Fallout 3

By Christian Donlan Published 12 August, 2008

Duck and recover?

In games, as in movies, answers tend to hide behind doors. And they don't get much bigger than the door to Vault 101 at the start of Fallout 3, having kept its nuclear bunker safe from the irradiated remains of good ol' USA for a few hundred years. Early on in Bethesda's game, you'll get to open this door. And what lies beyond? A loading screen.

As Oli's preview mentioned, Fallout 3 is not the most technically impressive game you'll see this year - the load screens that interrupt proceedings when you move between locations can kick in at jarring moments, the story's post-apocalyptic wilderness is often flat and low-res, and in third-person view, your character moves with an unlikely bounce in his step, which, at times, suggests he's trying to keep his spirits up while navigating this ruined wasteland by indulging in a spot of power-walking.

Things get significantly better at night, however, as the starry sky adds a monochrome sense of menace to the location, and even during the day, there are still plenty of nice touches to the design, such as a broken-backed flyover rising into the distant sky, or the discovery of a picket-fence-and-clapboard community, presumably once picture postcard idyllic, and long since shredded by a nuclear blast. Fallout 3 doesn't look terrible by any means, it simply seems disconcertingly inconsistent: the game offers up vast draw distances but has little to fill them with, and presents brilliantly menacing mutated enemies that often clip through the ground when you've killed them.

We've been shown a lot of Fallout 3 recently, but it's tended to focus on the combat, with its uneasy alliance of the super-powered VATS [Vault-tech Assisted Targeting System] allowing you to freeze time and cue-up shots on body parts, multiple enemies, and even grenades that are winging their way through the air towards you, and the slightly awkward real-time FPS mode, which we found we only really wanted to use when we'd been caught entirely unawares, or were backing up rather speedily from an advancing dog. One system's fun and makes you feel powerful, the other's annoying and makes you feel like you're trying to catch a fly with chopsticks in the middle of a coughing fit - it's hard to see how Bethesda are going to square this circle.

'Fallout 3' Screenshot 1

Enemies range from mutant Orc-types covered in tyre treads, to good old rabid dogs.

This is all rather concerning, but so much of Fallout's success is tied to other things, such as the manner in which the game draws you into its characters' lives, and the quality of side quests for which Bethesda is famous. So, on our recent trip out of the vault, we headed not for combat on the shattered highway leading to DC, but towards the patchwork, rusting, and gantry-heavy community of Megaton - a shanty-town built around an unexploded nuclear warhead - to lay down our guns and spend an hour chatting, before taking off on a quest or two.

Bad news first: when it comes to dialogue, Fallout 3 remains something of a stubborn throwback, unwilling to step away from traditional one-on-one interrogation mechanics and explore the new possibilities of a post-Mass Effect world. With no hint of radial selection or keyword attitude choices which seemed likely to become the RPG's version on Halo's rechargeable shield - a genre standard by virtue of near-unanimous theft - instead, a quick introductory conversation with the mayor of Megaton reveals that Fallout 3 is sticking with a system largely unchanged from the days of Monkey Island.

'Fallout 3' Screenshot 2

Thousands of people locked in a bunker all in identical "101" jumpsuits must make getting your laundry back a bit unpredictable.

In other words, there's a selection of detailed conversation starters giving way to a deep tangle of dialogue trees. While these trees are impressively large, and the dialogue itself is fairly snappy and pretty good at providing a sense of individual character when the voice acting stumbles, the system remains oddly basic given the pleasant surprises Mass Effect was constantly delivering in the way your quick choices actually played out. There's nothing broken about Fallout 3's system, it's just no longer the best one available.

And the wider presentation method doesn't help: the mayor may be an engaging character, ragged yet proud, and quickly revealed as a canny pragmatist, but the disconcerting head-on view taken directly from Oblivion, along with the limited animation, means these things have to be conveyed mainly by the written word. Equally, what we've seen of the game's Karma system suggests that Bethesda's determination not to wrong-foot or confuse its players has lead to a moral compass that's black and white and a little heavy-handed.

Dialogue is not the only sign that Fallout 3 is slightly old-fashioned. A trip to the local saloon in search of side quests reveals that the game's world can be slow to react to your presence, or often even acknowledge it. The saloon door is locked, meaning we have to tease it open with picks (instigating a simple but entertaining mini-game). This is all a little strange, as, once inside, we find that the place is actually open for business after all, and the saloon owner, who boasts a lovely silver mullet and a voice like Terry Wogan, doesn't seem to mind - or notice - that we've just forced our way in. More worrying is that, moments later, when we accidentally fire a round into the wall when trying to talk to the barman, nobody in the room so much as flinches.

But if the game retains much of Oblivion's aging traditions and limitations, the good news is that it also seems to have kept its richness in terms of content. Accepting a simple item delivery side quest from a Megaton local quickly proves to be an opportunity to peer into a hearteningly deep - and entirely optional - well of unique content. What starts as a mission to take a message to a townsperson's family who are now living in a distant settlement, soon became an intriguing multi-part narrative in its own right, leading us far across the wilderness to a terrified and terrorised outpost perched on the edge of a shattered highway spar, and then on to a series of unsettling derelict mountain dwellings for a confrontation with a very strange and malevolent group of trouble-makers.

Not only does this mini-narrative manage to offer a variety of interesting characters alongside a gently unfolding mystery, it also provides a range of different gameplay experiences, from exploration through to tracking, and, eventually, a perilous midnight shoot-out - all the while adding a tangible sense of depth to the game's setting. Other RPGs may be slicker in terms of presentation, but few companies have Bethesda's skill for spinning out such surprising and involving incidental stories, and this attention to character and pacing speaks well for the mysterious central narrative of the game.

