Slashdot Mirror


Fallout IP Sold to Bethesda Softworks

In what I can only see as good news, the Fallout IP has been sold to Bethesda Softworks. A long, long time ago simoniker posted that Bethesda was licensing the IP from Interplay; as of earlier this month, they now own it lock, stock, and barrel. Gamasutra reports: "According to the filing, first spotted by Fallout fansite No Mutants Allowed, the purchase of the Fallout license and accompanying IP was settled on April 9th of this year, with final payment installments expected to be delivered by the third quarter of this year ... In an interesting twist, as part of the agreement Interplay now acts as a licensee of the IP as it continues to ramp up production on its own Fallout-themed massively multiplayer game, first announced in 2004 alongside Bethesda's sequel, and shown via internal documents as recently as December to have a projected $75 million dollar budget and launch date of 2010."

174 comments

  1. As long as they make fallout 3 by hedwards · · Score: 1

    I'll be happy. Well, and make it a game worth playing.

    1. Re:As long as they make fallout 3 by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's that second part that worries me. Let me direct you to a snippet of an interview with Peter Hines of Bethesda.

      SPOnG: One of the things that crops up a lot in reviews and discussions of about Fallout is that a lot of the fans like the about Fallout humour. What does this mean to you?

      Pete Hines: Well, Todd Howard (Executive Producer at Bethesda) has talked a little about this. We're not big fans of jokes... developers that try to tell jokes, it tends not to work very well. You know, the humour in Fallout 3 is that you can get a weapon and blow a guy to a bloody mess, then when you pull up your interface, you see a little smiling cartoon character holding his thumb up. Like that's funny... funny not in terms of jokes or winks at the camera and such...
      The humor of Fallout is far more than just "a little smiling cartoon" telling you that you did a-okay with that SMG. It involves sarcasm, irony, coincidence, dark humor, and Monty Python references. Hines's answer suggests that they are going to stray far from the established norm, and not in a good way.

      Just for the record, that part of the interview can be found here:
      http://spong.com/detail/editorial.jsp?eid=10109516 &cid=&tid=&pid=&plid=&page=4
    2. Re:As long as they make fallout 3 by Salamande · · Score: 1

      Pete Hines: Well, Todd Howard (Executive Producer at Bethesda) has talked a little about this. We're not big fans of jokes... developers that try to tell jokes, it tends not to work very well.
      Well...isn't that what they hire professional writers for?

      I've always thought that writing in games has been lagging behind the technology. There was kind of a golden age for a while there with the interactive fiction and whatnot, but things have declined lately. Bring in a pro, make that stuff sparkle. Don't leave it as an afterthought. Humor requires an especially deft hand.

      And people wonder why there are so few genuinely funny games out there?
    3. Re:As long as they make fallout 3 by toolie · · Score: 1

      The humor of Fallout is far more than just "a little smiling cartoon" telling you that you did a-okay with that SMG. It involves sarcasm, irony, coincidence, dark humor, and Monty Python references.

      I laughed every time I brought up the PDA thing (been far too long to remember the interface name) and would see 'TK-421' at the bottom right of the screen. That was awesome.

      --
      -- toolie
    4. Re:As long as they make fallout 3 by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      the pipboy...

    5. Re:As long as they make fallout 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To some extent, I think Pete Hines is correct. Blatant over-the-top references to movies and tv shows might get a chuckle from me, but they're also distracting and ruin the immersion of the game.

    6. Re:As long as they make fallout 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those too lazy to search for the reference

      And yeah, that comment worries me. FO2 did overdo the comedy a little what with the numerous easter eggs, but dammit, without dark humour IT WON'T BE FALLOUT.

      Actually a lot of the hardcore fans have already written FO3 off (click, funny) because i)it's going to use the Oblivion engine, hence not be isometric 3rd person and ii)the dialogue in said game isn't great. Instead, hopes are being pinned on total-conversion megamods like FanMade Fallout for a sequel faithful to the series.

    7. Re:As long as they make fallout 3 by westlake · · Score: 1
      To some extent, I think Pete Hines is correct. Blatant over-the-top references to movies and tv shows might get a chuckle from me, but they're also distracting and ruin the immersion of the game.

      I'll not complain if the humor in Fallout is rooted more in character and story than in a game of Trivial Pursuit.

    8. Re:As long as they make fallout 3 by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Monty Python References? It was way more than that. The games lampoon everything in pop culture - I remember references to Star Trek, Lassie, Mad Max, Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Dr Who, Godzilla, WarGames, Terminator, the Bambi meets Gozilla short, The Goonies and even Robin Hood. Some of these I didn't even catch while playing the game, only much later when I saw the movie again - like The Goonies quote (when you pick up the coins at the bottom of the wishing well in Fallout 2).

      I've heard some people say they wished Fallout had ditched the pop culture references and been a grittier game - those same references were the some of my favorite parts of the game. I think if you take them out, you're making some other game, not Fallout.

      In a world of shooter gibs, bloody mess is a hackneyed joke, and not really funny anymore. I also know developers (myself included) that couldn't _tell_ a joke to save our lives, but can be incredibly funny in writing. I thought Fallout's written jokes and references were hilarious, such as one character ranting about the Bill Gates-like Myron and his "endless stream of prostitutes" followed by "typical project manager" - anyone that has a project manager probably pictures them at that instant, just because of the word 'typical' (and my manager at that time reminded me of Lumbergh from Office Space, which made it all the more funny).

  2. Depressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    A fantastic IP ending up in the hands of such a crappy developer. I'm certain Pipboy is crying his eyes out right now.

    Given Bethesda's miserable track record, any new Fallout games will now:

    * Be mostly focused on the usual crap pc developers seem to live for, water effects and shiny metal armor on things

    * Be obscenely buggy

    * Run like crap - too busy making thing shiny and tweaking the water reflections to be bothered with all that messy and tedious rendering optimization stuff

    * Use crappy middleware like Gamebryo because no one of any competence works at Bethesda

    * Really,really long. And really,really boring

    Farewell Fallout. You will be missed.

    1. Re:Depressing by dan828 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but you'll be able to pay real $$$ for really cool expansion items like horse armor and houses! The old games never had any of that!

    2. Re:Depressing by Kenoli · · Score: 1

      "In what I can only see as good news..."

      What? Since when has Bethesda been perceived as being a good game developer?
      When I see "Bethesda" on a box I think "Ehh. Bugs and mediocre gameplay."

      I'm really curious as to what would make someone think this event is a good thing.

    3. Re:Depressing by Umbrae · · Score: 1

      ..What? If I remember correctly (which I do, because I looked it up), Oblivion has been rated as one of the best games, consistently, since it's release. It's gameplay and storyline have garnered many awards, both from critics and the general populace.

    4. Re:Depressing by pureevilmatt · · Score: 1

      Oblivion + Fallout = S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

    5. Re:Depressing by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Correction: Oblivion + Fallout + Stolen Content from Other Games + Way Too Many Years = S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

    6. Re:Depressing by Gunslinger47 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suggest you learn more about the series before you complain about it jumping the shark. The PIPBoy's not going to do much crying since it's a computer. As for Vaultboy, he suffered a painful death at the ends of (WTF) Chuck Ceuvas. Near his sorry end he was forced to sellout to fast food corporations and bowling allies (apparently) to pay for his addiction to anti-depressants. (he didn't spec. chem resistant)

      The last Fallout game to be released, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel , was an expliotation film turned video game. To quote the Wikipedia article:

      Films made with little or no attention to quality or artistic merit but with an eye to a quick profit, usually via high-pressure sales and promotion techniques emphasizing some sensational aspect of the product.

      If you are fan of the series, you should be rejoicing. Bethesda's involvement means that there might be hope of finally, finally getting a Fallout 3. When it is completed, it might not be the greatest game every released, but the team will have to work seriously damned hard to make it worse than BoS.

    7. Re:Depressing by Nasarius · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bleh. Fallout 3 is apparently being developed by the Oblivion team. So I guess expect a dull, watered-down game system devoid of interesting choices that idiots will love because it's shiny.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    8. Re:Depressing by Cadallin · · Score: 2, Informative
      And when I see "Bethesda" on the box, I think unrealized potential. I've played Bethesda games since Daggerfall (which I waited for years to see ship, and yes I keep going back, I'm a glutton for punishment) and they are always very impressive technically. Daggerfall was a technical demo that blew my mind. An entire expansive country that featured towns and cities and dungeons and thousands of NPCs. It was 3D (or what counted for 3D at the time, Doom style sprites with a 3d environment) They even released a patch so that enemies showed locational damage as you hit them with your weapons! It was incredible. Daggerfall was incredible it contained many more features than the sequels that followed, Morrowind and Oblivion.

      However, in all of that, they neglected to make the game fun. The NPCs were completely bland. The cities were dull, lifeless, and all the same. The dungeons suffered from severe bugs in their generation routines such that they could be unexplorable (walls or stairs blocking doors). The Fallout Series, on the other hand, was a beautifully handcrafted world. There were fewer NPCs and the world was smaller, yes, but all of it was alive. Alive and interesing, unique.

      Ultimately I see this union as a very poor match. The only thing I can imagine that would be worse is if it was announced that Wizards of the Coast had licensed Bethesda to make a "Planescape: Torment" sequel. (Thankfully, I think this is highly unlikely, not only was the game written to be very self contained, Wizards has all but retired the Planescape setting.)

    9. Re:Depressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Like our beloved Fallouts 1 & 2 weren't filled with bugs. Hell, I remember that Fallout 2 was filled with game-freezing crashes in lots of side quests, and one or two in main storyline quests. Admittedly, these were eventually patched, but still...

      (With that said, the Bethesda of old wasn't too bad. T2029 was surprisingly fun, and I don't remember too many bugs)

    10. Re:Depressing by sqlrob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thankfully, I think this is highly unlikely, not only was the game written to be very self contained

      Self-contained? Did you actually finish it? At least one of the endings could lead to a sequel.

    11. Re:Depressing by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      The last Fallout game to be released, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel , was an expliotation film turned video game. To quote the Wikipedia article:

      Films made with little or no attention to quality or artistic merit but with an eye to a quick profit, usually via high-pressure sales and promotion techniques emphasizing some sensational aspect of the product.


      High pressure sales or sensationalism over BOS? Nonsens, the game got very little promotion at all. It's an enjoyable Diablo clone using Snowblinds Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance engine.

    12. Re:Depressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in other words, you have a POS computer that you haven't upgraded since 2001, and you couldn't play Oblivion without turning your settings all the way down. Now you're whining about it on /. and claiming that their take on Fallout is going to suck, when it's really just sour grapes on your part.

      GG FTW.

    13. Re:Depressing by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've finished it, multiple times. Which ending? You think it would make an interesting game to play the story of the Nameless one serving in the Blood War? Best I can tell, that was the canonical ending (Although I would argue it is NOT consistent with D&D cosmology, the dead who sell their souls to demons/devils generally end up as Lemures/Dretches which would be even more uninteresting)

    14. Re:Depressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up!

    15. Re:Depressing by Gunslinger47 · · Score: 1

      "Usually". My emphasis was on the first half of that sentence. The little promotion that existed was sensationalist, however.

    16. Re:Depressing by paganizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oblivion is very, very, very pretty. and not a bad game.
      However, I just can't bring myself to play it. Morrowind has only slightly less pretty graphics, and is probably the best thing Bethesda ever did; Oblivion isn't nearly as playable, the AI & NPC interaction routines are amazingly, easily noticeably, worse. I just can't figure out WHY.... I mean, they had it. they knew how to do it right. Why didn't they?
      My son plays the copy I bought. I figure after he's bored with it I'll turn him on to Morrowind.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    17. Re:Depressing by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

      "Kyle, you're being a Negative Nancy."

      their games may not be perfect, but I'll be damned if I didn't enjoy playing Oblivion and Morrowind before it.

    18. Re:Depressing by microTodd · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely. I played Morrowing straight for two years. I cannot get into Oblivion, but yet I can't quite put my finger on why the game isn't as enjoyable.

      I suspect it has something to do with the Xboxness, cause I had the same experience with Deus Ex/Deus Ex 2.

      --
      "You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
    19. Re:Depressing by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      STALKER doesn't even come close to fallout - ya sure its a post-apocalyptic world with smgs, sniper rifles, and rpgs - but thats not the huge deciding factor in what made Fallout 1+2 great - it was that you could melt the flesh off a person with a plasma rifle or blow out their ribcage in sadistically satisfying ways, and read a discription of it that "the cute little puppy was shot in the head for 50 pts - it's head is lying on the ground in a puddle of mush"

    20. Re:Depressing by kinglink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So AC hates the Elder scrolls game.

      Well good for him, but considering still one of the best selling games on the 360, and has probably the most mods of any game I can't seem to see the point?

      Seriously Oblivion is one of the best games in this generation, just because it runs like crap on your computer doesn't mean it is because of optimizations, they wanted to give a great experience to the end user. They did that. The amount of work that goes into one Elder Scroll game makes me believe that Fallout 3 has the potential for being the best of the series.

      Or we could give it back to interplay and let them make another brotherhood of steel. Maybe the parent would prefer that?

