This was an entertaining read

http://pc.ign.com/articles/878/878117p1.html

Makes you seriously wonder how accurate the news truly is sometimes.

Fallout 3 Gameplay. There are many more on the NMA front page.

*sigh*

This has got to appeal to the Halo crowd...

The mininuke launcher is ridiculous, not to mention the teddy bear launcher, how can you KILL someone shooting a teddy bear? that part of the physics is messed up.
The guys doing the interview (and the whole show) are so retarded.


But the game looks like a lot of fun to me!

Granted the guys doing the interview should be sent to interview tigers in Siberia wearing a meat necklace, but I think it looks like just another FPS. I guess he has God mode activated, so he doesn't have to play with any skill, but this gives me Bioshock vibes. Had atmosphere for the first 5 minutes, then it exploded into a moronic shooter (the demo anyway, couldn't take more than that). That surely wasn't what I wanted from that game, and it surely isn't what I want from Fallout 3. I'll not write it off completely until I tested it, but at best it will be an entertaining FPS I fear.

I'm going to assume that you've never played Halo, nor personally seen it played. Because otherwise that comment is just weird. O.o

I think this looks really good. Pretty much what happened when Bioware made the change from Birds-eye perspective to 3rd person when they transitioned from Baldur's Gate to Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect. A completely different angle of gameplay.

Considering the way this game is being played, this may be the new "Deus Ex" we've been waiting for, for so many years.

As a side note, Dragonhawk gave me both Fallout and Fallout 2. And I'm glad that the intricacies of it's combat system are maintained, despite going for a 3rd person/1st person perspective. Now I'm waiting to see how the conversation system is developed and if we can become pornstars again!

There's a saying: "Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups"

I did witness Halo being played on XBOX, and gave it a try. Being anything but skilled with the console controllers, I quickly gave up. Later I played the trial for PC, and it was not what I had hoped. Creatures that looked like they belonged in Donkey Kong would jump out from behind cover, then back. Timing their jumps was easy, and the useless AI couldn't compensate for my actions (in other words, it looked like they were scripted to jump back and forth). The rest of the trial was not terrible (despite the fact that the car felt like I was driving a boat on land), but it was nothing more than any other FPS either (and far away from games like Half-Life and UT). Only thing I thought was amusing was the grenade that stuck to creatures, but that still doesn't explain why everyone rave about Halo. Suffice to say I was extremely disappointed to find out this was THE GAME for XBOX. One can argue that the trial is only part of the game, but it is quite extensive and lets you try quite a few things. I have also seen other parts of the game that is nothing out of the ordinary.

As for what is weird with my comment, I am not sure what you refer to. The Fallout 3 video I linked to has mostly one thing to "stun the audience": big explosions and graphics. It basically goes "We got this shotgun, BOOM!, head blown away. Now let's look at the rocket launcher, BOOM!, bodyparts flying! The Enclave, they're tough, BOOM!, we've got the nuclear catapult! Oh, there's skills and shit too.". Whenever they show flying bodyparts, the audience cheers. For people that enjoyed the deep and rich gameplay of Fallout, this is but a very small part of it. What I'm saying is, this looks like something more likely to attract FPS fans on console (it's being shown on console) than fans of the original games (with a little venom added, as I'm not happy with the direction they've taken).

I will not smash this game completely just yet (not having tested it), but my point is that what they focus on in this video (and others) concerns me. Looks like BOOM is what they intend to sell the game with.


The intricacies of combat? This is nowhere near the turn-based gameplay of the first Fallout games. The fact that you can pause the game and target bodyparts doesn't add up. Now I'm not saying that a different take on the gameplay could never be good, but what they show in the video is mostly combat. Like you I hope dialogue, quests, jokes, atmosphere and all the other things that made Fallout good are well done.

Regardless, I don't think they should have called this Fallout 3. Fallout Tactics removed itself somewhat from the first two games (though not as much as this one), and thus they didn't call it Fallout 3.

Your comparison kinda struck me as very weird, that's all. It's like watching a demo video of X-COM UFO, and then saying "Pfft! This is something for the Warcraft fans".

Halo is a much different game, and doesn't play at all like this. (And to be perfectly frank, I've played through every Halo and Half Life game available. And I maintain here, and in the other two topics where I've defended Halo, that Half Life has a substantially more predictable AI. )



I was playing Fallout 2 non-stop between the time I made that last post up until now. The difference is actually kind of minimal. Watch the video, clearly skills are only slightly less involved in the combat. Complete with the body paperdoll for aiming your weapon and the individual skillsets for weapons.

It may not be turn based, but the intricacies are more than there. You just gotta see them.



I actually ignored most of the flashy parts. Mostly I was watching the Pipboy, the combat with the sniper rifle and shotgun, and the section where he used the book to gain sneak skills.

It's G4 for you. Used to be a terrific channel about 3 years ago, then I think they changed ownership. (And merged with TechTV as well.) Now it's style is comparable to MTV. It might help to mute the video and play it again, so you won't listen to those awful hosts and the audience.

Also to Azrael:


In the first two Fallout games, you could shoot someone directly in the eyes with a machine gun. Several times. And they would not die.

Fallout is not exactly known for it's regard for physics.

That's not about physics, it's about gameplay, if you'd kill anyone with a headshot, the combat would be way too easy, and in the first two games radiation is a very big deal, here you launch a "mininuke" and it's just another flashy weapon, it makes no sense.

Meh, as far as shooter go I'm waiting for Far Cry 2. And Aliens, naturally. And new computer, dammit.

I actually agree with this. But I have a tendency to be optimistic, and hopefully this "mininuke" will have it's own repercussions. The video clearly indicated that your character would not be immune to the nuke's effects, however.

Did they really call it a "mininuke"? I wasn't paying much attention to the talking.

The headshot deal is where I feel I disagreee. Ever play Deus Ex? You'll notice that in the video there are small arms skills and when he was targeting portions of the human body, there were still percentile chances on whether he would hit certain locations. In Deus Ex, having a low shooting skill made it more difficult to make the "end all" headshot that was a one shot kill, and I believe the skills and percentiles in this video are indicative of a similar concept.

To me, I find it less fun to be able to shoot someone several dozen times in the face, and they keep coming. I could maybe accept this when it came to mutants and other weird creatures. But not when it was other humans.

There are different takes at it, some people may find it more enjoyable, some may not; and yes, I played and I freaking worship Deus Ex, and I loved the headshots

Of course. This goes for literally everything.

For those that want the birds-eye turned based aspect of Fallout will always have the original games to go to, if they do not like this new incarnation.

Personally, I'm more interested in seeing out the roleplaying aspect turns out. Action/combat be damned, that is a side item, and I can enjoy almost any kind of action so long as it has depth to it.

*Is playing Fallout 2 in another window at this very moment.* Hot damn, I hope the same level of censorship and profanity is maintained at the very least. Never saw such a realistic display of same-sex rampancy as in these games.

I wouldn't be hopeful. All it takes is some uninformed pleb making an unsubstantiated What If rumour and you can bet the bank that all the Jack Thompsons, Hillary Clintons and Cooper Lawrences of the world will jump into the spotlight condemning a game they have never seen, heard of or played until that very minute while running a massive fear-mongering campaign and lobbying for "stricter controls" and attempting to sue every game company into the ground.

Which, of course, generates massive publicity for the game...