'Fallout 3' Screenshot 3

Megaton's easy to get lost in - a maze of metal walkways which bring to mind an old TOTP set gone bad.

But a single side quest or a half hour of chatting and shooting is no indicator of overall quality with a game like Fallout 3 that needs days, rather than hours, to get a true sense of. Our ninety minutes of exploration certainly raised a few concerns, with gunplay that we were often happier to run away from than engage with, and characters who would repeat the same handful of lines and were quick to forget the fact that we'd been shooting at them two minutes previously, but it also suggested a rich and engaging wealth of storytelling waiting to be explored. Whether the quality of the content allows it to rise above the sometimes glitchy delivery remains to be seen.

It's this clash of unpolished presentation and strong storytelling that may ultimately define what you make of Fallout 3. From what we've seen, however, it's tempting to suggest that Bethesda has unwittingly taken the game's theme of retro-futurism too much to heart. Confusing as it seems, Fallout 3 may represent the future of yesterday's RPGs, going back to when they were cruel, stubborn, and yet filled with memorable stories, rather than an evolution of the flashy, friendly, and often anaemic titles of today.

That's a possibility rich with both delights and frustrations and suggests, if nothing else, Bethesda's game will be a welcome oddity. With a release approaching, then, and very little revealed about the central plot or how any of these gameplay pieces will fit together, it's still hard to judge how much time you'll ultimately want to spend in such radioactive and unpredictable settings.

Fallout 3 is due out later this year on PS3, 360 and PC.

Picture of Christian.

About Christian Donlan

Chris Donlan writes about games for Eurogamer and some magazines. His heroes include Eugene Jarvis, Errol Morris, and Linus Van Pelt.

Read more articles from Christian by visiting the Christian Donlan archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (94) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • Scimarad #1 4 years ago

    Oh, this doesn't sound good at all; It seems to include all the failings of the Elder Scrolls series when it comes to NPC interaction and then throw dodgy gun fighting and patchy graphics into the mix. These EG previews have pretty much killed any lingering expectation when it comes to this game...that said, I remember their reviews of Folklore and Resistance...

  • Fernando #2 4 years ago

    pip boy is annoying

  • skillian #3 4 years ago

    Well, rough around the edges but involving and complex is better than slick and soulless, but the previews have got me a little worried. Still, Oblivion was kind of rough looking with terrible voice acting, and if it's anywhere near as addicting and enjoyable as that then i'll be content.

  • Darren #4 4 years ago

    Well Oblivion had most of the flaws mentioned in this preview but it didn't stop it from being the best game I've ever played so I'm still looking forward to Fallout 3 forthe same reasons I enjoyed Bethesda's previous games, i.e. it's massive, immersive and thoroughly entertaining. That said, it does sound like Bethesda have stuck to the Oblivion template too closely rather than attempting to upgrade it to match other RPGs like the conversation trees in Mass Effect as EG mentioned. In that sense Fallout 3 sounds like it might be curiously dated - the non-reactive A.I. stands out especially here - but I don't think that will bother me particularly as I play these games for the story and to explore the open world. For me, there's nothing better than a game that let's you go and do anything... linearity sucks!

  • Darren #5 4 years ago

    @Skillian - Is there such a word as 'addicting'... shouldn't that be 'addictive'?

  • Zanuah #6 4 years ago

    This really doesn't sound promising at all... :(

    Hmm well maybe the mod community will be able to "fix" it... like they did with a lot of things for Oblivion....

  • Gnort #7 4 years ago

    @Darren
    Americans use "addicting" instead of "addictive". Just because the yanks do it, it doesn't make it right, though.

  • koji_m #8 4 years ago

    You guys really have something against this game don't you?

  • mkreku #9 4 years ago

    This is not a good preview.

    "Other RPGs may be slicker in terms of presentation, but few companies have Bethesda's skill for spinning out such surprising and involving incidental stories..."

    You have got to be kidding me.. That's just so wrong.

  • vx-chemical #10 4 years ago

    Why does Bethesda have to destroy fallout. Id rather never have had a sequel than have had this..

  • Orange #11 4 years ago

    I remember reading endless hyping for Oblivion and it turned out to be very disappointing indeed, good to see EG taking an objective approach to Fallout.

    I think I'm definitely going to give it a miss, don't want to ruin my memories of the original Fallout universe and if it has the same failings as Oblivion then it will just irritate me.

  • SirPhobos #12 4 years ago

    I'm interested to know if you guys at EG let the developers know what you're opinions are whilst you are previewing the game. I imagine the developers have been through many rounds of playtesting (you'd hope), so probably are aware of the game-breaking problems such as dodgy controls. But these issues still appear again and again in final products, so do you give them a hard time for the serious problems that you come across, or do you treat them gently, so as not to hurt their feelings/so you get invited back? Not that berating some poor chap for the state of a game will make any difference, but you as game journalists are the people that represent gamers' interests, and those that can get closest to the game makers.

    Maybe not the place for such a question - im just interested by the inner workings of game industry/journalism politics. And want devs that let silly control-issues slide to have their arses kicked.

  • Hamflank #13 4 years ago

    Sounds like a post-apocalyptic Oblivion to me.

    Which isn't bad, but just not what I had hoped for.
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/08 @ 08:55

  • kickerconspiracy #14 4 years ago

    Frankly this sounds really, really gay. It's being unfavourably compared to Mass Effect, a game that I thought was crap, so I'm not holding my breath about this being any good.

  • Snidesworth #15 4 years ago

    Once again, I'm happy that someone is voicing the concerns I feel about this game. Every other gaming website seems to be heaping unadulterated praise on it which seems very odd given the feeling I've gotten from watching gameplay videos.

  • UncleLou #16 4 years ago

    and characters who would repeat the same handful of lines and were quick to forget the fact that we'd been shooting at them two minutes previously

    It's stuff like this (and the bar scene) that make it sound bad. Have they never played Gothic?