    21. Re:Depressing by Amouth · · Score: 2, Funny

      the only thingk i like about Oblivion is the lock picking mini game.. i couldn't stand to play the game for real.. but when i am over at a friends house and he is playing it.. he just lets me do the lock picking

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    22. Re:Depressing by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Bethesda's creations are massive, and sometimes they really don't get the gameplay, balancing and interactions just right.

      But that's why Oblivion and Morrowind are some of the most modded games in history - it's hard to please every single player in a game world so vast, and even if it were possible there's really not enough development time.

      I look at it this way: if Fallout 3 has crappy gameplay, I'll wait 6 months for the equivilant of Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul to be released, and then enjoy a vast game with excellent balancing. At least with Bethesda at the helm you're guaranteed a good basis for modders to start with.

      Face it, Fallout could be at the mercy of MUCH WORSE dev teams. I actually enjoyed Oblivion with OOO.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    23. Re:Depressing by kinglink · · Score: 1

      I love morrowind, but I'm with you on Oblivion it was ok when I started with it I had at least 20-30 hours in it then I realized that everyone leveled up with me and it lost the appeal it had. Now with OOO I'm going to try it again.

      But you understand my point. Bethsda might not be perfect but imagine fallout 3 with oblivion's engine to the point where someone can do a Total Conversion of the level and create a second or third story? That's an amazing idea to have and it's already been proven possible by morrowind. That's great to me considering what Brotherhood of Steel was for the PS2.

    24. Re:Depressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect it has something to do with the Xboxness, cause I had the same experience with Deus Ex/Deus Ex 2.
      Having avoided it like the plague after a bad experience with the godawful demo, I decided to give Deus Ex 2 a chance after it came out on Steam. Armed with a computer powerful enough to handle it with short loading times, all the fan-made texture upgrades, and a little hacking to make the keyboard layout rational (seriously, F1-F6 for augs and not rebindable through the game interface?!)... well, to my surprise, it's actually not half bad. Not as good as the original, but very playable and quite engrossing.

      Admittedly there's something wrong when it takes a state-of-the-art 2007 computer to run a game that looked dated when it was released in 2004, but hey, who cares as long as it's fun?
    25. Re:Depressing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It is better not to get a sequal, then to get a bad sequal.

      WOuld the worl really be worse off if there was never a highlander II?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:Depressing by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      Yes, why not start with the Blood War as a premise?

      Could be more interesting, than, say, collecting bottlecaps to trade for a pump. Wouldn't that make a boring game?

    27. Re:Depressing by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      I can see a number of problems with that. One of them is that *spoiler alert* after merging with the trancendent one, the Nameless one would have about as many hit die and class levels as the Greater Gods did in 2nd Edition. The avatar of Correllon Larathian (the head of the elven pantheon) has around 80 class levels. If we assume the Nameless One had around 17 levels total in each class (which is probably a HUGE underestimate) that puts him at around 50 Class Levels. To put that in further perspective, that's much more than elminster had in 2nd Edition stat blocks. Think elminster could smack around demon lords? I'd guess so. Just imagine "Elminster goes to Hell" as a game, and the substitute in a player character even more powerful.

    28. Re:Depressing by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      The impression I got from the cut scene was that he was now an ordinary joe, not someone who could handle the blood war by himself.

  3. Farewell Fallout... by Murrdox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is basically the death certificate for Fallout. We'll never see a Fallout 3 which the fans have been screaming for. Bethesda has a wonderful track record when it comes to their own Elder Scrolls game. They have a horrible track record for everything else. Their games are now (and will probably remain as such) X-Box 360 Games which are poorly ported to the PC. They have shown no desire for turn-based strategy games. They have so far refused to say whether or not Fallout 3 will be turn based or not, or whether or not it will use the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system that Fallout fans have grown to love. Star Trek: Legacy was a pathetic failure. They did a great job getting the voice-acting together, but then they threw half of the plot out the window. Just read some of the blogs of the writers for that game, and they've clearly said as much. The gameplay, the actual GAME that Star Trek fans had such high hopes for... was awful. Bethesda is going to give us Fallout 3... but it won't be the same game that we know and love. They'll convert it and change the gameplay so that they can mass produce it. They'll want to have it on the PC and all the consoles. They'll make it for the X-Box 360, and then do a terrible port of it to make a PC version. They won't make combat turn-based, because in spite of legions of screaming fans, turn based combat is too "niche" and won't appeal to the masses enough. Gone will be Fallout's mature content. Drugs, hookers, swearing? Gone. We'll get a watered down Fallout universe which is nice and PG-13 friendly. Remember, this was the company that took all the blood out of their own game, Oblivion, because they didn't want an M rating. Bethesda is going to give us a game. MAYBE it will be a good game. But it won't be Fallout 3. Unless they come out and say that they are making a turn-based combat role-playing game, it won't be Fallout 3. At best, it will be a bad spin-off, like the other forgotten Fallout titles that have emerged since Fallout 2. Actually, I thought that Fallout: Tactics was a pretty good game. If they drop the ball on this, they fully have the capacity to KILL the Fallout franchise once and for all. I'm still praying though. I really really really am. I hope everything I just said is completely false (Except for what I said about Star Trek Legacy, and Bethesda's habit of making awful PC ports. That's all true.)

    1. Re:Farewell Fallout... by CronoCloud · · Score: 3, Informative

      They'll convert it and change the gameplay so that they can mass produce it. They'll want to have it on the PC and all the consoles.


      Of course they'l want to mass produce it, they want to sell lots of copies and make money! Of course they'll want it on all the consoles, they want to sell lots of copies and make money.

      They won't make combat turn-based, because in spite of legions of screaming fans, turn based combat is too "niche" and won't appeal to the masses enough.


      Apparently the masses outnumber the rabid Fallout fans then. But I wouldn't call it niche, plenty of console RPG's are turn based.

      Gone will be Fallout's mature content. Drugs, hookers, swearing? Gone. We'll get a watered down Fallout universe which is nice and PG-13 friendly. Remember, this was the company that took all the blood out of their own game, Oblivion, because they didn't want an M rating.


      I have Fallout BOS for my PS2 and do you know what rating it has? M, for Blood and Gore, Strong Sexual Themes, Strong Language and Violence. One of the first characters you meet is a hooker.

      As for Oblivion, doesn't it have an M rating, why yes, yes it does.

      So going cross-platform won't prevent a Fallout game from having that M rating
    2. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course they'l want to mass produce it, they want to sell lots of copies and make money! Of course they'll want it on all the consoles, they want to sell lots of copies and make money.

      Which is one of the reasons that it will probably suck. With the focus on the consoles, the PC roots will be left behind and we'll end up with an Oblivion or Deus Ex 2 type of screwup with the entire interface being retarded and completely inappropriate for the PC. There will be all kinds of compromises made in the gameplay to facilitate the consoles and the mass-market focus. It won't be a Fallout game. It will be something that seems more like a game that is trying to immitate Fallout, but falling woefully short of the mark. I just don't believe that they can do the game justice with all of the conflicts of interest they're going to have to deal with.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    3. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll want to have it on the PC and all the consoles. They'll make it for the X-Box 360, and then do a terrible port of it to make a PC version.

      For those of you who remember, this procedure - dumbing down a sequel so that it can be played on a console - is the same thing that killed that other fantastic RPG, Deus Ex.

    4. Re:Farewell Fallout... by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      It's a real shame they won't sink a few million dollars into making a game that 50 people will buy just to make you happy. If they did, I wouldn't have to read such tortured baseless rants.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    5. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Bodrius · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      What killed Deus Ex 2 was mediocre storytelling compared with the original, and lots of hype and unfulfillable expectations.

      I'm a big fan of Deus Ex, and was as disappointed as anyone on Deus Ex 2, but the simplified interface did not make it a poor game... just like the messy interface did not hurt Deus Ex that much either.

      Dumbed-down? Perhaps.
      But Deus Ex would have been awesome on a console with that same interface, and Deus Ex 2 would have been equally lame with the original's interface and joys of inventory management, played by a few PC gamers.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    6. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 2

      I'm going to make the radical decision of having no opinion about the matter until we see screenshots and get more details about the game.

    7. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      It's a real shame they won't sink a few million dollars into making a game that 50 people will buy just to make you happy. If they did, I wouldn't have to read such tortured baseless rants.

      Yes, because Fallout 1 & 2 were such crappy games that nobody bought them, right? Why would they ever want to create such a thing again? I mean why would they even buy the rights to create such garbage? Oh yeah, because you're wrong. :) If they don't want to make a Fallout game, then they should just go make something else. If they do want to make a Fallout game, then that's exactly what they should do. Otherwise we end up with another tortured license, like Shadowrun.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    8. Re:Farewell Fallout... by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      You're obviously not a PC gamer. The fact of the matter is that consoles are less complex and far less open than PCs are. You tend to get simplified control schemes and short levels. These are a direct result of the hardware limitations that have plagued consoles from the very start. I'm not saying consoles are without merit. I enjoy various genres (adventure, JRPG, action (PoP). On the other hand, a console simply can not produce a decent RTS, FPS or CRPG. The point is, as a console gamer, you are unable to understand the pain of a crappy ported sequel when the original was a masterpiece.

    9. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Agret · · Score: 1

      I have Fallout BOS for my PS2 and do you know what rating it has? M, for Blood and Gore, Strong Sexual Themes, Strong Language and Violence. One of the first characters you meet is a hooker. Fallout BOS wasn't made by Bethesda Softworks so your comment has no significance other than you being wrong.
      --
      Have you metaroderated recently?
    10. Re:Farewell Fallout... by TheBlackSwordsman · · Score: 1
      I couldn't agree with you more. Zonk needs to be beaten over the head with a cluestick if he thinks the sale of the Fallout IP to Bethesda is somehow a good thing. Fallout 3, if it ever gets released, is most likely going to be "Oblivion with guns". And for people like me who think Oblivion sucks, that's about the worst thing one could imagine.


      Oh, and I liked Fallout Tactics too. Underrated game.

    11. Re:Farewell Fallout... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      for such highly regarded games, they didn't sell very well which is one reason why Black Isle is no more. Though they had a rabid fanbase they were just a touch too niche as a developer.

    12. Re:Farewell Fallout... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      "Can not" isn't a good phrase to use, it's not that they can't especially these days because those limitations you talk about are pretty much gone. It's just that they don't. Kind of like how it would be possible to do a character based platformer for the PC but no one does. It's a stratijacket of a mindset that does no one any good. It would be nice to seem some strategy, RTS or american style RPG's on a console. I know it's possible to make the controls workable.with just a dual shock/sixaxis. These days they could even leave keyboard and mouse controls in for those who might want to play that way. But they just don't do it.

    13. Re:Farewell Fallout... by knivesx11 · · Score: 1

      Then what do you want let's face it a top down isometric tactical rpg is not going to sell well in todays market. A FPSRPG is just what everyone has been clamoring for. Besides if you dont like it don't play the game I loved the fallout series from the begining except Brother of Steel. Can you really tell me that FO3 is going to be worse than that POS game. Atleast its something worth playing and the best part of fallout will still be there, the atmosphere. It wasn't the special system whish will probably remain intact that made fallout great, nor was it turn based combat. People liked fallout because it had a amazing atmosphere that sucked gamers in, the same reason people liked Morrowind or Baldurs Gate. As long as bethesda doesnt screw up and deliver a half-assed product which i have no reason to believe they will, we can all rest a night knowing that it will be a very good game. It may not be the game your itching to play but for one more chance to enter the wasteland I'm willing to wait and see what kind of game Bethesda produces, and frankly if it is a oblivion style game more power to them.

    14. Re:Farewell Fallout... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      The parent was implying that going cross-platform/console on a game would render it incapable of having that M rating, and also stated Oblivion didn't have an M rating when it does. I proved him wrong. That was my point.

    15. Re:Farewell Fallout... by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      True for the most part, but I'm still leery of how well a RTS would work. I was a bit incensed since the GGP seems to have no clue about what makes the classical CRPG so great. It really is a breed apart from anything else that you will find.

    16. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to seem some strategy, RTS or american style RPG's on a console. I know it's possible to make the controls workable.with just a dual shock/sixaxis.

      RTS's have been tried before. I don't remember the names of the games that have done it, but the controls sucked horribly compared to mouse/keyboard control. It just made everything difficult. The main drawback for RTS games is really the resolution issues. It's not as bad as it used to be as long as you have an HDTV and a console that can both do 1080, but how many people have that? Even then it's still lower res than you get with a PC, and a high resolution can make those games much nicer to play since you get a better view of what's going on. The Wii probably has the most potential for giving you good control over it, but it suffers from the resolution problem worse than the others. I just don't see RTS games doing well on consoles at least for this generation.

      As for RPGs, it could probably be done, but console gamers miss out on all the nice game-life-extending mods that get made that really can add a lot of replay value to a game. Even if they did get access to them, they'd most likely have to pay for them as if they were an expansion pack. Look at Epic. They're well-known by computer gamers for releasing a lot of free extra content for their games. That's one of the reasons their games have been so popular with gamers. Look what happened when they tried to release that kind of content for free to console gamers. They are forced to charge for it. Sad.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    17. Re:Farewell Fallout... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      RTS's have been tried before. I don't remember the names of the games that have done it, but the controls sucked horribly compared to mouse/keyboard control.


