going to be lost, and without that FO:3 will just be a brown version of Halflife or Halo or some other shooty thing I've never played.

...
written by PhxGunner , June 27, 2008

Turn based combat is for old geezers who play chess. If you cant think and move quick enough to play a real game like Dawn of War, then you should just stick to kiddy games

...
written by Keldroc , July 28, 2008

"Are you so shallow minded that you think that Bethesda's main goal in buying the fallout 3 name was to make players happy? They saw money bags and they are going to cash in...I should even be responding to your outrageous comments..."

Hilarious. Yes, Bethesda clearly saw mountains of cash in a PC series that repeatedly failed commercially.

Fallout. Did. Not. Sell. Get it through your head. Planescape: Torment outsold both Fallouts combined. The only reason Fallout 3 is being made is because the Bethesda guys are huge Fallout nerds/fans and wanted to see it return. So they ponied up the cash for the license and are getting it done to the best of their ability, and more power to them. It's more than the incessantly obnoxious fanbase has ever done for the series.

Kind of amazing when you think about it, though. All this drama over a Wasteland ripoff. Who woulda thought?

...
written by MarzAttakz , November 05, 2008

"Turn based combat is for old geezers who play chess. If you cant think and move quick enough to play a real game like Dawn of War, then you should just stick to kiddy games" - PhxGunner

We'll chat in 20 years kid, it's not about twitch reflexes, it's about immersion, tactics other than point, shoot, and spam grenade key... oh hang on, that's COD4, try playing Silent Storm and then tell me Dawn of War is a real game.

I actually feel sorry for todays gaming generation - you guys have no idea what you've missed out on and I'm only 32! No Arcanum, no Baldur's Gate, no Ultima Underworld, no Fallout I & II... shame.

Write comment

Name

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Add Comment