    Still think that an isometric perspective works much better for this kind of game. It's more abstract, and lets the mind fill the gaps. In the end, an NPC you see from above with a few lines of text floating over his head is more convincing than a dubiously animated, uncanny-valley character that repeats the same lines again and again with mediooce voice-acting.

  • systems #17 4 years ago

    With every game Betheseda ramp up the visuals but narrow the scope (Daggerfall > Morrowind > Oblivion). Please let this not be a continuation of the trend. I loved Morrowind and still play Fallout every few years, so if this becomes Post-Apocalyptic Oblivion Lite I'll not be happy.

    Depth not visuals please. And no more horse armour cash-in packs. Stick it all in together and make it a game worth buying in the first place. Otherwise everyone will rent like they do with most single player games.

  • skillian #18 4 years ago

    Apologies for using the word "addicting" - for me it has a slightly different connotation than "addictive", so I didn't think about it when posting, but you (both) are right :)

  • daz_john_smith #19 4 years ago

    What was so great about the Mass Effect dialogue trees? They felt pretty much the same as many other games I've played. Can anyone explain?

  • Quint2020 #20 4 years ago

    I didn't like Oblivion and it looks like I'm not going to like this.

    /scratches off wish list

  • LPXO #21 4 years ago

    The Mass Effect dialogue trees added nothing to the experience for me and often got in the way of fluid dialogue. A lot of the time I just wanted to sit back and listen.

    Anyway, looking forward to the reviews of this

  • Negotiator #22 4 years ago

    Looks like this is gonna be a backward's step for RPG's, Fable 2 it is then.

  • gooseman42 #23 4 years ago

    @ SirPhobos

    You'd hope that Bethesda or indeed any developers worth their salt would read previews and hands on sections from journalists. However it often appears not, or that it's just too late to do anything about such highlighted problems without going back to the drawing board. I guess we will see...

  • gallow #24 4 years ago

    Does the game still have the SPECIAL system as I haven't read much at all about the stats and skills side of the game?

  • septimus #25 4 years ago

    My hopes for this game are diminishing with every preview/hands-on I read. Not one place is happy with it overall.

  • stoopidgreg #26 4 years ago

    wow.... i already had my concerns but now it seems they have got far too much wrong. broken fighting mechanics, lame VATS system (which sounds like you'll have to use it after all, if you want to win (try shooting a grenade out the air without it)), bad AI that almost seems a step back from oblivion, the same horrible dialogue interface from oblivion with that awful straigh-on camera angle. that was probably the most damning preview i've read on EG.

  • Ryuken #27 4 years ago

    "With no hint of radial selection or keyword attitude choices which seemed likely to become the RPG's version on Halo's rechargeable shield - a genre standard by virtue of near-unanimous theft - instead, a quick introductory conversation with the mayor of Megaton reveals that Fallout 3 is sticking with a system largely unchanged from the days of Monkey Island."

    I'd say the contrary, reverting back to keywords in the ME-way is more like dumbing things down. Can you imagine playing Planescape: Torment that way? It takes away the whole meaning of a proper dialogue tree system. Sticking to dialogue trees and making it more cinematic is fine with me though.
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/08 @ 09:57

  • SirPhobos #28 4 years ago

    @gooseman42: You have to kinda hope that it is just time that is the issue. It's not as if developers _want_ to make a shit game, or are so incompetent that they think it's good (well, some are, but others get a lot of things right while still making very broken games). I imagine that the turning circle of these monster-sized games is fairly huge - once they've invested a lot of time/effort/money into features that are intrinsically broken or aged (as seems to be the case with the dialogue-tree here) then it takes balls of steel by the project leader to change it in the face of corporate pressure. That doesnt excuse badly balanced/controlled games, however. Those are things that release dates (expecially ones a far off as Fallout3's) shouldn't force into games.

  • TheJuriel #29 4 years ago

    What the hell is this about the dialogue system? Mass Effect's equivalent wasn't in any real way different or special from the standard...

  • Darren #30 4 years ago

    @systems - The ramp up in visual quality comes hand in hand with the more powerful hardware anyway - people expect that - but if you read EG's preview it doesn't sound to me like Bethesda have compromised the game for prettier visuals at all. In fact, EG imply that the visuals are functional rather than impressive.

    This Morrowind/Oblivion comparison thing annoys me. Sure the latter wasn't perfect but it was a damn sight easier to get into and more coherent that the confusing former, a game I wanted to love but just couldn't get into due to the poor Journal, the reams and reams of (mostly) redundant text and the generally dire combat which had your moves effectively determined by the throw of an invisible dice, i.e. if it was a "low number" then even if you hit the enemy, it wouldn't register. Ditto for using shields; even if you blocked, if the number wasn't in your favour, the enemy hit you. This made the combat hit and miss literally and as such the game was hard even from the start. I found myself regularly killed by rats which made the game feel ridiculously unreal. At least this was something Oblivion got mostly right and considering how much fighting you do, I'd say that was important. Sure the "world levelling up with you" thing in Oblivion wasn't ideal but if you can level up through fighting then why can't other NPCs: I mean it's unrealistic to expect the rest of the world to remain unchanged while you become god-like, right?

    I think people often look at Morrowind and remember it's large open world and freeform storyline but forget that the whole experience was not really that accessible to anyone but the most committed. If it had been structured like Oblivion then I've no doubt that I'd have been singing the praises of Morrowind too. Sadly, I'm not, I just remember it as being an impenetrable, flawed experience on both the PC and Xbox (I played both games).

    And to get back on topic... I hope that Fallout 3 is more like Oblivion than Morrowind...