      Does the Command & Conquer series, Warcraft, Starcraft (N64 only), Dune 2000, and Warzone 2100 ring a bell? The controls aren't bad, combo buttons help, and on the PSone there's also mouse if you want it, which every RTS on the thing supports.

      The main drawback for RTS games is really the resolution issues. It's not as bad as it used to be as long as you have an HDTV and a console that can both do 1080, but how many people have that? Even then it's still lower res than you get with a PC, and a high resolution can make those games much nicer to play since you get a better view of what's going on.


      you're saying that 1080p (that's 1920x1080) is STILL not good enough to play an RTS on? That's higher res that my windows machine! That's a higher res that the classic Starcraft required, one of the most popular RTS's of all time.

      The Wii probably has the most potential for giving you good control over it,


      You just mentioned how RTS's "need" mice and keyboards and you don't mention the PS2/PS3 with their USB ports?

      This is the straitjacket mindset I was referring to, all the problems that you mention have been solved for years (why do you think the PS2 has 1080i, the capability to add a hard drive, and USB ports) and yet people like you still say you can't do RTS's on a console. I'm beginning to think that some PC gamers just don't want to admit that consoles could play their obsessively beloved RTS's/FPS, and play them well, if developers just did them.

      I remember how PC gamers said things like "oh you'll never play a game like DOOM on a kiddie console" Then it became "oh you'll never have online play on a console" and then it became "oh you'll never play an MMORPG on a console" And now it's oh you can't play RTS/FPS on a console because of the keyboard and mouse. Or they use the "I can download a mod and keep playing the same game for 5 years and not have to buy new ones" argument. (Which actually hurts developers) Or if there a little more aware they'll try the "oh my computer is more versatile and does more for the money", but that doesn't work either not with the PS3's ability to run Linux.

      I just want the PC snobbery to end, it was old in 93, and it's old now. There isn't a single game or genre that couldn't be done and done well on a modern console if the devlopers of said game put their minds to it. That includes flight sims for those hard core Tom Clancy/Dan Brown lovin greybeards (USB HOTAS)

      It also includes things like Fallout or NWN, Planescape Torment etc.

    18. Re:Farewell Fallout... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      It really is a breed apart from anything else that you will find.


      It is? I don't think so. You may not know this but all those Final Fantasies and Dragon Quests were originally inspired by the Wizardrys, Ultimas and Might & Magics Which explains all the PC RPG ports on the NES/SNES

      The "Persona" games as well were heavily influenced by PC RPG's. And don't forget all those crazily complex Tactical RPG's like Ogre Battle, Final Fantasy Tactics or some of the recent games from Nippon Ichi.

      And it happens the other way too, KOTOR and Anachronox were influenced by console RPG's
      Neither type is better or worse, they're just different, cousins in a way and I wish that PC RPG developers would port their games that I could play alongside Square-Enix's output.

    19. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Does the Command & Conquer series, Warcraft, Starcraft (N64 only), Dune 2000, and Warzone 2100 ring a bell? The controls aren't bad, combo buttons help, and on the PSone there's also mouse if you want it, which every RTS on the thing supports.

      Every time I've read a review of a console RTS game, they always talk about how the controls suck. Yeah, the PSone mouse might have helped the 3 people that actually owned one, but really, who uses a mouse in the living room? Why not just go play on the PC if you're gonna do that and get an all-around much better experience?
       

      You just mentioned how RTS's "need" mice and keyboards and you don't mention the PS2/PS3 with their USB ports?

      Like I said, that stuff is just not comfortable to use in a living-room environment where most people have their consoles. Unless someone figures out how to make a better controller that doesn't require a desk to use it properly, the controls are going to continue to suck. The Wii could probably pull it off if it weren't for the resolution problem.
       

      Or they use the "I can download a mod and keep playing the same game for 5 years and not have to buy new ones" argument. (Which actually hurts developers)

      Oh come on. Hurts developers? More like it makes them work a little harder and try some new things. Every time some modder creates something new and different, it expands our choices in general. I guess you think we should just be able to shell out money for the next Madden update every year instead of getting anything fresh?
       

      I just want the PC snobbery to end, it was old in 93, and it's old now. There isn't a single game or genre that couldn't be done and done well on a modern console if the devlopers of said game put their minds to it. That includes flight sims for those hard core Tom Clancy/Dan Brown lovin greybeards (USB HOTAS)

      It's not snobbery when the consoles haven't shown that they can do games just as well as a PC. When they step up and actually start doing what you claim they can do, then maybe you'll have an argument. Let me know when that happens.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    20. Re:Farewell Fallout... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Every time I've read a review of a console RTS game, they always talk about how the controls suck.


      Yes, but most of the online reviews I have seen of console RTS's have been by PC gamers comparing the games (and the controls) to the PC version. To someone not used to how the PC version controls, having different controls wouldn't bother them.

      Yeah, the PSone mouse might have helped the 3 people that actually owned one,


      Plenty of people had PSone mice, they're desirable items for certain games.

      but really, who uses a mouse in the living room?


      Again with the rigid mind set, why not use a mouse in the living room. Mice come in optical and wireless varieties now. just sit the thing on the couch beside you.

      Sometimes it seems to me that when PC gamers complaints are met, they just find some other "problem" that isn't a problem to justify their dislikes on consoles. Complain about mice and then when you can use them, say that no one wants to. Complain about lack of online gaming and then when it happens say that no one has internet in the living room and wants to string wires over the house. (Why not put the cable modem in the living room next to the cable, and use a wireless router and bridge?) Or in the past year when consoles supported high resolution displays they say that no one has them or wants to pay money for them, or that they don't have a tV because they're sitting at their PC all the time.

      Why not just go play on the PC if you're gonna do that and get an all-around much better experience?


      Because it isn't better. The UI sucks, just because the keyboard has a lot of keys doesn't mean you should use them all. Keyboard controls sucked for action games in 1987 and they still suck in 2007. And it costs too much money to keep up with the hardware, not to mention the Windows annoyances.

      I'd rather have a box I can just slap a disk in and play and not have to worry that my video card is up to snuff of if my drivers need upgrading or whether I have enough space for the install. And I want good games, not just from some FPS developer with embarassingly low output that does one game every 5 years, but every year. I don't want to be stuck playing low budget games from Eastern Europe with crappy voice acting for my action/RPG fix. (The PC game market is slowly but surely turning into the Amiga market. Ports and games European devs too cheap or to shortsighted to go console) I also want lots of games OTHER than FPS's, RTS's or MMORPG's.

      Oh come on. Hurts developers? More like it makes them work a little harder and try some new things. Every time some modder creates something new and different, it expands our choices in general.

        I guess you think we should just be able to shell out money for the next Madden update every year instead of getting anything fresh?

      I don't play Madden, but I do know they add new stuff and tweak the gameplay/graphcis every year and it's not just new rosters. And it does come out every year, it's not like they're wating for John Madden Football Forever 1998 to be released in 2007. That's the way it works in the console world, they make money, they release often. Game series do gradual evolution over their releases rather than big jumps once every 5 years.

      It's not snobbery when the consoles haven't shown that they can do games just as well as a PC. When they step up and actually start doing what you claim they can do, then maybe you'll have an argument. Let me know when that happens.


      But they have proven it, over and over again, can't you see?

    21. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Again with the rigid mind set, why not use a mouse in the living room. Mice come in optical and wireless varieties now. just sit the thing on the couch beside you.

      It's not a rigid mindset. Using a mouse for a console is just not comfortable. I'm far from being the only one who thinks that.

      Because it isn't better. The UI sucks, just because the keyboard has a lot of keys doesn't mean you should use them all. Keyboard controls sucked for action games in 1987 and they still suck in 2007. And it costs too much money to keep up with the hardware, not to mention the Windows annoyances.

      No, the UIs have gotten better over time. Maybe you just haven't played the games. Warhammer and Company of Heroes have pretty good interfaces. Supreme Commander has an excellent interface.

      I don't play Madden, but I do know they add new stuff and tweak the gameplay/graphcis every year and it's not just new rosters. And it does come out every year, it's not like they're wating for John Madden Football Forever 1998 to be released in 2007. That's the way it works in the console world, they make money, they release often. Game series do gradual evolution over their releases rather than big jumps once every 5 years.

      Yeah, well I don't want to pay the same price I paid for a game last year just to get an incremental upgrade. I can get that kind of thing for free with patches, map packs and mods. If they want another 50+ dollars from me, they'd better give me a new game, not a glorified patch.

      Sometimes it seems to me that when PC gamers complaints are met, they just find some other "problem" that isn't a problem to justify their dislikes on consoles.

      That's just because the consoles (and console developers) have so many shortcomings to make up for.

      Or in the past year when consoles supported high resolution displays they say that no one has them or wants to pay money for them, or that they don't have a tV because they're sitting at their PC all the time.

      Two things. HDTV still doesn't touch PC resolutions, and console gamers are always comparing the cost of console gaming versus PC gaming, while completely forgetting to include things like the TV that they dropped 2 grand on, or their surround system, etc. Yeah, you can use those for other things as well, but I can use my PC for a LOT of other things as well.

      But they have proven it, over and over again, can't you see?

      No, I don't. I haven't seen one decent RTS, RPG or FPS on the consoles yet that can touch any of the major PC games in those categories. UT3 will be released on consoles as well. Wonder how different it will be from the PC version. I doubt we'll see a good RTS anytime soon. Certainly nothing up to the level of CoH or SupCom. RPG is probably possible, but they definitely haven't done it yet. Oblivion is a joke on consoles, even worse than the PC version (which is pretty bad, yay for mods!).
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    22. Re:Farewell Fallout... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      It's not a rigid mindset. Using a mouse for a console is just not comfortable. I'm far from being the only one who thinks that.


      How do you know? You said you're a PC gamer. Have you done it? It's fine, all you need is a flat surface for a ball mouse or anything for optical. TV tray, hardback book, seat of the couch.

      Two things. HDTV still doesn't touch PC resolutions,


      It doesn't? 1080P is 1920x1080. Lets check Gateway's website. Hmm they only have one monitor that supports that resolution, all the rest are lower. Their entry level monitor is a 1024x768 one. That's the same resolution as my Windows machine. The majority of desktops out there in the home are running with displays less than 1080P.

      while completely forgetting to include things like the TV that they dropped 2 grand on, or their surround system, etc.


      You can get nice 1080i sets for under 400 these days. I've seen a 1080p for around 600. Those aren't the super huge monsters, but normal size screens.

      Yeah, you can use those for other things as well, but I can use my PC for a LOT of other things as well.
      You're forgetting one thing and I'm surprised considering how low your slashdot user number is: Linux. The PS3 runs it, so does the PS2, its officially supported, not some hack.

      I've met all your objections, but I'll never change your mind. You've got that FPS/RTS fan mindset, and I've got my loathing for WASD.

    23. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, a console simply can not produce a decent RTS, FPS or CRPG.

      The psychology of the crazed, obsessive fanboy never ceases to fascinate me. Is your world of PC supremacy so fragile that it needs to be propped up with outright lies and fabrications?
    24. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Every time I've read a review of a console RTS game, they always talk about how the controls suck.

      It's not a hardware issue. If Doom 3 can be controlled with acceptable comfort on the Xbox, so can RTS games.

      It's not snobbery when the consoles haven't shown that they can do games just as well as a PC.

      They have, and there are genres that have been in limited supply on the PC because consoles are just better at them.
    25. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      That's just because the consoles (and console developers) have so many shortcomings to make up for.

      Good thing the PC is absolutely flawless, and only the finest and greatest games are produced for it.

      console gamers are always comparing the cost of console gaming versus PC gaming, while completely forgetting to include things like the TV that they dropped 2 grand on, or their surround system, etc.

      360 + HDTV = 1000-1200 euros, which is still far cheaper than buying a top-of-the-line gaming PC, and both purchases have a considerably longer lifespan too. While your PC "degrades" over time (you have to compromise on graphics quality over time until your system just can't run anything anymore), a console stays the same for the duration of its lifespan.

      Yeah, you can use those for other things as well, but I can use my PC for a LOT of other things as well.

      This is a completely pointless argument. I'm buying a console for gaming. What does it matter that I can watch porn on my PC and troll Slashdot? What's the connection? PCs and consoles aren't mutually exclusive.

      No, I don't. I haven't seen one decent RTS, RPG or FPS on the consoles yet that can touch any of the major PC games in those categories.

      Your comparison is obviously biased since you're only accounting for the genres that are strongest on the PC and discounting everything else in existence. However, the FPS/third person genre has been done succesfully on consoles, and in cases like GRAW, R6V and SCDA the X360 versions have reportedly been much better than their PC counterparts. Metroid Prime isn't even available for the PC, and many games don't show up on the PC until years later.

      I'm shifting away from PC gaming for the time being because it's much too expensive and the endless technical problems and performance issues are starting to get to me. I don't get any nerd satisfaction from spending years wondering why I often get 10-20 FPS in CS:S with the absolute minimum graphics even though I've replaced every component at least once.
    26. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      It's not a hardware issue. If Doom 3 can be controlled with acceptable comfort on the Xbox, so can RTS games.

