You may also like...

Comments (45) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • snale #1 5 years ago

    They've seem to have got the look and feel right, but I'm still kind of worried about the gameplay.. But who am I kidding, as long as the atmosphere is right and I can get to be a fluffer again I'll have fun even if it plays like Postal 2 with Resident Evil's control scheme ;)

  • Dynamize #2 5 years ago

    The supermutant looks rubbish.

  • Verwandlung #3 5 years ago

    What are these bad people doing to fallout...

  • Paleface #4 5 years ago

    The exploding head looks about right.

  • mkreku #5 5 years ago

    Is that Walker Texas Ranger in the next-to-last picture..?

  • Snooz #6 4 years ago

    Yes, and sean beans cousin in 2.nd pic

  • agparrot #7 4 years ago

    Fallout purity aside, post-Oblivion I am looking forward to Fallout 3 - looks like it could be another piece of gaming fun.

  • Turambar #8 4 years ago

    I really hope it isn't as boring as Oblivion.

  • Xerx3s #9 4 years ago

    Oblivion is ace imo. Still play it today and I'm nearing my total hour count from morrowind.

  • Wolfman #10 4 years ago

    I hope to god there is an option to turn all that hud targeting awfullness off, can hardly see the game through all those numbers!

    -wolfman
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/08 @ 11:59

  • r3n #11 4 years ago

    If they can combine the wit and certain gameplay elements of Fallout with that of Oblivion then I'll be getting this

  • captainrentboy #12 4 years ago

    Like the look of this, but absolutely hated Oblivion. Is it more of the same but in a different setting?

  • Crea #13 4 years ago

    They've nailed the look and feel.

  • Nithron #14 4 years ago

    It amazes me that developers still insist on making trees in their scenery with branches that get gradually thinner until they eventually become a jaggedy pixelly mess, like in that 2nd to last shot. Work within the system you're given, people... If your engine can't display something, don't bloody put it in your game.

  • Royal Fool #15 4 years ago

    Nithron: The problem is that whoever took that screenshot decided not to have anti-aliasing on.

  • djed #16 4 years ago

    looks purdy, but can you still miss critically, shoot yourself in the hand and drop all your ammo on your toe thus immobilizing yourself for the next three rounds while your hair catches fire and a mutant marries your mother?

  • Orange #17 4 years ago

    Oblvion was bloody boring. I doubt they'll be able to capture Fallout's sense of humour, but I live in hope.

  • ChaK #18 4 years ago

    please please please, don't make it an oblivion like.

    Engine is fine, but to me oblivion had no "atmosphere"

  • dustrat #19 4 years ago

    @wolfman

    The numbers are a big part of Fallout combat!

  • Slipstream #20 4 years ago

    *Crunch!* Yet another FPS! >.< Oh well, being Fallout I'm sure it's more absorbing and captivating than your average game, hope there's the option for 3rd person, like in Oblivion, but I also hope the 3rd person animation is a thousand times better too! Asking too much?

  • L42yB #21 4 years ago

    I am expecting this game to kick some serious ass :)

    Bethusda have an excellent track record with RPGs, I just hope that they can manage the humour...

  • BiscuitBase #22 4 years ago

    Looks pretty good if you ask me. Never played more than a demo of the original fallout games. Might be interested if they get the gameplay right as well as the look.

  • agparrot #23 4 years ago

    It appears to have "shooting people's legs off"

    /still wants.

  • Laika #24 4 years ago

    Slipstream: It's not just another FPS, it's and FPSRPG, and one where the RPG elements aren't throwaway and shallow like, say, BioShock.

  • ps3owner #25 4 years ago

    are these PC screenshots. or any of the consoles.... looks brilliant. cannot wait for it!!

    but what's the guy who lost his leg doing on it's head?!

  • Bluetribe #26 4 years ago

    If they have to rape the Fallout series and turn it into some action oriented behemoth, then just lose the Vaultboy status screen already and provide only a simple HP/percentage bar and be done with it, the mainstream triggerhappy audience would be more comfortable with that instead of having different bars for each limb.

  • kangarootoo #27 4 years ago

    Yeah, and another thing about Oblivion.... ZZzzzzzzzz

    Does every FO3 thread have to turn into some tit for tat Oblivion was awesome/shit yawnfest?

    On the subject of FO3 itself, I am rather liking what I see. No doubt some will pick on minutae, but did anyone really expect it to look like FO1/2?

    If its an absorbing and fun to adventure then I for one will be happy. Whether it "stays true to the original" is faaaar less important to me. This is an old school FO fan talking here, so don't think I take my comments lightly. When I play this I absoluteoly want to feel like I am playing a Fallout game. But I won't cut off my nose to spite my own face and ruin my own potential fun by declaring its "just not Fallout" should it in some way stray from the mould formed by the original games.

    Two lessons we can probably learn here.

    1. Change is good.
    2. Some purists fear change and will never be bloody happy with anything, so they should probably just avoid this game altogether and stick to running FO1 under DOS emulation.

  • mkreku #28 4 years ago

    Fallout 1 works perfectly under XP :D

  • kangarootoo #29 4 years ago

    Haha. Touche.

  • Bluetribe #30 4 years ago

    As a fan of the originals, I wouldn't mind seeing a new Fallout game with changes, but I don't see any good reason to leave out one of the main aspects, besides the setting and dialogue, that made the original Fallouts so great and set it apart from the rest; turn-based (tactical) combat. How would this not work in a new Fallout game? Why change something so sweet? If they're going to leave such a big charateristic aspect and turn it into some realtime action spamfest, the least they could do is not name it Fallout 3...
    Edited by 2 at 02/06/08 @ 17:05

  • rhinoxious #31 4 years ago

    "If they have to rape the Fallout series and turn it into some action oriented behemoth, then just lose the Vaultboy status screen already and provide only a simple HP/percentage bar and be done with it, the mainstream triggerhappy audience would be more comfortable with that instead of having different bars for each limb."