  • Demiath #31 4 years ago

    I'm slightly puzzled by Eurogamer's concerns about the game having regular loading times, a dialogue system that reveals your answers verbatim and friendly NPCs that don't react to gunshots. Bringing up such marginal aspects of the gameplay seems more like a determined effort to follow the massive trend of extreme Fallout 3 scepticism than anything else. And if Eurogamer are so enthusiastic about Mass Effect's "modern" dialogue system they might as well go back and play Access Software's adventure classic Pandora Directive, which famously featured the exact same system way back in 1996 (!).

    Even though it is rather sad that so many people automatically assume that Fallout 3 simply cannot be good because it isn't developed by Black Isle, I must say I share many of the sceptics' concerns about a disappointing combat system, since that was clearly one of Oblivion's major shortcomings. On the other hand, another big problem with Oblivion was its uninspired script, horribly clichéd storyline and overall lack of originality in the game environments, and it is in Fallout 3's story that Eurogamer clearly sees the most promise. So, at the very least, Fallout 3 may still prove to be a more satisfying experience than the notoriously overhyped and underwhelming Oblivion and Morrowind.

  • Demiath #32 4 years ago

    Darren: I never liked Morrowind either (although I at least finished it once), but I fail to see why the combat system in Oblivion is any better just because it's even more action-oriented than in Morrowind. Why don't game developers understand that virtually all truly great RPGs between, say, 1986-2002 had turn-based (and thus entirely stats- and skill-based) combat systems or at the very least included a proper pause function (like Baldur's Gate)? Why must every RPG developer from Blizzard to Bioware try so hard to satisfy trigger-happy action fans? Anyway, that was off-topic, so please ignore my rantings...

  • UncleLou #33 4 years ago

    Why must every RPG developer from Blizzard to Bioware try so hard to satisfy trigger-happy action fans?

    Because, frankly, that's what sells, particularly to Western console audiences.

  • kangarootoo #34 4 years ago

    A hard one to call. Some big concerns floating about in my head, but talk of involving story progression makes me a little reassured.

    On the subject of the dialogue system, I'm not quite sure the comparison with ME really stands. The radial selection mechanic is just a little UI widget. It it nowhere near being the core of the system, and I'm surprised Christian really gave any weight to it at all. Using a similar mechanic in FO3 would have made barely any difference I'm sure.

    He also mentioned the lack of attitude based responses, but FO traditionally gave you additional conversation options based on having high stats in certain skills (low intelligence noticeably changed the way your character "talked";). Its hard to say what is better really. Tbh I found the ME system a little over-helpful at times, with its very clear blue and red colour coding. If I knew I wanted to play the anarchist, I would often just select the red option without really giving much mind to the words themselves. I remember wanting to increase my cerebral stats in FO1 and 2 specifically so I had a better chance of talking my way out of a situation in the future. So long as FO3 includes a similar system (and they may have done, 90 mins is not enough to develop your character and find out) I will be happy with that area of things.

    On the subject of whether other sites had to say about FO3, and whether they were more positive than EG or not, I really don't give a f*ck. This article gave me plenty of descriptive words, so whether or not I agree with Christian's conclusions, I have the info I need to draw my own (or hold fire on forming a final opinion, which is what we should all be doing really).

    This reminds me of recent discussion about review scores (in which I got a little heated at times, in the "not really actually annoyed" way that I always get heated on here). On that same basis, I don't care whether another site felt more positive, just like tbh I don't really care whether Christian felt positive about the game or not. I care whether he gave me info to decide myself, which he did, so a job well done.

  • Wash #35 4 years ago

    Blarggh....

    Sounds if fallout 3 is everything everyone worried about.

    Does it retain anything from the original apart from the colour pallette, and pip boy stuff.

    I'm also alarmed taht the previewer pointed out rich content was a quality bethseda, 99% of oblivion was guff.

    Meh, conflicted on this one.

  • mikeck #36 4 years ago

    I'm standing firm with my pre-order of the collector's edition! There I said it.

    I'm sure this isn't going to be the perfect game that some people were expecting/hoping for, but then again what game has been released that isn't slightly flawed in some way? None, there are no perfect games out there.

    I was hoping for more than NPC's not reacting to gunshots etc, seems a bit sloppy. However, Fable 2 will provide that level of realism/interactivity by the sounds of it, so I'll still be getting both games after all.

  • kangarootoo #37 4 years ago

    @Demiath

    A lot of the old RPGs that used turn based combat (which I loved too) did so because that was the only way the systems of the time could handle combat with multiple opponents. A few old dev veterans have been quite open about this, and if they could have done a real time combat that contained the same level of depth, they would have done so.

    RPGs are very stat heavy, which is to be expected as character development is a major part of the deal. In some respects turn based combat is the easy way out, as it makes the task of including all of the relevant character stats a whole lot easier (nothing is simpler than rolling as bunch of dice). Creating a real time system, that gives the player direct control, but STILL includes all of the relevant character stats into the bargain is a much harder design task.

    Tbh, it doesn't quite sound as though Bethesda have solved the problem cleanly. I guess my point is that just because older RPGs used turn based systems, we shouldn't necessarily assume that they did so because it was the most desirable system. Game dev is as much about what can reasonably be put in place as it is about great ideas on paper.

  • canoot #38 4 years ago

    Looks like EG are determined to stick the knife into this game, every time they preview it they hate it more.

  • kangarootoo #39 4 years ago

    People seem to be worrying about this based on comparisons to Oblivion. Surely, if Oblivion was a game you hated, it is safe to say that FO3 won't float your boat.

    I loved Oblivion, so for me any comparisons are a good thing. It wasn't perfect, but it is a great start point for any new product.

    I am still holding judgement on this one. Partly because I want to be optimistic, and partly because FO has always been a deep game, and no amount of short previews are going to test its mettle properly (no critisism of the article btw).