      Yeah, we've seen what happens to FPS games on consoles. Deus Ex 2 and Thief 3 are good examples. They take what was a great game, and shrink the level sizes down to about 1/8 of what they used to be, design an interface that is a lot more cumbersome, just because they have to work within the confines of the controller, and then they also have to do things like auto-aiming and crappy enemy AI to make up for the lack of precision in the controls.
       

      They have, and there are genres that have been in limited supply on the PC because consoles are just better at them.

      Not really. PCs can do anything that the consoles can do. I've played platformers and sports games on my PC. Psychonauts played just fine on the PC with a gamepad. The reverse is not true, however. Consoles have limitations that make them unsuitable for certain types of games.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    27. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      This is a completely pointless argument. I'm buying a console for gaming. What does it matter that I can watch porn on my PC and troll Slashdot? What's the connection? PCs and consoles aren't mutually exclusive.

      It had a very good point actually, which is that the price difference isn't all that much. I can build a top of the line gaming PC from scratch for less than $2500. I never spend that much on my own, even when I've done a complete rebuild. I just built a completely new PC earlier this year, replaced everything except my monitor for $1500 and it can handle every game I've tried with no problem. When it does start to struggle with the newer games, probably next year, I may upgrade the video card for another $250 or so. I'll be able to get a good DX10 card for that price by then.

      360 + HDTV = 1000-1200 euros, which is still far cheaper than buying a top-of-the-line gaming PC, and both purchases have a considerably longer lifespan too. While your PC "degrades" over time (you have to compromise on graphics quality over time until your system just can't run anything anymore), a console stays the same for the duration of its lifespan.

      That's the dumbest argument I've heard yet. PC capabilities don't "degrade" over time. The games and graphics get better over time, and require better hardware to run at the highest levels. I can turn down the detail a bit and get good performance with graphics staying basically at the same level as when the PC was new. If I want the nicer graphics, I can upgrade my vid card to a newer one. Consoles don't have that option.

      Your comparison is obviously biased since you're only accounting for the genres that are strongest on the PC and discounting everything else in existence. However, the FPS/third person genre has been done succesfully on consoles, and in cases like GRAW, R6V and SCDA the X360 versions have reportedly been much better than their PC counterparts.

      Not sure what you've been reading, but the PC version of GRAW was much better than the console version. The console version was very linear and mostly just a run-n-gun game. The PC version was more open and required a lot more in the way of tactics. It was harder in general. Of course I focused on the genres that the PC is strongest in. That was my point. That the PC does some types of games very well that the consoles can't seem to do well at all. Yet the PC can handle pretty much any type of game that the consoles can do since you can get the same types of controllers for the PC.

      I'm shifting away from PC gaming for the time being because it's much too expensive and the endless technical problems and performance issues are starting to get to me. I don't get any nerd satisfaction from spending years wondering why I often get 10-20 FPS in CS:S with the absolute minimum graphics even though I've replaced every component at least once.

      That's the only decent argument about PCs. They do require more knowledge to use properly. If you know what you're doing, you don't have technical problems and performance issues. But it's really not all that difficult. With all the news out there about identity theft, spyware, viruses, etc., you'd think that people would use a bit of common sense. But they don't. I know I certainly get tired of being asked to fix people's computers all the time because they can't be bothered to run firewall software or to use some common sense and not download every piece of spyware that offers them free smilies for their IM app. Some people just shouldn't use PCs. Consoles are perfect for them since they limit what you can do in general, and thereby also limit the harm you can do. That means they have to be tightly controlled, which is why they'll never have the variety of games and game mods and add-ons that PCs get. And they'll likely have to pay for most of the things that PC gamers get for

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    28. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we've seen what happens to FPS games on consoles. Deus Ex 2 and Thief 3 are good examples. They take what was a great game, and shrink the level sizes down to about 1/8 of what they used to be, design an interface that is a lot more cumbersome, just because they have to work within the confines of the controller, and then they also have to do things like auto-aiming and crappy enemy AI to make up for the lack of precision in the controls.

      But let's just forget about games like GRAW, R6v, GoW, RE4, MP and so forth... they don't fit the dogma that consoles == shit, so it's best not to mention them.

      Not really. PCs can do anything that the consoles can do. I've played platformers and sports games on my PC.

      And I've played FPS games on consoles. So?

      Psychonauts played just fine on the PC with a gamepad.

      A gamepad does not count, and since the only practical difference between the PC and the Xbox (in terms of playing games) is the controller, saying that Psychonauts controls fine on the PC with a gamepad does little to bolster your argument againts consoles.

      The reverse is not true, however. Consoles have limitations that make them unsuitable for certain types of games.

      Same goes for the PC. I would not want to play Tekken or Zelda on my PC.
    29. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      It had a very good point actually, which is that the price difference isn't all that much.

      I forgot to mention one thing about the fact that consoles and PCs aren't mutually exclusive: if I want to play console games, a PC is worthless, and vice versa. One can't replace the other. I can put 5000 euros into a computer and it still won't play Twilight Princess.

      That's the dumbest argument I've heard yet. PC capabilities don't "degrade" over time. The games and graphics get better over time, and require better hardware to run at the highest levels.

      Which is in practise the same thing I just said: your PC "degrades" and becomes gradually less and less able to run the newest games, and eventually it won't run them at all. It's not a dumb argument, it's an irrefutable fact. If it weren't, my X800 would run Crysis.

      If I want the nicer graphics, I can upgrade my vid card to a newer one. Consoles don't have that option.

      Consoles don't need that option, and the standard unchanging hardware is one of their benefits.

      That's the only decent argument about PCs. They do require more knowledge to use properly. If you know what you're doing, you don't have technical problems and performance issues. But it's really not all that difficult.

      If only it were that simple. The performance issue with my computer has persisted through every hardware revision and nobody has any idea what's causing it, and regardless of what drivers or system settings I use nothing ever changes. As far as I can tell it's not a hardware or a software issue, so it must be magic. Shit like that is why I find consoles more enjoyable to use.
    30. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      How do you know? You said you're a PC gamer. Have you done it? It's fine, all you need is a flat surface for a ball mouse or anything for optical. TV tray, hardback book, seat of the couch.

      I use a mouse with my laptop all the time in all sorts of places. I know what's comfortable and what isn't. Using a mouse in the living room is not comfortable, and not something that most console gamers even consider to be an option. When the prospect of wireless keyboard and/or mouse comes up, I always hear console gamers saying that if they wanted to use those they'd play on the PC.
       

      It doesn't? 1080P is 1920x1080. Lets check Gateway's website. Hmm they only have one monitor that supports that resolution, all the rest are lower. Their entry level monitor is a 1024x768 one. That's the same resolution as my Windows machine. The majority of desktops out there in the home are running with displays less than 1080P.

      First of all, Gateway is not a good place to buy PC stuff. Second, go check out Dell's site. You can get an excellent monitor there that has a response rate that makes it great for gaming and a native resolution of 1920x1200 for about 600 bucks. While that's not much better than the best HDTVs out there, it is better, and it's not even the best you can get. Some of the newer ones have native resolutions of 2560x1600.
       

      You can get nice 1080i sets for under 400 these days. I've seen a 1080p for around 600. Those aren't the super huge monsters, but normal size screens.

      Sorry man, I've spent the last 2 months researching HDTVs since I'm planning to buy one soon. You can't get a nice 1080p for $600. I don't doubt you could buy one for that price, but it won't be a good one. I'm leaning towards a 56" Samsung DLP set right now, but I may still go LCD if I can find a good deal.
       

      You're forgetting one thing and I'm surprised considering how low your slashdot user number is: Linux. The PS3 runs it, so does the PS2, its officially supported, not some hack.

      Again though, who cares that you can run Linux on it? Who is actually planning to use their console like a PC? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the console to begin with? The consoles have been becoming more and more PC-like with each generation, but there are limits to how far they can go before they actually start negating some of the benefits of being a console in exchange for the benefits of a PC, along with the associated drawbacks as I mentioned in another post. If you want a PC, get a PC. If you want a console, get a console. You can have both. I plan to get a Wii because it is fun to play and does things that PCs don't currently do, and I can play with friends in my living room. That's where consoles win out in my opinion. You can have a more social experience playing with others in the same place rather than just communicating online. That's not something you can really duplicate with a PC right now.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    31. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Which is in practise the same thing I just said: your PC "degrades" and becomes gradually less and less able to run the newest games, and eventually it won't run them at all. It's not a dumb argument, it's an irrefutable fact. If it weren't, my X800 would run Crysis.

      It's not the same thing at all. Your XBox 360 can't play Twilight Princess either. That doesn't make it less capable than the Wii. The PC doesn't degrade at all. The games simply get better. The graphics you see do not get worse. Let me know if you manage to get your XBox to play XBox 360 games.

      Consoles don't need that option, and the standard unchanging hardware is one of their benefits.

      I'm not disagreeing that it has its benefits. I'm just pointing out that it also has its drawbacks, which is a fact as well. You take the good with the bad.

      The performance issue with my computer has persisted through every hardware revision and nobody has any idea what's causing it, and regardless of what drivers or system settings I use nothing ever changes. As far as I can tell it's not a hardware or a software issue, so it must be magic. Shit like that is why I find consoles more enjoyable to use.

      In my experience, when the problem can't be attributed to the hardware, then it's almost always attributable to the user. The only other alternative is an environmental factor, which is quite rare, but possible. I once helped a guy out who's computer kept getting corrupted. Turned out there was some sort of power transformer a few feet from his office window on the other side of a fence that was screwing it up. He moved it into a room on the other side of his house after I reinstalled everything for him and it ran fine after that. But usually, it's the user doing something wrong. Something that they're installing is generally screwing things up. It's quite obviously not the PC's fault, since millions of people have computers that run just fine. So yeah, if you can't make it work, and you don't know anyone else that can, then you should probably stick with a console. But don't go claiming that PCs are too hard just because you couldn't keep one running properly.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    32. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Your XBox 360 can't play Twilight Princess either. That doesn't make it less capable than the Wii.

      Where did I say that the Wii is less capable because the 360 can't play TP?

      The PC doesn't degrade at all. The games simply get better. The graphics you see do not get worse.

      It's the same thing in reverse.

      Let me know if you manage to get your XBox to play XBox 360 games.

      ?

      So yeah, if you can't make it work, and you don't know anyone else that can, then you should probably stick with a console. But don't go claiming that PCs are too hard just because you couldn't keep one running properly.

      It has nothing to do with me. The problem is not in the hardware, since everything has been changed at least once. If the problem is in the software, it probably can't be fixed since every possible configuration has been attempted and nobody has the faintest idea what the problem is. Don't go claiming that the user is stupid just because the PC has a problem.
    33. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      It's the same thing in reverse.

      Which makes it the opposite, and therefore most definitely not the same. Games getting better does not mean that that PC is getting worse. That's what I meant by the TP thing and the XBox vs XBox 360 comments. Just because XBox 360 games have better graphics and the XBox can't play them, it doesn't mean that the XBox is worse than it was before. It simply means that games are getting better.

      It has nothing to do with me. The problem is not in the hardware, since everything has been changed at least once. If the problem is in the software, it probably can't be fixed since every possible configuration has been attempted and nobody has the faintest idea what the problem is. Don't go claiming that the user is stupid just because the PC has a problem.

      It's just rather obvious that you understand little about PCs. Every possible configuration? What does that even mean? It sounds like you're just randomly trying things and not getting it to work. I build PCs all the time. The software works fine when you set it up properly. It works for many many people out there. I'm not claiming you're stupid. I'm just saying you don't know how to set up a PC properly. Those are two very different things.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    34. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      But let's just forget about games like GRAW, R6v, GoW, RE4, MP and so forth... they don't fit the dogma that consoles == shit, so it's best not to mention them.

      I didn't say that consoles == shit. I said that they just aren't good at certain genres of games. I never tried the console version of R6v, but I did try GRAW on both console and PC, and the PC version was almost a different game. The console version was a straight-up run-n-gun shooter. Run to cover, shoot stuff, run to cover, shoot stuff. Very linear, very little in the way of tactics. The PC game was much more open, more difficult, and required more strategy and tactics. GoW is a different sort of game, and one that, I agree, works pretty well on the console. But it's not an FPS, and I do believe that the PC could do it better still, simply due to better controls. PC games tend to have much better enemy AI as well, which makes the game more interesting, but also requires more precision in the controls for the player to be competitive against them.

      And I've played FPS games on consoles. So?

      See above. PCs have better controls, don't need autoaiming, have larger, less linear levels, generally much better enemy AI, and can generally be tweaked to the user's preferences to a much greater degree. If I wanted to, I could plug in a dual-shock style controller and play it that way, but that would be like playing with oven mitts on my hands compared to using the mouse and keyboard.

      A gamepad does not count, and since the only practical difference between the PC and the Xbox (in terms of playing games) is the controller, saying that Psychonauts controls fine on the PC with a gamepad does little to bolster your argument againts consoles.

      Umm.. a gamepad sure as fuck does count. I have one sitting right here that works just fine for games that it is appropriate for. Why in hell shouldn't it count? It's part of the PC's flexibility, something that consoles are lacking in (although the Wii is promising with its control scheme, good to see them finally trying to do something new rather than trying to make every damn game type work with the gamepad).