    There are letters between A and Z you know, and shades between white and black too, you should try looking at the world in a less binary/digital fashion.

  • kangarootoo #32 4 years ago

    To bag on real time combat is to suggest that there are no good real time combat games out there. Clearly there are, so why can Fallout 3 not be one of them?

    Fallout was always about far more than the combat, in fact a great part of its beauty was that it was one of the few games that could genuinely be played from start to finish by an intelligent or sneaky character who was a bit shit at killing things.

    If they dropped the "multiple problem solution" flavour of the original FA games in favour of more linear gun heavy gameplay, I for one would be gutted, regardless of what time structure the combat ended up taking place in.

    I think the cold truth is also that a game with the budget and modern audience of FO3 can't be turn based, because if it is it won't sell. I know that sticks in the throat of some gamers (including me at times), but its the reality of the situation. Surely its better to have a new FO game that is fun in many ways than a "true successor" sequel that doesn't get funded (made) at all?

  • peak_performance #33 4 years ago

    @kangarootoo, yeah, it's just that Fallout 3 seems to be all about combat, which the previous Fallouts were not. Of course it's impossible to say for certain how good or bad the non-combat-options are as of now, but just looking at how the lore has been altered to allow for more combat makes a chill run down my spine.

  • Bluetribe #34 4 years ago

    I'm not saying combat was the most important thing, I'm saying that turn-based combat was one of the appealing strong features of the originals, just like having the option to end quests in multiple ways you mentioned, just like the setting and dialogues I mentioned. Combat is one of the most obvious things to have changed in the new Fallout and seem to have more emphasis put on it than previously, so to have 1 of these fundamental pillars changed make me consider this as an action Fallout light, not a true successor of the main serie.
    I don't think a modern turn-based Fallout game would sell that much worse than a FPS. With turn-based combat it would have a more traditional RPG approach, I believe the RPG genre with turn-based combat remains very popular, especially on consoles.

  • Ged42 #35 4 years ago

    Crippled in the head!... ouch!!

    I've got the impression that the normal combat is real time with the your damage figured by your acuracy, agility and skill stats, kinda like Deus Ex. But if you engage the VATS mode the game pauses you can aim and specific body parts. So I suppose in theory you could play entirely in VATS mode making it a turn based shooter.

    The hardcore fans will hate no matter what, even if the made it exactly like Fallout 1&2 they'd just complain that there is nothing new and that Bethusda should have made it all new like a first person real time RPG or something.

  • UncleLou #36 4 years ago

    Surely its better to have a new FO game that is fun in many ways than a "true successor" sequel that doesn't get funded (made) at all?

    Not really. If it has nothing to do with Fallout except cosemtically, why call it Fallout? I am not saying this will be the case, but it could be. If it's not Fallout anyway, I'd prefer they invented a new IP.

  • zoidberg #37 4 years ago

    Too much bloom.

  • Katsumoto #38 4 years ago

    "Surely its better to have a new FO game that is fun in many ways than a "true successor" sequel that doesn't get funded (made) at all?

    Not really. If it has nothing to do with Fallout except cosemtically, why call it Fallout? I am not saying this will be the case, but it could be. If it's not Fallout anyway, I'd prefer they invented a new IP."

    I agree. I feel stupid for saying it, but i'd be soooo much more excited about this if it wasn't called Fallout 3. As it is, i'm expecting to be disappointed.

    No doubt there will be a mod which changes the name on the title screen within minutes! ;)

  • Ryuken #39 4 years ago

    That Pip-Boy shot makes me fear for another PC interface fuckup, the other two shots actually look very good, especially the crash/tree site.

    Still doesn't look as exciting as a Fallout 3 with a JA2-like turnbased system and with Troika at the helm would have been.

  • chicknstu #40 4 years ago

    This is lookign so good it makes me want to cry!

  • kangarootoo #41 4 years ago

    I realise I am arguing hairs into very finely split pieces here. There are some good responses and I do understand where people are coming from on this. If this was nothing like FO then I would agree that it would be a waste of the franchise and probably best named something else, but I think we are letting our fears fill in too many gaps on this one.

    As soon as we hear the combat is not turn based, the "not a worthy successor" alarms go off and we assume it will also fiddle with our pet cat and wee on our rare orchid, but it could just be that overall it will be "a little bit different but mostly the same", which is probably a good thing for a sequel to be imo.

    Lets just hold fire until some reviews roll in. We can be sure that EG staff will probably fight over who gets to review it, and that whoever poisons enough colleagues' cups of office tea in the end will be a hardcore fan and give it a proper seeing to if that is what it deserves.

    P.s. I was totally in the "waste of a franchise" camp when it came to the recent Shadowrun game, but then I played it and realised it was a great game, and the rest didn't really matter any more.
    Edited by 1 at 02/06/08 @ 22:12

  • InsoFox #42 4 years ago

    Combat was one of my least favourite things about fallout 2. I really liked the atmosphere and universe and stats systems etc, but found it really difficult to actually enjoy playing it.

  • actionfitz #43 4 years ago

    tasty.
    another excuse for me to rid myself of £40 i imagine :)

  • Nikanoru #44 4 years ago

    And to imagine the Fallout look was once unique. These days it just looks the same as everyfuckingthing else.

  • Zappa #45 3 years ago

    360 has crap textures and lighting LOL.