  • kangarootoo #40 4 years ago

    "Looks like EG are determined to stick the knife into this game, every time they preview it they hate it more."

    Why so defensive. Maybe it sucks ass. Maybe it will be the shittest game ever made. Its a possibility you know. We both hope its not true, but its a possibility. And it won't be EG's fault if it is.

    Why are people so defensive about this. Its just a game.

  • Pulsar_t #41 4 years ago

    Mass Effect's dialogue system was praised by EG? Well it's good, but hardly anything new. EG you disappoint me!

  • Yeevle #42 4 years ago

    Err, it sounds OK, I guess..

    I loved Oblivion but since then I have been spoilt by Mass Effect, the best game I have played this year, just my opinion of course. I really doubt Fallout 3 will beat that. The quests sound promising, I enjoyed Oblivion questing so I suppose I'll probably end up buying it at some point after its release. Shame that it doesn't jump out at me as a must buy though.

  • Darren #43 4 years ago

    @Demiath - Personally I prefer the more realistic "real-time" combat of both Oblivion and to a certain extent Mass Effect (you could still pause that game though if you wanted to) over turn-based combat, mainly because the world you played in felt realistic and was thus more immersive, especially as you experienced it in first-person (ideally). Having turn-based combat would certainly have felt out of place and sucked me out of the game, particularly as you quested alone anyway not as a party as with most other RPGs. Turn-based combat is certainly better for party-based RPGs as it gives you greater control but it's not really suited to solo RPGs IMHO.

  • Lemming81 #44 4 years ago

    It's funny, but the problems they have with it seem to be that it's too much like the Fallout games of old (dialogue trees especially).

    NMA must be feeling a little silly about now. Especially as the things they find so precious are actually the things no one will like. Hmmmm.

  • Pulsar_t #45 4 years ago

    ME's shooty bits felt like a lame TPS, but it was a sweet short game with redundant side quests. I hope this game turns out better.

  • Red-Moose #46 4 years ago

    The negative aspects pointed out in this Hand On are relevant sure, but so many fantastic games have such unrealistic tendancies that it becomes part of the character of the game. You couldn't see enemies that would attack you in FF VII, and would be attacked randomly, yet it worked perfectly.

    You could pause time in KOTOR, totally unrealistic, yet it also worked perfectly. I don't see a problem with dialogue unless the dialogue is poorly written - the purpose is to convey characters and plot, not to recreate a real world conversation which while it would be an ambitious objective, is not what Bethesda are trying to do at all.

    even the originals, in isometric form, of all things, came out a good 7 years after Ultima Underworld had introduced 3D RPG'ing. Classical design faults do not hinder genuinely great games.

  • UncleLou #47 4 years ago

    even the originals, in isometric form, of all things, came out a good 7 years after Ultima Underworld had introduced 3D RPG'ing. Classical design faults do not hinder genuinely great games.


    Not quite sure what you mean with that example, are you saying the isometric perspective of the Fallout games was a design fault? It was one of the games strengths, in my opinion. As I pointed out earlier, an isometric perspective leaves more room for your mind to fill gaps in the world design, in my opinion.

  • Snooz #48 4 years ago

    Only skimmed the preview and the comment, like, suuuper duuuper fast!!!11, but this is the first time I've seen such a negative preview from EG. Usually I feel these give the game the benefit of the doubt.

  • peak_performance #49 4 years ago

    Still sounds like a Bethesda game.

    Btw this journalist has swallowed the Mass Effect hype all the way it seems.

  • skillian #50 4 years ago

    I think it makes little sense to compare Mass Effect and Fallout. For me, Mass Effect felt closer even to a game like Half-Life than it did to Oblivion - I enjoyed it loads but it was very lacking in content, scope and player choice when compared to Oblivion.

    Personally I'd be massively disappointed if F3 turned out anything like Mass Effect, and delighted if it turned out as well as Oblivion. But the fact that Oblivion is thought of as not just average but shit by quite a ferw posters here and elsewhere, goes to show that some people just won't like Fallout. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

    I wonder how the previewer feels about Oblivion. Perhaps he could tell us?

  • koji_m #51 4 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    why so defensive?

    well it seems to be one of those games that EG just doesn't like, it'll probably get an 8/10 in the review ;-)

  • tincanrocket #52 4 years ago

    'Fallout 3 may represent the future of yesterday's RPGs, going back to when they were cruel, stubborn, and yet filled with memorable stories, rather than an evolution of the flashy, friendly, and often anaemic titles of today.'

    ^^^^

    Nobody read this bit, then? I'll definitely be getting this - it may not match the first two classics in the series, it will probably feel stilted and buggy in parts (all Bethesda games do), but it will also almost certainly be better than 90% of the other games available. Mass Effect was, for me, a very well directed, but ultimately shallow, repetitive and linear experience. I can put up with ropey graphics and forgetful AI if I can enjoy freedom and the ability to enjoy my own experience of the game - with Mass Effect I just felt I was being driven down the same corridor that everyone else playing the game had also experienced - not really my definition of an RPG.

    Oh, and the collector's edition Vault Tec lunchbox is simply too tempting ;)

  • peak_performance #53 4 years ago

    That quote is, like, totally backwards.

  • KreyAtiv #54 4 years ago

    Really sounds like it'll be a disappointment. The bar scene mentioned also was a bit disheartening.
    The accidental shot should have caused a bit of a chaos, perhaps caused them to shoot at you making you have to run out and stay away for a little while until they calmed down. Slight mistakes like that and having to deal with the consequences would make for a good "I was playing Fallout 3 and you know that bar, well you never guess what happened when I tried to talk to some guy..." beginning of a story.
    Can they even make patches big enough to fix all this? Really sounds promising. Hopefully they can pull a rabbit out of the hat to sort if out.
    I'll probably wait until it makes it inevitable way to the bargain bin before I pick it up. I'll put it on the "Maybe" list for the moment.