      Same goes for the PC. I would not want to play Tekken or Zelda on my PC.

      I don't see why not. Plug in a gamepad and they should play just like they do on the console. That's one type of game where the gamepad is quite appropriate, and the PC can do that just fine. The real strength of the console is that I can sit in the living room with my friends and play. PCs generally aren't good for that. Playing single-player or online is where the PC is best.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    35. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Which makes it the opposite, and therefore most definitely not the same. Games getting better does not mean that that PC is getting worse.

      It's a different way of saying the exact same goddamn thing. No matter how you choose to spin it, there will eventually come a time when you just can't run the latest games.

      It's just rather obvious that you understand little about PCs.

      How would you know? How would you know how much or little I understand about PCs or how long I have been using them? You have no idea.

      Every possible configuration? What does that even mean? It sounds like you're just randomly trying things and not getting it to work.

      It means that I've tried changing every setting I can think of, tried different drivers, and tried running with a clean unaltered install of XP and a tweaked and customized install of XP. I also tried running without certain drivers and I tried altering BIOS settings. And again, not one person has been able to figure out what the problem is. It sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand anything about PCs if you think they're exceedingly simple machines that you just "set up properly" and then everything just works.
    36. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1
      A gamepad is not the standard PC controller. The keyboard and mouse are.

      Playing single-player or online is where the PC is best.

      Yeah, except when I want to play a game that's not available for the PC.
    37. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      How would you know? How would you know how much or little I understand about PCs or how long I have been using them? You have no idea.

      Your comment about trying every possible configuration gave me a pretty good idea of how much you know. That, along with the fact that you weren't able to fix the problem. PCs aren't magical contraptions. There is a way to make them work. The millions of working ones are testament to that.
       

      It means that I've tried changing every setting I can think of, tried different drivers, and tried running with a clean unaltered install of XP and a tweaked and
      customized install of XP. I also tried running without certain drivers and I tried altering BIOS settings. And again, not one person has been able to figure out what the problem is. It sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand anything about PCs if you think they're exceedingly simple machines that you just "set up properly" and then everything just works.

      Never said they were simple. I just said that I know how to set them up. I've built many PCs myself, and fixed more than I can remember. Sometimes the fix is something that doesn't occur to you right away. Like a few years back, I was having some strange problems with my own PC. It wouldn't start up sometimes unless I completely removed the power cord for a minute or two and then plugged it back in. Pretty bizarre behavior, and I thought of all sorts of possible problems, from a bad power supply to a bad motherboard, faulty power switch or power connector. Tried switching to a different power cable. After none of those things panned out, eventually I figured out that the problem was the BIOS and I had to flash it to a new version. That fixed it. Between learning yourself and asking questions of others online, you can develop the understanding of how to fix all kinds of problems. Saying you tried everything is simply a way of saying that you have no idea what the problem is and haven't thought of the answer yet. I'm sorry you're having trouble, but it's not indicative of PCs in general being broken. You might want to rethink your methods for ruling out certain problems, especially hardware and driver problems. Another option woudl be to just purchase prebuilt computers from Dell or another company and get the extended warranty so that they'll help you fix any problems.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    38. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      A gamepad is not the standard PC controller. The keyboard and mouse are.

      Why does it matter that it's not standard? I plug it in and it works. Seems good enough for me.

      Yeah, except when I want to play a game that's not available for the PC.

      Ok, and you can't play a game on the 360 that's not available for the 360 either. What's your point?
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    39. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Your comment about trying every possible configuration gave me a pretty good idea of how much you know. That, along with the fact that you weren't able to fix the problem. PCs aren't magical contraptions. There is a way to make them work. The millions of working ones are testament to that.

      PCs are complicated, some problems are extremely difficult to properly identify and correct. Years of effort and hardware replacements have done nothing to solve this one. Maybe you'll have a different attitude when you encounter a similiar problem.
    40. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1
      And I could overclock my Xbox and add a 500 Gb HDD, but that would make a PC vs. Xbox comparison quite silly since overclocked CPUs and larger HHDs are not standard for Xboxes. Bringing up PC gamepads is particularly silly when PC controls are compared with console controls. Gamepads are an exception, not the norm.

      Ok, and you can't play a game on the 360 that's not available for the 360 either. What's your point?

      You seem to have this attitude that PCs and consoles are somehow mutually exclusive.
    41. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      And I could overclock my Xbox and add a 500 Gb HDD, but that would make a PC vs. Xbox comparison quite silly since overclocked CPUs and larger HHDs are not standard for Xboxes. Bringing up PC gamepads is particularly silly when PC controls are compared with console controls. Gamepads are an exception, not the norm.

      They aren't the exception if you want to play platformers or sports or fighting games on the PC. Any PC gamer that plays those games has a gamepad. Just like gamers who like flight sims or space sims have flight sticks of some sort. PCs are designed to be flexible and make use of a huge array of peripherals. Consoles are not. Deal with it.

      You seem to have this attitude that PCs and consoles are somehow mutually exclusive.

      I don't have that attitude at all. Like I said before, I'm planning to get a Wii, just as soon as I can find one in my area. You said that the PC is useless if you want to play a game that isn't available for it. My point was that you can point to a ton of games that aren't available one one platform or another. It doesn't mean anything.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    42. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      PCs are complicated, some problems are extremely difficult to properly identify and correct. Years of effort and hardware replacements have done nothing to solve this one. Maybe you'll have a different attitude when you encounter a similiar problem.

      Sorry. But if you sent that PC to someone that has the hardware and software to diagnose the problem, and the experience and knowledge to use those tools, they could fix it in a matter of days at the most. Like I said, get an extended warranty and you won't have to worry about it. My PS2 stopped reading discs after a couple years too. That's why it's a brick sitting in the garage right now. That doesn't mean that all PS2s are junk or too difficult to maintain.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    43. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Sorry. But if you sent that PC to someone that has the hardware and software to diagnose the problem, and the experience and knowledge to use those tools, they could fix it in a matter of days at the most.

      I'm sure everything is just that simple in your magic fairy tale land.

      That doesn't mean that all PS2s are junk or too difficult to maintain.

      I have never said that all PCs are this or that. Just because my PC has an impossible problem doesn't mean that they all do.
    44. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      They aren't the exception if you want to play platformers or sports or fighting games on the PC. Any PC gamer that plays those games has a gamepad. Just like gamers who like flight sims or space sims have flight sticks of some sort. PCs are designed to be flexible and make use of a huge array of peripherals. Consoles are not. Deal with it.

      Deal with what? I never claimed consoles are or should be flexible like PCs.
    45. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Just because my PC has an impossible problem doesn't mean that they all do.

      There's no such thing. Something is broken and needs to be fixed. You just don't know what needs to be fixed. It's not magic. You're simply showing your ignorance of the subject.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    46. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      And you're being an arrogant, condescending troll who needs to stop worshipping PCs as if they were Gods.

    47. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      And you're being an arrogant, condescending troll who needs to stop worshipping PCs as if they were Gods.

      I'm not being arrogant, and I'm not trolling. You simply do not understand how PC troubleshooting is done and you probably don't have the right hardware and software to do it. That's not me being arrogant. It's simply stating the facts. If you took that PC to a real repair shop, they could fix it. Insisting that your problem is somehow magically unfixable is simple ignorance.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    48. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Jesus. You're like a fucking brick wall.

    49. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Jesus. You're like a fucking brick wall.

      Heh. I'm not the one claiming to have a magically unfixable computer. That would be you. Despite the fact that the software and hardware has been shown to work for thousands of others, somehow your problem is unfixable and that's the fault of the PC just being too complicated. Right. And I'm the brick wall.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    50. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me: problem has persisted for years. Problem not related to hardware. Problem unrelated to how Windows is configured, what drivers are used or what kind of settings are used. Nobody has any idea what's causing it, and that includes you.

      Just how fucking difficult is this for you to grasp? Maybe you should tell me what's wrong with my computer instead of just whining that the problem is easily fixed.

    51. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me: problem has persisted for years. Problem not related to hardware. Problem unrelated to how Windows is configured, what drivers are used or what kind of settings are used. Nobody has any idea what's causing it, and that includes you.

      Translation: You've missed the problem because you don't know how to diagnose a PC problem properly. One of the things you've ruled out shouldn't have been ruled out. There's no such thing as an unfixable problem.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    52. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is your problem? Are you completely fucking dense? Does anything get through to you?

    53. Re:Farewell Fallout... by Jesterboy · · Score: 1

      I agree with you; there were many things that killed Deus Ex 2, and all of them had nothing to do with the console version. They basically decided to axe everything that made the first one a good game. The GP can try and pin that on the console version, but the blame really lies with the game's designers.

      I've seen several good console ports of PC games. Warcraft II and Diablo made an appearance on the PS1 with little ill effect, system wise. Warcraft II had some additional features, such as a build queue; you could set a building to build a set amount of units, or just have it crank a unit out until you ran out of resources. Original Deus Ex went to the PS2 pretty much intact, Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 went to XBox with minor changes, although the latter had quite a few more loading screens.

      It seems to me that both PCs and consoles are valid video gaming platforms in terms of technical merits; it's the game designers that really screw things up.

    54. Re:Farewell Fallout... by espressojim · · Score: 1

      One thing that was console dependent was the size of the levels. The original had some pretty large levels that were continuous (no loading time), and added to immersion. The sequal had much smaller levels with choke points to connect them together, and the main reason for that was the memory size of the xbox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex:_Invisible_Wa r

  4. Two games? by EvilCabbage · · Score: 4, Funny

    So we get Fallout 3 *and* a Fallout MMORPG?

    Should I file for that divorce now or later?

    1. Re:Two games? by FunWithKnives · · Score: 4, Funny

      Funnily enough, in '98, my girlfriend actually broke up with me because I spent every waking hour playing Fallout II, and wouldn't even stop long enough to answer the phone when she called.

      And the thing is, it really was that good of a game.

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    2. Re:Two games? by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It had much-improved combat and character development (with respect to stats, perks, and skills) than Fallout 1, but I think they really messed up the setting in Fallout 2. New Reno was pretty stupid except maybe for the Bishops and their role in the Vault City/NCR conflict. San Francisco was totally underdeveloped and obviously one of the most rushed parts of the game. The Hubologists were, overall, moronic. No matter how much fun it was to wax that lot, it's pretty obvious that they were sort of a joke "bad guy" faction thrown in as a foil to the Shi, when they completely glossed over internal strife within the Shi themselves by allowing you to settle the LoPan/Dragon dispute in a lame martial arts contest. The Enclave itself delved into biased political rhetoric mostly absent from Fallout 1.

      Many of the endings are screwed up even after the 1.2 patch, and there are still some game-breaking bugs with delayed time-based effects and changing areas; setting dynamite and plastic explosive charges and then switching areas can cause the game to crash when the explosives finally detonate. Sometimes. Maybe.

      Overall, the setting suffered under Urquhart's direction. Fallout 2 was much longer, which was nice, but it just didn't feel right in a lot of spots, and the entire design team chickened out when they decided to disallow playing Fallout 2 with Fallout characters. In fact, the entire plot behind Fallout 2 was influenced by that decision. They had to come up with a plausible reason why the original Vault Dweller couldn't be the main character (or even a companion) in Fallout 2, hence the need for Arroyo.

      As good as Fallout 2 was in some areas, all I ever really wanted was the ability to play more Fallout. Fallout 2 only gave me some of that. I have no real reason to believe that Fallout 3 will be any worse, though there is a serious risk that it may wind up being distinctly humorless and wind up being a Mad Max clone of some kind. If we're lucky, the devs will go back to Wasteland and work from that perspective.

    3. Re:Two games? by toddhunter · · Score: 1

      Should I file for that divorce now or later?
      Have no fear. If history is any guide Fallout 3 will now be pretty, very long and completely and utterly boring .

    4. Re:Two games? by the_ed_dawg · · Score: 1

      My wife and I almost didn't make it because of Fallout 2. I would get up in the morning at 7:30, work all day, hang out with her (then my girlfriend) until around 10:30, and go back to my dorm room to play Fallout 2 until 3:30 AM. Her taking a weekend trip to her parents' house, allowing me to play the final 35 hours was the only reason we made it. :)

      --
      There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
    5. Re:Two games? by b+laurienti · · Score: 1

      I dumped my girlfriend at the time before I got Fallout 2, I dumped her because I didn't have enough time for school, work, and Quake 2... Something had to go, and it sure as hell wasn't going to be my beloved Quake 2!

      Then Fallout 2 came out and I quit my job:)

  5. Meh by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Informative

    I see this as terrible news, myself.

    I realize that Oblivion is a very popular game that a lot of people like. But I just can't get into it. If anything, it's too open-ended - it feels like someone sat down, made a universe, took a week to throw a plotline into it, and then spent a year or two making side quests. I never feel like I'm having a real impact in the world, and I feel like most of the world is in stasis waiting for me to walk by and solve their problems.

    I wouldn't even mind all of that, except that Bethesda appears to have no sense of which features are important and which are not. Sure, you can become a vampire. That's great and all. But why is my inventory so hard to navigate? I could do without becoming a vampire if they'd just make the interface not suck. (Yes, I realize there are now third-party mods for this. A game shouldn't need to be modded to be playable.) At least they're getting better - some of the bugs and glitches in Morrowind were hilarious. It's like nobody ever bothered to sit down and play the game, they just decided to put every awesome feature possible in it without any thought to polish.

    I think that, fundamentally, Bethesda needs to sit down and make an MMORPG. Their design style is practically ideally suited for it, and once they see what horrible problems their "game balancing" creates, they might learn how to balance a damn game for once. But I have to say that I'm not excited in the least about what Bethesda does anymore, and I'm deeply saddened that they now own the Fallout series.

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    1. Re:Meh by scjazz · · Score: 1

      This has got to be some sort of sick joke. I just re-installed Fallout I and II and started playing again. Now those morons at Bethesda are going to totally hose a game I love so much I installed it and am playing it again 10 years later!

    2. Re:Meh by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "I realize that Oblivion is a very popular game that a lot of people like. But I just can't get into it. If anything, it's too open-ended"

      You're in good company, a lot of really crappy games (read: so easy even a retard could play it) end up becoming hits, if anything it's what happens to many good products when the market was smaller and the quality was higher, it becomes commoditized to the lowest common denominator. Read : Entertainment for hapless morons.

      I'm sad to say many "successful" games are bad games that have *regressed* the gains made by many previous games... MMO's regressed all the accomplishments of console and PC RPGS all rolled into one big steaming pile of crap.

      MMO's are the worst offenders, they take an RPG and break everything to extend the amount of time you play the game (read: travelling = no town portal, etc) and make it simply tedious and time consuming before you get to the *fun parts* of the game, you'll have 5-10+ minutes travelling places for every few minutes of fun. I refer to most MMO's as "navigation simulators", since over 50% of the time in the game is spent simply navigating and not doing anything else. It sucks and I hope the game industry has real hard times soon, because many in the industry truly deserve it.

    3. Re:Meh by Fallingcow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fallout II and Deus Ex are the two games that I re-play every couple of years, all the way through.

    4. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, particularly regarding the interface. It sucks! I think the main reason it sucks is because they needed an interface that would work on the consoles as well. When you look a lot of the elements (spell casting interface comes to mind) they feel strongly designed for console use.

    5. Re:Meh by drank · · Score: 1

      I agree. I loved Morrowind. When I finished it, I would have bought any Bethesda RPG automatically. But Oblivion was so disappointing that I'm now very skeptical about ever buying one of their games again.

      Oblivion had some redeeming moments - a couple of side quests were very cleverly designed, and the Dark Brotherhood storyline was well-written - but for the most part it was ruined by a hackneyed plot, poorly-conceived monster/treasure scaling, little connection to the rich Elder Scrolls lore, and the complete lack of inter-faction politics. That, and the fact that it required an endless number of crawls through nearly identical randomly-generated dungeons to complete. And the UI was absolutely insulting to PC users.

      I have very few hopes for Fallout III at this point.

  6. Fourth Floor: Tools, Guns, Keys to Superweapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a great deal of misgivings on this. I really don't think Bethesda should be in the business of making RPG's. Their games have been [in my eyes] a downward slide since Daggerfall. Morrowind had fantastic atmosphere, but the combat and most importantly the Quests and NPC's, were incredibly boring and dull. Oblivion vastly improved the graphics and combat, but the NPC's actually got worse: They retained their wiki-like dialogue from Morrowind, except with fewer things to talk about. What they could talk about was vastly reduced in length, to keep voice-overs from getting too large, and each race only had one or two voice actors, so you get things like a beggar talking like a nobleman and then going back to talking like a beggar.

    Furthermore, the atmosphere and setting took a nosedive. Lore was completely thrown out; what made Morrowind so exotic and alien was gone. Instead they went with a classical fairytale look. [Cyrodiil is supposed to be a jungle.] But by far the worst thing they did with Oblivion was the level scaling. One of the biggest draws of Morrowind was to go exploring in dungeons for valuables, there's absolutely no point to this in Oblivion. Everything is scaled to your level. It doesn't matter where you go or what you do; any treasure you find is scaled to your level, almost all the monsters are scaled to your level. There's no challenge, no mystery, no reward. You might break into a rich nobleman's house, but it doesn't matter if you pick the level 90 lock on his treasure chest, because all you're going to get are a couple gold coins and maybe a rusty dagger.

    If this continues, Fallout 3 isn't even going to be an RPG. Oh, they're going to call it one, for sure. But I think the game, like Morrowind did from Daggerfall, and Oblivion from Morrowind, will slip so far away from the RPG genre, that you'll barely even be able to call it an RPG. [Unless of course, you consider and RPG as just 'playing a role'.] I really get the feeling it'll be something like Diablo, but with guns.

    1. Re:Fourth Floor: Tools, Guns, Keys to Superweapons by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      Psst, most of the loot has been level-scaled since Daggerfall (if not Arena). There were a few static loot items in both Morrowind and Oblivion, though it was much easier to stumble upon static loot quest rewards in Morrowind than it was in Oblivion (Oblivion had a habit of locking down quest dungeons with unpickable locks).

      Honestly, the dungeon design in Morrowind was horrid. Lavatube after lavatube, ugh. Also keep in mind that the setting in Oblivion might have been a little messed-up, but I think they were trying to imitate the general feel of Daggerfall's setting (which they did quite well). I could also see most of the outdoor settings in Oblivion being a sub-tropical rainforest region. It does get fairly lush in some spots.

    2. Re:Fourth Floor: Tools, Guns, Keys to Superweapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, I doubt one in 200 /.'ers are going to get the Ladytron reference...

    3. Re:Fourth Floor: Tools, Guns, Keys to Superweapons by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought that Morrowind's dungeon design was one of the things that was better than Oblivion.

      I found the hole-in-the-ground ruins in Oblivion (can't remember the name, been too long, the ones with the spiral stairs going down) to be mind-numbingly dull, and don't even get me started on Oblivion Gate dungeons. There were one or two really good ones (the ruins under the palace were superb) but nothing like the dozens of individual dungeons that I can still recall, years later, from Morrowind. Every time I found Dwemer ruins in Morrowind, I went in immediately, knowing that I was in for a treat; every time I found a dungeon of any kind in Oblivion, I stayed the hell away, unless I had to go in for a quest, and even then I might just not do the quest if it required me to go in those (Aelid? was that the name?) damned white ruins. I mean, why bother when they practically throw powerful enchanted weapons at you starting when you hit level 5, and there's only leveled loot in the dungeons anyway? Which brings up another issue: does anyone even bother with enchanting when they play Oblivion? I can't see the point.

    4. Re:Fourth Floor: Tools, Guns, Keys to Superweapons by Talgrath · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're silly. Straight damage bonuses (ie, the ones without any sort of element) can make any weapon a destructive force of great power. Using the more powerful stones, you can give your stats huge boosts (I had something ridiculous, 200 strength or something on one character) and constant buffs in general are just nice.

    5. Re:Fourth Floor: Tools, Guns, Keys to Superweapons by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Meh, I never felt like I had inadequate weapons in that game, unlike Morrowind, where one could feel that way for most of the game if one did not go out of the way to get some nice stuff and/or enchant things.

      Also, got some obscene bonuses from rings that are apparently commonplace in Cyrrodil. *shrug*

    6. Re:Fourth Floor: Tools, Guns, Keys to Superweapons by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      The problem with enchanting in Oblivion is that it generally produced underpowered items versus those stones you could get from closing random Oblivion gates. That is, unless you gave yourself permanent 100% chameleon using enchanted items . . . that was just plain stupid.

      And yes, the Oblivion gates were dull, but the lava tubes were terrible too. At least Oblivion had some decent forts and such. Nothing beats the final dungeon from Daggerfall. That was a nightmare.

  7. lol what by DoctaWatson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Where to begin, where to begin...

    First, there's plenty of blood in Oblivion. There's even an option you can set to make it have even more blood than before.

    And Oblivion was rated M.

    Star Trek: Legacy wasn't developed by Bethesda, it was developed by Mad Dog Studios and published by Bethesda.

    Co-developing games for consoles and the PC (like they did with Oblivion) is not the same as developing a game for the console then porting it to the PC. Even Morrowind was developed as a PC game then ported to the X-Box.

    Bethesda's "refusal" to tell the public about game mechanics is a direct result of the Fallout fanbase (namely NMA) having this twisted sense of entitlement that you're showing so well. With you guys, Bethesda is damned if they don't and damned if they do. I sometimes wonder if NMA et al. would be happier if no new Fallout game was being made, ever.

    Ridiculous Fallout fans like to harp on the "it's not Fallout without turn-based combat", as though many other famous RPG series never made the jump from turn-based to realtime combat. Are you seriously going to tell me that Ultima 7 isn't a real Ultima because it has real time combat instead of turns?

    You idiotic Fallout cultists seem to think that Bethesda is going to kill Fallout. I have news for you, Fallout is already dead, going on for nearly a decade. Bethesda is your only hope of seeing it come back to life. I suggest you come to terms with that.

    1. Re:lol what by Murrdox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oblivion was "re-rated" M retroactively because you could mod the game to include topless females. It wasn't because of the violence.

      You make fun of me and call me an "idiotic Fallout cultist" because I love the game mechanics, and then tell me that I shouldn't be in love with them.

      I'm sorry, but the game mechanics are part of the reason that the Fallout games were so excellent. It's wrong of me to love it for that reason? My desire to see the game mechanics I love continued in sequels is somehow wrong? If Bethesda re-made "Street Fighter 2" and turned it into a Final Fantasy type game, I would be equally upset, and I would say the same thing. "This is not a sequel to a Street Fighter game. It is a Street Fighter spin-off game."

      You say "co-developing" Oblivion for the PC and for consoles. I say that when you look at the PC version of Oblivion, it is obvious that they designed the game for the console, plain and simple, and did very little to scale the game upwards to the PC. The simple fact that you cannot map any keyboard commands beyond what a game controller can handle makes this self-evident. I love Oblivion, but only after I've installed 3 mods that "fix" the PC version. I am glad they made a PC version of the game. However, they did a poor job of it.

    2. Re:lol what by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      What three mods are those? It sounds like you have a lot of the same problems with oblivion that I do.

    3. Re:lol what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At a guess he's probably talking about BTmod or maybe WZ Inventory which both make the UI much better, links to them are below:

      http://www.tessource.net/files/file.php?id=9937
      http://btmod.beider.org/

  8. $75 million dollar budget??? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 3, Funny

    Holy fuck.

    1. Re:$75 million dollar budget??? by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      The fact that any game company would consider spending that much money on a game suggests that there's something seriously wrong with industry game design. How much did Id Software spend on, say, Doom II?

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
  9. Interplay to make MMORPG, not Bethesda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way i can undestand the following is that even though Interplay sold the licence they still have the right to the MMORPG and they will be making it, not Bethedsa, who will be making fallout 3.

    http://www.nma-fallout.com/

            Under the License Back the Company obtained an exclusive license, under certain conditions, to use the IP for the purpose of developing an Interplay branded Fallout Massively Multiplayer Online Game ("MMOG").

    Interplay pledges to obtain funding for and start the development of the MMOG within two years and to successfully launch it within six (which entails securing the continual patronage of a minimum of 10,000 paying subscribers), or else forfeit this license. Some additional excerpts:

            2.6 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. Any and all rights not explicitly granted to Interplay hereunder are reserved by Bethesda.

            5.3.2 Interplay shall not offer or provide any products or services whose nature or quality does not comply with the quality standards of Bethesda.

            7.0 PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES. Interplay agrees to pay Bethesda a Royalty of twelve percent (12%) of the Net Cash Receipts derived from the sale and distribution of the FALLOUT MMOG, including sales of subscription fees or access fees to the FALLOUT MMOG or any other revenues generated by the FALLOUT MMOG, in the Territory during each calendar quarter following the commercial launch of the FALLOUT MMOG.

  10. Re:"Stolen content" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, because we all trust rumours that surface on april fools day...

    Fool :P

  11. Gonna give this one a wait and see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally am going to wait and see. I have no problem with someone other than Interplay taking this on. The major reason I say this is because the original Fallout was a game I dreaded. I loved Wasteland and I was like, shit, they(The same company that made a bunch of crappy star trek games and a bunch of shit that is not worth the media it was put on) will not make a game as fun as that. Well they did. So I think I'll give Bethesda a try on this one.

  12. Good news? by crossmr · · Score: 1

    Did you snort cocaine before writing this? The only good news that could have come about fallout was that interplay had pulled the rights and was locking them away until a developer worthy of them showed up. Fallout will not survive the Bethesda treatment.

    1. Re:Good news? by slaida1 · · Score: 1

      Cheer up. It's only the usual post-apocalyptic survival story but with good writing. Anyone could do same without Fallout IP.

      See, almost all funny things in Fallout were references to other entertainment: Monty Python, Star Trek, The Godfather, Mike Tyson, Full Metal Jacket, etc. It's the standard for funnay for dummies: quick refrences here and there that need only extensive knowledge of contemporary popular culture but no.. braiinss!

      Huh huh huh, I said "braiiinss!" like those zombies in that one movie.