  • Daikon #55 4 years ago

    Fallout 3 is sticking with a system largely unchanged from the days of Monkey Island.

    I am so getting this game!

  • kangarootoo #56 4 years ago

    @koji_m

    But everything I have read has based its negativity on things the journo in quest in saw with their own eyes, and their descriptions made me concerned too. However, everything I have read on EG about FO3 has also left the door open, with a comment along the lines of "we didn't get to see XYZ, which has traditionally been FO's strength" or "90 mins isn't really enough to see what FO3 has to offer".

    Seems to me they are calling it as they see it, and that currently there are some causes for concern.

  • peak_performance #57 4 years ago

    The bar scene in itself is a joke considering how they have hyped their Radiant AI. Outcast had AI reacting to such things in 2000 for christs sake.

  • mikeck #58 4 years ago

    "Mass Effect was, for me, a very well directed, but ultimately shallow, repetitive and linear experience."

    Agreed. I'm playing the game at the moment, and am enjoying it in many ways, however it does get repetitive and I've had to put it down for a few days so I don't get bored of it. The main missions aren't samey, but all the side quests ultimately seem fairly similar and merge into one another, and to me it seems pointless to play the game without doing the side missions.

    What's with a lot of the maps having exactly the same layout - that does get very boring, very quickly!

    Also in terms of the dialogue layout for ME, I like it, it's hardly revolutionary, but it does feel very intuitive and fluid.

  • andywilkie35 #59 4 years ago

    'Fallout 3 may represent the future of yesterday's RPGs, going back to when they were cruel, stubborn, and yet filled with memorable stories, rather than an evolution of the flashy, friendly, and often anaemic titles of today.'

    Sold!

  • andywilkie35 #60 4 years ago

    "Mass Effect was, for me, a very well directed, but ultimately shallow, repetitive and linear experience."

    also agreed

  • skillian #61 4 years ago

    Agreed x3.

    Mass Effect was a shooter with RPG bits tacked on, and hopefully Fallout 3 will feel like an RPG with shooter elements tacked. That will suit me down to the ground.

    And anyway, if I want a shooter first, RPG second set in a post-apocalyptic nuclear world, I've got STALKER Clear Sky coming any day now :D

  • monkeywithnoeyes #62 4 years ago

    i really hope this gets delayed...as it sounds like eurogamer were reaching to try and compliment this game but couldnt whole heartedly do so. A case of quantity over quality is worthless if its no fun to play...you're just getting more of a bad game for your buck. I'm sure Two worlds had a great story..but who would care to invest in it?

  • stoopidgreg #63 4 years ago

    the bar scene is just one of several examples i've seen of the bad AI. in the developer walk through you can see the guy on the bridge just crouches doing nothing while you shoot at him, then suddenly he pulls out a rifle! and before that scene, where he attacks a group of 3 soldiers one of them runs up and does nothing. then when he has his arm shot off he doesn't even flinch!

    so far as what has been shown of the game the AI has been 100% bad in my opinion. i haven't even seen enemies take cover, they just seem to run towards you and don't even attack properly, and in some cases (like at the bridge) they don't even attack you... i would say bad AI is what worries me the most.

  • praetorian #64 4 years ago

    Once again, I'm happy that someone is voicing the concerns I feel about this game. Every other gaming website seems to be heaping unadulterated praise on it which seems very odd given the feeling I've gotten from watching gameplay videos.

    My thoughts exactly. I can get more information from one (justified) negative paragraph than a whole page of superlatives.

    As far as the Mass Effect radial dialogue conversations went, they aren't really too different from the standard old-school dialogue trees are they?

    All you get is -

    - the general gist of what you're going to say rather than the full dialogue (which is fine but not exactly ground-breaking).
    - "good guy" dialogue near the top and "bad guy" dialogue near the bottom. For retards who can't figure it out on their own, when given a choice between "Calm down, we can talk about this" and "Take them all out!"

    It didn't stop me repeating some conversations and choosing different branches of the tree the second time around.

    Having said that, I still enjoyed Mass Effect, and probably will more than I will Fallout 3 (which is a shame, as I have, and loved, Fallout 1, 2 and even Brotherhood of Steel [PC version, not the revamped console version of the same name]).

    My prediction: 7/10.

  • brinlarden #65 4 years ago

    ive always thought the art style in bethesda games were really shit to be honest.

  • UncleLou #66 4 years ago

    The bar scene in itself is a joke considering how they have hyped their Radiant AI. Outcast had AI reacting to such things in 2000 for christs sake.


    Yup. Outcast and Gothic 1/2 were really top of the class there - or rather, remarkably, they still are. It's frustrating that there really hasn't been any progress in these areas in the last 8 years or so. That said, even Ultima handled stuff like this better than Oblivion did.

  • muscleblade #67 4 years ago

    This is coming out about the same time as Fable 2. Doesnt it? I dont have time for both anyway so i might go for Fable 2. Im not a fan of RPGs but i usually buy one every year.

    I didnt enjoy Oblivion as much as Mass effect btw. Both games are very good but not among my favourites. Didnt like the option to change the difficulty whenever you felt like it in Oblivion, to temting to abuse it when you almost die.
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/08 @ 13:04

  • Ergates_Antius #68 4 years ago

    @Pulsar_t: "ME's shooty bits felt like a lame TPS, but it was a sweet short game with redundant side quests."

    All side quests in all RPGs are by definition redundant. If they weren't they wouldn't be side quests, they'd be part of the main quest.