      I liked Fallout but nevertheless noticed all the stupid simple references that made me laugh and at the same time hate myself and everybody else who think that kind of funny has future. Because it's true: we are simple, stupid beings. Easily amused.

      --
      Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
    2. Re:Good news? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Fallout 2 was loaded with silly pop culture references, but the original Fallout was very sparse with them.

      Both are great games, and the original is the best game I have ever played. The sequel was a bit too silly in some places and extremely buggy, even with patches.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  13. Bethesda != Crap by SageinaRage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You'd think that Bethesda had raped everyone's dog the way people are reacting to this news. I would have thought Slashdot to be a little more open minded and thoughtful than NMA.

    Just because you didn't like Elder Scrolls doesn't mean Fallout will be bad.

    Just because they made Elder Scrolls doesn't mean Fallout will be LIKE Elder Scrolls.

    If you don't want Bethesday to make it - who the hell DO you want? Should the IP just sit unused until everyone forgets about it? Should we let the next generation of gamer's only impresssions of it be the Interplay MMO? At least wait until you play a demo or something before you start screaming bloody murder.

    1. Re:Bethesda != Crap by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 1
      That's unfortuniatly pretty much what every Fallout fan wants.

      I've seen a lot of fan communities, and Fallout lovers are undoubtedly the worst of the lot. Yeah, after Brotherhood of Steel some of it might be justified, but personally, I think BS makes awesome, if flawed, games. Besides, if Fallout 3 gets the level of mod support that the TES games have gotten, the Fallout community can simply mod in or out anything they feel like.

      --
      I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
    2. Re:Bethesda != Crap by king-manic · · Score: 1

      You'd think that Bethesda had raped everyone's dog the way people are reacting to this news.

      Well, it's like being a tolkien fan and finding out Micheal Bay is directing the trilogy. It might be fun, but it's really far from what you wanted.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    3. Re:Bethesda != Crap by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      If you don't want Bethesday to make it - who the hell DO you want?

      If I can't have Leonard Boyarsky and Tim Cain? I'd take Warren Spector.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    4. Re:Bethesda != Crap by jonaac · · Score: 1

      "I would have thought Slashdot to be a little more open minded and thoughtful than NMA." Whenever you read something you disagree the others become close minded and dumb? That's not how things work, is it? And I worked at NMA, it has times of too much hostility and not enough focus, but overall I don't get your surprise, it's really a place for fans, and fans of that series tend to have similar views everywhere, there's an history that molded us into the various views that are expressed here and on the fansites. Nothing really surprising about that...

    5. Re:Bethesda != Crap by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's a bit like being a Tolkien fan and finding out that Peter Jackson is directing the film trilogy? Before the first film I don't think many would have considered him to be the right person for the job (I guess some people still don't think so).

    6. Re:Bethesda != Crap by jpietrzak · · Score: 1

      If you don't want Bethesday to make it - who the hell DO you want? Should the IP just sit unused until everyone forgets about it? And what would be wrong with that? Do you believe that, because the original game was so good, the IP should be pushed more? Just because somebody can come along and use that IP and create a new game in the same fantasy world, or with the same game mechanics, there's no guarantee that you'll get another great game. In fact, given the average quality of sequels, I would say it argues _against_ the next Fallout being any good. I would argue that Fallout would be better remembered now if it hadn't had multiple sequels of continually declining quality.

      There's nothing wrong with leaving Fallout on the shelf, and letting game creators work on more original stuff.

      (For example, consider the upcoming game "Bioshock"; it is essentially a sequel to the System Shock series, using a similar game engine and strucure; but the folks creating it did not have access to any of the System Shock IP. As such, they had to invent a new world for it, and I think the game has actually benefitted from this.)

      --John
    7. Re:Bethesda != Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you don't want Bethesday to make it - who the hell DO you want?

      Bioware, thank you very much.

    8. Re:Bethesda != Crap by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Bethesda has a long history of releasing bug ridden software with wide open spaces of nothing and boring rewards.

      seriously, it isn't a matter of liking a genre, it's a metter of there horrible implimintation.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Bethesda != Crap by vertinox · · Score: 1

      You'd think that Bethesda had raped everyone's dog the way people are reacting to this news.

      I'm sorry! I tried to keep Bethesda from doing that to my dog, but I forgot to keep Dogmeat behind the forcefield.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    10. Re:Bethesda != Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have thought Slashdot to be a little more open minded and thoughtful... That's the funniest thing I've read here in weeks.
  14. The problem with Bethesda. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I realize some people love Oblivion but I think Oblivion epitomizes what's wrong with PC gaming. It's a fabulous tech demo but otherwise lacking real substance and style. Bethesda seemed to be so obsessed with creating a photo-realistic world that they've sucked the life and art out of the game. I have to admit that those landscapes look phenomenal. But then you walk up to any NPC and they look goofy. Monsters look like claymation and humans look like second-rate actors from some crappy fantasy movie.

    I haven't seen a single NPC from Oblivion or any of the expansions that doesn't look goofy. They don't look like people who would inhabit a true fantasy world. They don't have battle-hardened bodies, some even have a chin fat like they've eaten one too many pop tarts. Many look like they probably Bethesda employees complete with the look of amusement at the fact that they're going to be featured in a game.

    The tech demo feel never leaves me, what with the obsessive use of texture mapping. Almost everything in Oblivion has this lumpy wet look. It feels like it's there to impress the viewer as opposed to actually adding substance to the game.

    Then there's the ridiculous gameplay mechanic of enemies scaling to the player's level. Doesn't that defeat the whole point of leveling up in an RPG? It seems like an ill-conceived solution to the leveling problems encountered in Morrowind. I'm inevitably left with the impression that the developers didn't spend much time thinking about gameplay.

    Then there's the performance aspect. Oblivion is one of those games that can make a 1 to 2 year old machine feel obsolete. Buy a console and performance isn't even an issue. There's comfort in knowing that not only will the system handle any game designed for it but the games will almost certainly improve throughout that system's lifespan. Not so with PCs. I can't help but think this alienates many PC gamers. It alienates me and I much prefer PC gaming over console gaming.

    But Bethesda like other PC developers are obsessed with pushing the limits of hardware. So gamers get stuck with the same old genres with not much to look for but increasingly realistic graphics with little style. World of Warcraft doesn't have anywhere near the graphical sophistication of Oblivion, but I think it's far more entertaining to look it because it has such a strong sense of character. I'd argue that a single screenshot of the most recent Final Fantasy game has more creative style than all of Oblivion, even if Oblivion is more impressive technically. But I just don't feel like there's a real sense of creativity.

    I didn't really intend on getting on that sort of rant about Oblivion. But I think it illustrates what I expect from any new Fallout game. I expect Bethesda to apply the Oblivion approach to Fallout. It's going to be another lifeless tech demo that wont run well on anything but the latest hardware.

    1. Re:The problem with Bethesda. by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      hey don't look like people who would inhabit a true fantasy world. They don't have battle-hardened bodies, some even have a chin fat like they've eaten one too many pop tarts.
      I agree, network administrators don't belong in a fantasy setting.

      Seriously, though. Not everybody, in any setting, should be a bronzed, buff bulldozer. People aren't the same - some are in good shape, but some are fat. Some are thin, too. Some are balding, or are even completely bald. Believe it or not, but not everyone is the same height, either.

      Even a fantasy world needs the fat and lazy aristocrat, bureaucrat, or merchant.
      --
      Love sees no species.
    2. Re:The problem with Bethesda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My biggest problem with Morrowind (big enough that I won't buy oblivion) is that there's no real plot. The plot is something that makes you want to complete it for reward. In Morrowind, the plot was too challenging for the level of reward you got, especially compared with just running around the world. If they could take the worlds that they make and just add a decent plot, something strong and compelling, then I'd love their games more than just about any others I've played. As it is, I grow tired of them easily.

  15. I repeat LOL WHAT by DoctaWatson · · Score: 1

    Game mechanics are what made Fallout great? Here I was thinking it was the storytelling, dialogue and setting that made Fallout great. Even for its time, Fallout had simplistic turn-based combat, terrible AI, and a horribly unbalanced skill system.

    The ability to re-map keys doesn't make anything "self-evident" about Oblivion's development. Your precious Fallout didn't include the ability to re-map keys, and I doubt you'll be arguing that it was originally developed for a console. I'll give you that cross-platform development may lead to compromises, but the outright paranoia and hostility exhibited by the Fallout fan community is nothing but FUD.

    1. Re:I repeat LOL WHAT by jonaac · · Score: 1

      "Bethesda's "refusal" to tell the public about game mechanics is a direct result of the Fallout fanbase (namely NMA) having this twisted sense of entitlement that you're showing so well" False. A complete lie, actually, they never release info about their games until they are ready, it's something they always do, and this is no exception. for someone that attacks Fallout fans as hostile, stupid paranoids you really should be less paranoid yourself.

    2. Re:I repeat LOL WHAT by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      You both miss the point, although I think the GP misses it less than you do. Fallout was great because of both the story, and the game mechanics. It's like trying to argue that either FX or plot don't matter in a movie, the fact is, they both contribute and screw either one (or both) up and the movie just isn't as good as it could be. Now, as for realtime vs. turn-based, I really hope they stay with turn-based. For me, part of the fun of Fallout was the turn-based combat, and it's something I've really missed. No one is making turn-based RPGs anymore, and it really saddens me. The closest you get to turn based is NVWN2 where you keep having to mash the space bar to pause and queue up more commands. If they turned out Fallout 3 with a modern graphics engine, but kept the old skill/turn-based gameplay (similar to what was done with supreme commander, if you compare it to say Starcraft), I think it'll be a great game. If they ditch the turn-based combat, it'll still be a ok game, but to me it wouldn't feel like Fallout anymore. By the same token, if they keep the turn-based combat, but trash the atmosphere and story, it would be a similarly mediocre game.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  16. Open request to Bethesda re fallout by MikShapi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Game balance: PLEASE, oh PRETTY PLEASE, make the game (monsters, items) not level up with the game.

    I realize it's a seriously cheaper solution than paying a group of people play the game many times to find the fine line between laughably easy (and thus not fun) and impossibly hard (frustrating and thus not fun), with properly controlling player's access to powerful items and monsters in an open-ended world. It's the ultimate challenge for someone who makes an RPG. Your choice in Oblivion did not sidestep the issue. It FAILED the issue. The game may have been fun to people who play it with a side-quest tick-list, not really caring what comes between tick and tick, but your core crowd, both oblivion-side and fallout-side, will be the people who diligently explore every nook and cranny of the virtual world, expecting to be rewarded by some meaningful (read: NOT scaled and otherwise easily-attainable) item that was scaled to their level anyway and could have thus been found in any easily-accessible container. You have done this in some places in Oblivion, you need to do it MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE. I've reached numerous hard location, and found nothing but items my level would have gotten out of any other, usually easier to come across, chest.

    2. Random Treasure - NOT IN HARD-TO-REACH locations. Well-protected or Hard-to-get-to chests, whether in dungeons, some hard-to-find sunken ship, some well-locked-up merchant's house etc should NOT EVER be random. They should have unique and helpful items, to reward diligence in getting to the hard-to-reach location.

    3. Your game system, XP (as in experience points, not the OS) and SPECIAL.
    XP is a WONDERFUL concept. It is the utterly best coin by which you can reward a player. Better than gold, better than items. There is NEVER enough XP (and if there is, bump your level cap). XP should buy levels, and levels should buy abilities that COMPLEMENT those given by items, not require you to displace old items like /additional/ items the player gets given require him to do.

    Oblivion had no XP system. (as a side-note, XP and levels were a bit on the uninfluential side, considering you didn't get any edge over anything by leveling up, if anything, even after all the new items that magically appeared around the world, you could still barely keep up with the monsters).
    It had a leveling system that screamed macroing. If you'd stand in one place and jump 5000 times, you got more bonuses when you leveled up. It was geared towards semi-exploitation, i.e. do something the game allows to get more powerful, but spend a lot of boring game time doing it. So you choose between either boring yourself to death, or throwing powergaming out the window. BAD choice to impose on your clients. powergaming SHOULD NOT be made boring.

    Further, if you accidentally level up (by practicing your chosen skills - this might be by running enough for example) before you practiced the skills that would give you the correct attribute bonuses, you MISS OUT on the bonuses. To anyone who is informed of his char sheet and future development plans, Leveling in Oblivion is an annoying minefield to be meticulously planned from day 1 and very carefully treaded throughout the game, instead of the satisfying gameplay perk it should be. I realize you can just play the game and ignore leveling bonuses, but that's no better than playing any RPG without proper /informed/ consideration to the types of bonuses given by leveling, just picking stuff at random like someone who doesn't understand all those long technical words. It's not fun to those of us who ARE trying to achieve their best using your game mechanics (i.e. attempt to obtain the best "numbers" that the game mechanics allow us to). It's our way to try and get ahead, win. Your system encourages game mediocrity, and throws us to hell.

    Enter SPECIAL, fallout's levelup/skill system. Like Oblivion, albeit in a very different way, it is classless (as compared to, say, classic AD&D). But it isn't jus

    --
    -
    1. Re:Open request to Bethesda re fallout by jonaac · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more, good post.