  • Feanor #69 4 years ago

    If I hadn't read EG's previews I would have thought Fallout 3 was a lock for GotY based on what I've read everywhere else.

  • hannibaldave #70 4 years ago

    ME's dialogue system was awesome

  • kinky_mong #71 4 years ago

    It's off my wishlist now unfortunately. I'm not a fan of stats heavy RPG's and was hoping for the FPS aspects of this game to counter it but as that appears to be clunky at best I'll avoid this. Fable 2 has taken it's place as my most anticipated RPG.

  • mikeck #72 4 years ago

    "I didnt enjoy Oblivion as much as Mass effect btw. Both games are very good but not among my favourites. Didnt like the option to change the difficulty whenever you felt like it in Oblivion, to temting to abuse it when you almost die."

    You can do that in ME also...I have to admit using it once before, but then I felt like I'd cheated myself and vowed never to do it again ;)

  • penhalion #73 4 years ago

    Right! Who said Bethesda couldn't screw up Fallout? Come on I know I heard someone say it. I'm just going to kick you in the nads....it's not gonna hurt a bit....honest...

  • soviet_ #74 4 years ago

    Wow, how can people not get the Mass Effect dialouge trees? I thought they were amazing. Fucking hell, I have not ever laughed as much before or since playing that game, I was in tears -

    After completing a main planets missions and reporting to the Council onboard the Normandy you can get all pissy with them when they slag you off no matter what you do/say. The Turian on the council wise cracks about you destroying something and you can reply with something along the lines of "we should of destroyed you when we had the chance", you get bollocked but an option comes up for you to disconnect from the meeting early, press it and Shepard pulls a wise crack out of the bag which had me crying.

    The next time you speak to them, they warn you about it, I apologised before they starting giving me more shit about it, then disconnected with an even funnier quip.

    Probably sounds shit reading it, but the dialouge in ME was so fucking good

  • stoopidgreg #75 4 years ago

    dialogue in real life is better.

  • Widge #76 4 years ago

    but not a revolution in implementation.... its about the same as KOTOR. There have been plenty of games with good scripts.

  • darc #77 4 years ago

    I wish EG would be a bit more specific with regards to the dodgy combat mechanics. How bad can "move cursor over enemy, pull trigger" get? Does the combat feel equally bad in both first and third-person modes? Is it a matter of perspective, stick sensitivity, acceleration, all of the above?

    And also, how about some comments on PC vs. XBox, especially with regard to combat. Will combat also be crap with a mouse? Of all of FO3's ambitions, this seems like the most unlikely thing to get wrong...
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/08 @ 16:40

  • Demiath #78 4 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    Interesting and illuminating comments on my original post, Kangarootoo! However, regardless of what the designers of classic RPGs themselves would have wanted to do in their games if they could, I would personally argue that real-time combat in single player RPGs has, in practice, more often than not shown itself to be a serious mistake. Far from assuming that turn-based combat *must* be better simply because old games were turn-based, I talk from personal experience as a gamer who started out with real-time games (such as the Elder Scrolls games) and then found myself gradually moving towards older, turn-based games I hadn't previously played (Wizardry 8, Temple of Elemental Evil, Might & Magic 6-8 etc.).

    There are several reasons for the superiority of turn-based combat systems, the arguably most important being that the the relatively slow pace of turn-based combat enables you to approach the combat situation in a much more tactical manner; simply because you actually have time to think through different approaches to a particular situation, counter enemy moves in more complex ways as well as engage more enemies at the same time.

    In real-time games, I think most players (certainly myself included) rely heavily on a limited selection of spells and combat skills and spend a lot of their time frantically trying to move the player character away from incoming fireballs or dodge enemy broadswords. This might work well in an action game but, needless to say, it hardly leaves any room for more advanced tactical considerations than "let's throw an ice bolt and run like hell" and the like (remember that I refer exclusively to single player games here; MMORPGs can potentially include more advanced combat situations due to the wonders of human cooperation, but since I don't play MMORPGs I can't comment on that).

    It's important to note that this is not primarily a design issue (especially since the amount of available spells, combat skills and other options may in theory be just as high in an action-oriented RPG as in a turn-based one), but rather a limitation on how much information a human player can process during a short period of time and how fast he or she can react to a given situation. And it's certainly hard to see how even the most ingenious game developers could ever work their way around a flaw that's not in their code but essentially in our brains and reflexes.

    In conclusion, I maintain that RPGs should be turn-based or "pause-oriented" in order to maximize the genre's specific potentials.
    Edited by 3 at 12/08/08 @ 17:40

  • Scimarad #79 4 years ago

    People are really missing the point about the dialogue in Mass Effect; The point is, you selected the rough direction you wanted to go in and then your character actually responded as part of the conversation or, on one memorable occasion in my game, pulled out a gun and shot someone:-) In most WRPGs you never actually hear your side of the conversation...

    The thing that really puts me off is the suggestion that we are going to get those same horrible Elder Scrolls style conversations with the NPCs standing stock still and staring out of the screen at you with as much emotional response as a pod person while you treat them as some sort of semi-mobile information terminal.

    The conversations in Mass Effect were about as dynamic and involving as I've seen in a game where you can choose a response, mostly due to your character actually speaking the lines. This is based on the female commander, BTW.

  • BillyBrush #80 4 years ago

    There's a lot of games that you play thinking 'if this was a little better it'd be absolutely amazing' and this will be one of them....that's nice enough for plenty of gamers....but in the back of your mind there's that niggle, you know your brain has to fill in more than it should for it to be 10/10

    plenty of devs out there who either don't have the vision, but execute really well (NG2 (pre patch!), Rainbow6) and plenty of devs who have the vision but don't have the execution (Theif3, this)....

    weird thing is there's a group of about 20 devs in this group, that all think they're the best dev team in the world.