  17. All these damn Fallout fans... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    I am a huge fallout fan! I own all the games, and played them all through a couple times (including the Xbox game... which I would give a solid C-, it was mildly entertaining! It is definitly worth a $9.99 bargain bin purchase!), and I am definitly looking forward to Bethesda doing a new Fallout game.

    Seriously, who else would you rather see do a Fallout game? (OK, who else would you rather see do a Fallout game besides Bioware? :) ) Aside from Bioware, Bethesda are an excellent choice. I would rather see a Bethesda game than to let the IP become worthless and totally die out. What do you think are the chances of seeing another Starflight game? Or another Populus? Or another Elite? Or another Wing Commander? Or another Space Quest? Game IPs die out, you know!

    1. Re:All these damn Fallout fans... by lieutenant_Zaz · · Score: 1

      Seriously, who else would you rather see do a Fallout game? (OK, who else would you rather see do a Fallout game besides Bioware? :) )
      Maybe UbiSoft, they've made good RPGs before.
    2. Re:All these damn Fallout fans... by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      What do you think are the chances of seeing another Starflight game?
      Starflight 3 is coming out "Real Soon, Now."
      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    3. Re:All these damn Fallout fans... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I would rather see a Bethesda game than to let the IP become worthless and totally die out.

      Doing nothing with it isn't what makes IP worthless. Doing something bad with it is. For ages after its release, Star Wars was the greatest thing ever. But the prequels (though I'm sure they made a lot of money) really lost the franchise a lot of appreciation, and therefore value. The next Star Wars movie won't make nearly as much money. Same thing for Terminator. Terminator 1 and 2 were brilliant, but 3 killed it. People prefer too ignore it. If Fallout 3 is bad, there may never be a Fallout 4. No Fallout 3 means that in 5 or 10 years, when the time is right, someone who knows what to do with it can still resurrect it.

    4. Re:All these damn Fallout fans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you probably won't read this because I'm an AC. But I think 5-10 years is enough time to wipe away the bad memories of a failed fallout 3. Look at an example we have in movies. Batman Begins. The original Batman 1 and 2 were good, the following god knows how many were TERRIBLE and completely ruined the series. Yet time passed, many years passed and Batman Begins was brought to us (which in my personal opinion was excellent). I think with the right minds behind the project, any series can be revived. So personally I'm not too worried about them ruining Fallout 3, I'm glad they are making it just because there is that ever so small chance they release something great (I know it's a long shot, but in my opinion a long shot is better than no shot.) If they fail? who cares, I still have my own personal memories of how great fallout 1 and 2 were, I couldn't care less of what newer folks thought on the matter.

  18. Oh, man. by seebs · · Score: 1

    I love some of Bethesda's attitude, but...

    The whole point of an RPG is that you make decisions, and that resolution is based on your CHARACTER'S skills.

    Bethesda has really stressed interfaces where combat resolution is based on the PLAYER'S skills.

    I can't see this working out well for Fallout, where a great deal of the fun was being able to make characters with widely different abilities. Bethesda will give us a twitch-friendly game with realistic graphics but a combat system that's more FPS than RPG. And it will, no matter how good the graphics are, be a waste of time, because it won't be Fallout.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  19. Babies by __aamkky7574 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have never seen such a pitiful bunch of whining elitist crybabies as I've seen in this thread. I'm thinking of applying to Bethesda just so I can work on Fallout 3, make it rubbish, and watch with glee as you fling yourselves off the nearest cliff, mewling with self-pity all the way down to the welcoming waves.

    P.

    1. Re:Babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're an ass.

    2. Re:Babies by wuie · · Score: 3, Funny

      and watch with glee as you fling yourselves off the nearest cliff, mewling with self-pity all the way down to the welcoming waves.

      I'm glad I picked the perk 'Bloody Mess', this is going to be exciting!

  20. Pinning One's Hopes On A Thread by kornkid606 · · Score: 1

    Personally, I like Oblivion, but for every one thing I love I can name three things I hate. It saddens me to see that Bethesda now owns the Fallout series. It saddens me because I am sure it will turn out to be "The Elder Scrolls V...er we mean FALLOUT 3" where Bethesda takes the same tired, uncreative template and forces a great design into an old, bad mold. I would say that Bioware (or wherever the original dev team is now) could do it better, but I doubt it. I almost think Fallout 3 would turn out better if it were made by some no name developer who had a lot of experience with the original Fallout and was willing to take it in a new direction while staying true to what Fallout is.

    I just don't see this happening at Bethesda. They already have it in their heads the game they want to make, regardless of the IP. Fallout 3 is just going to be the same old tired Bethesda game with a new Fallout theme. And, most likely, they won't give it the amount of time it needs and will just churn out a buggy, lackluster product. And I will go out and buy it. And there is probably no way that Fallout 3 could live up to anyone's hopes, which is why no more games should probably be made based on fallout, let the Franchise die with some decency. But we all know that isn't going to happen. It is like hoping for a good X-Men game - never going to happen.

    I am hoping that all my speculation is wrong and that I am totally surprised by Bethesda's Fallout 3, but my hope hangs on by a thread called "past experience" and while past experience holds up pretty well over time, in this case it is certainly nothing to pin one's hopes on.

    --
    Future indie game developer of America (and possibly Canada)
    1. Re:Pinning One's Hopes On A Thread by Lenneth-chan · · Score: 1

      And there is probably no way that Fallout 3 could live up to anyone's hopes This, really, is the biggest problem - when you have a franchise as venerated (and without a sequel for as long a time) as Fallout, you build expectations so high that you can't possibly hope to meet them, no matter how good your game is. I don't particularly think that Bethesda is the best, or even a good, choice to handle the Fallout IP, but I don't think that there is any group that could really do it justice in the eyes of the fans.
  21. Time for doing our own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a look at http://www.fifengine.de/. Looks promising.

  22. Old news by zyl0x · · Score: 1

    I could swear the big fuss about this was three years ago. I think you guys are a little behind.

    --
    Blerg.
  23. Must replay games by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

    Same here. Add to that the Baldur's Gate saga, Ultima VII parts 1&2, and Star Control 2 and you've got my list of never-get-old, must replay games. Probably a few more.

    --
    There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
  24. +1 Amen by kailoran · · Score: 1

    I could say more but I would be just repeating parts of your post...

  25. Oh fuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw a radscorpion the other day...
                --random Fallout 3 NPC

  26. On The Plus Side by Tofystedeth · · Score: 1

    If they did do it Oblivion FPS style, imagine how awesome it would look the first time you were ambushed by a Deathclaw. Or come around the corner to find a supermutant wielding a flamethrower.

    /me misses him some Krrldraav.

    I liked Oblivion, but other than the fact that it barely ran on my computer, I didn't play it long enough to hate it or find all those bugs people complain about.

    --
    "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
  27. Re:"Stolen content" by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    Thaat rumour has been verified by several people.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  28. Online Fallout will never happen by mackil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm kind of struck by the fact that Interplay actually sold the rights to Fallout, when they had already sold the license a couple years ago. This kind of sounds like they don't have the funds to work on their Massive online version. Could this be a desperate move for some quick cash? I doubt that we will ever see that Fallout Online version. More than likely, Interplay will fold like a deck of cards. Shame really...

  29. Cautiously optimistic thanks to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. by darkmayo · · Score: 1

    Didnt know what to think about Bestheda getting getting the rights to Fallout, I knew it wasnt going to be isometric and that worried me, but after playing through STALKER I have to say I am looking forward to what this game might become. Stalker was able to make a great First Person Shooter that wasnt too linear and told a great story with a great atmosphere. Creepy, desolate enviroments, I can look at Fallout 3 and think of getting attacked my a Bloodsucker in Stalker and applied it to be a Bloodclaw instead.

    The humor and the inside jokes need to remain tho, hopefully whoever pens the script for the game has a clue, as well shitty voice actors wont be appreciated either.. blowing your cash on getting Patrick Stewart to say like 5 lines and letting the rest of the voice acting suck ass wont do.

    --
    "I am a kernel in the linux army"
    1. Re:Cautiously optimistic thanks to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      first off, sorry to be a nazi - but thats a "Deathclaw"

      second off, personally I liked the level of control that Fallout 1+2 had that came with the hex-honeycomb grid and turn based combat, but not too much like in tactics...

    2. Re:Cautiously optimistic thanks to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. by freshmayka · · Score: 1

      STALKER was also developed in the Ukraine by people who had a passion for the catastrophic nuclear disaster that happened in their back yard 21 years ago. They also spent 6 long years developing the title.

      I don't think the staff of Bethesda which lives in the nice suburbs of Maryland is going to connect with the concepts of radioactive fallout and nuclear disasters in the same way. I fully expect Bethesda to put in 1/5th the passion and 1/2 the development time compared to GSC (developers of STALKER).

    3. Re:Cautiously optimistic thanks to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. by darkmayo · · Score: 1

      Deathclaw!!! I was typing it out and thought it looked wrong.

      Yea I loved the style the first two where built on as well. PLanning out fights and making sure you had enough AP to put a round into a guys eyeball.

      I like the world that Fallout is in, and I am willing to give this a chance if it is done well.

      --
      "I am a kernel in the linux army"
    4. Re:Cautiously optimistic thanks to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. by darkmayo · · Score: 1

      They dont live in a medevil fantasy world either, but they managed to make a pretty awesome fantasy world to bomb around in.

      I am just willing to give them a chance, unlike NMA who have been screeching that the spirit of fallout is being raped with a rusty spiked dildo attached to a red rider bb gun.

      --
      "I am a kernel in the linux army"
    5. Re:Cautiously optimistic thanks to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. by 1337W422102 · · Score: 1

      I really enjoy how S.T.A.L.K.E.R. feels so Fallout, at least to me (though there aren't nearly enough hookers, nor women for that matter). If they DO manage to mess up Fallout 3, I'll just be happy that I played S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and wonder why they couldn't have made FO3 more like it.

  30. Cautiously Optimistic by Zaphenath · · Score: 1

    Cautiously optimistic I think nicely sums up my feelings.

    Really, both arguments are pretty valid. We have all seen crap from Bethesda, and we have also seen gold. Some of us like the games, some of us deplore them. It should go without saying, but we all have tastes and personal preferences and developers know they cannot make everyone happy. That being said, we all need to remember that devs are people too, and these guys (and implicitly gals) making the game are, in fact, gamers. Or at least were. Or have some investment in gaming. These guys know what kind of fanbase they bought with the rights, and I cannot assume that they will botch it too badly. (of course, I could very well be chewing on my hat when these games come out, like I said, I am trying to be optimistic here)

    All that being said, I was uneasy at the thought of a non-isometric Fallout game. When one thinks of Fallout, on thinks of isometric view. However, everything evolves, things change, and technology is better. Thinking about it, I look forward to exploring the world from a more natural perspective. Being able to look up at buildings, the walls of Vault city, or across a landscape are all things that are immersive, as well as being snuck up on by bandits or deathclaws. I look forward to more detail in the world, and being able to stride through the Wasteland.

    However, I do worry about the implementation of XP, perks, skills, etc. The main thing I worry about is dialogue and individual characters. I felt that the Elder Scrolls series is pretty lacking in memorable NPCs. Granted, Fallout had plenty of identical villagers, but there was a pretty hefty slew of characters.

    Worst case scenario we stick Fallout 1 and 2 back in the old CD tray. Nothing will ever be better than the originals, eh?

  31. Good and bad. by anduz · · Score: 1

    In what I can only see as good news, the Fallout IP has been sold to Bethesda Softworks.
    This is correct, if you havn't actually played Fallout before. If you have, and you're hoping for a real follow up then it's really the worst news you could recieve. Bethesda Softworks have made a lot of good games, and a lot of people love the elder scroll series. But they have never, in any of their products, displayed any of the morbid humor, dusky moral or brilliant dialog that made Fallout into Fallout. They are not alone though, noone has ever really captured the essence that is present in all Black Isle (later Trokia and Obsidian Labs) games, but Bethesda Softworks probably couldn't be further off than they are.

    Of course this doesn't mean Fallout 3 is going to be a bad game, it may dissappoint Fallout fans by the hordes, but the newer generations of gamers are probably in for a sweet experience. A quick stroll around the Fallout fan community will show you that I'm hardly the only one who thinks Bethesda Softworks making a Fallout is going to turn out bad - there are pages of fan written arguments as to why it's a bad idea on communitie like NMA - and it makes me wonder why Bethesda Softworks simply didn't build their own post apoc world from scratch.

    But we'll see what happens, hopefully I'm wrong.

  32. Zelda for the CDi by dcdz78 · · Score: 0

    I'm afraid Fallout is merely a name for a vision brought forth through a group of guys at Black Isle. I predict the future Fallout's will suffer the same fate Zelda had when Nintendo sold it's rights to the CDi project. You got a new Zelda game... it sucked, but you got a new Zelda game. I will stand corrected if some of the same guys at Black Isle are working on these new Fallout projects but somehow I don't think any of them are. Kind of like how I noticed James Cameron had nothing to do with Terminator 3. Sure, I was watching Arnold shoot guns and follow the whole Terminator story in a movie but the visionary (Cameron) of the first two cinematic masterpieces were obviously not there. Same with Fallout. But I still have hope...