    And then there's Valve..
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/08 @ 18:30

  • bdgr #81 4 years ago

    sounds to me like it'll get a 7. Maybe an 8, but probably a 7.

    I'll get it anyway!

  • yagisencho #82 4 years ago

    Confirmed: Fallout 3 is not the second coming of Christ.

    Now, I'm off to preorder...

  • sirtacos #83 4 years ago

    "People are really missing the point about the dialogue in Mass Effect; The point is, you selected the rough direction you wanted to go in and then your character actually responded as part of the conversation or, on one memorable occasion in my game, pulled out a gun and shot someone:-) In most WRPGs you never actually hear your side of the conversation...

    The thing that really puts me off is the suggestion that we are going to get those same horrible Elder Scrolls style conversations with the NPCs standing stock still and staring out of the screen at you with as much emotional response as a pod person while you treat them as some sort of semi-mobile information terminal.

    The conversations in Mass Effect were about as dynamic and involving as I've seen in a game where you can choose a response, mostly due to your character actually speaking the lines. This is based on the female commander, BTW."

    This x 100.

    Still, I won't mind the Oblivion-ish dialogue as much if it's well voice acted. Oblivion is second only to Fable when it comes to the most embarrassing voice acting in an RPG (that I've played, mind - I'm sure there are other stinkers out there).

  • makeamazing #84 4 years ago

    Not a bad article, sounds like Oblivion with a better story... me getting :D

    Seriously though, I thought the article was good, it did mention things that as a game engine progresses you expect to be fixed, the bar scene being one of the things you expect, eg breaking into a place and it being open sounds rubbish. shooting a gun in a bar should make some reaction. These things dont ruin a game but kinda spoil the overall enjoyement.

    But the one comment i have to admit that made me laugh the most was the comment that the Mass Effect dialogue system was so great, I'm sorry, its just a dialogue tree like any other game, and its just on a cool dial... sorry but it is no better :)

    So overall I think I will still love this game, but will be slightly disappointed when getting the same kinda issues that I hit in Oblivion. But please no more about ME and its dialogue system! ;)

  • peak_performance #85 4 years ago

    Fair enough about Mass Effect having the most cinematic dialog system I've seen in a game. It fits it quite well and I see the point about choosing attitudes instead of answers.

    But what makes that style better than the traditional? Sure, different, but why should suddenly all RPG:s use the system that many find flawed? It's funny, Donlan mentions Halo's regenerating shield as a genre standard, but personally I don't care much for it. Must all RPG:s from now on be Mass Effect, an action RPG?

    It's (by itself) retarded criticism, that's what. Why should Mass Effects system fit Fallout 3 more than the current? The article just makes the point that it's better and expects everybody to accept it. Someone made a good example by mentioning Planescape Torment; would it work with just choosing a general attitude in all conversations?


    The article also makes some other strange connections, such as labeling the bar door being closed as "old fashioned" when it's just stupid. Nothing more to it.
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/08 @ 20:31

  • Corben_Dallas #86 4 years ago

    HHHmmmmm not positive, they seem to have a massive story and not bothered about QC glitches and a un user friendly control system.
    Sounds like Betheseda needs to get their fingers out and either delay and rework or put or better demos with all the bugs glithces fixed.
    Bethesesda seems to be content rather than quality/ease of use etc.

  • Connobi #87 4 years ago

    Lol, could see this coming a mile off!

    Am I the only one who can't see why this game is good? The premise sounds lame as hell. The graphics look awful & colourless. The E3 demo was just boring. It just doesn't look exciting. I'll be waiting for the price drop on this one, me thinks.

  • Chalee #88 4 years ago

    EGs tone has already improved considerably since their earlier preview. It's an 8/10 I says!

  • peppergomez #89 4 years ago

    and the eurogamer pre-release mauling continues...curious how other game jounralists percieve this game?
    just read a gamespot preview and it was useless, all "i went here and did this, then went there and did that." sort of along the level of what grade schooler writes when describing his summer vacation.
    Edited by 1 at 13/08/08 @ 02:22

  • kangarootoo #90 4 years ago

    @Demiath

    "I would personally argue that real-time combat in single player RPGs has, in practice, more often than not shown itself to be a serious mistake"

    I won't disagree with that statement. I think ther key part is "in practise". I suggested that devs in bygone years went down the turn-based approach because they weren't able to get the real time expereince they wanted at the time. Some devs tried anyway, and we both agree that the results were poor.

    I'm not sure what I am heading toward here. Endorsing the pursuit of an unachievable goal is rather pointless, so I'm not necessarily saying that devs SHOULD have gone for real time solutions. But maybe now is the time to try that approach? Deus Ex had a stab at it, and did ok.

    "It's important to note that this is not primarily a design issue (especially since the amount of available spells, combat skills and other options may in theory be just as high in an action-oriented RPG as in a turn-based one), but rather a limitation on how much information a human player can process during a short period of time and how fast he or she can react to a given situation"

    Actually, I think this is a crucial point, and I'm starting to come around somewhat. I guess it is not a matter of whetyher one system is better than another, but more a matter of which system better suits the type of game you are trying to make. Turn based Quake, whilst it might be a lot of fun to play, would not meet the brief that iD no doubt set themselves. So in that case it would not have been a suitable system. For something like Baldur's gate (specifically because the player controls a party of characters, it is perhaps the only viable solution)... though RTS games are essentially multi-party-member games, in real time, with a slightly different presentation method.

  • Silvervein #91 4 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    For something like Baldur's gate (specifically because the player controls a party of characters, it is perhaps the only viable solution)... though RTS games are essentially multi-party-member games, in real time, with a slightly different presentation method.

    That's one way of looking at it. However, in rts your control over situation is limited to chosing size of the group and sending them somewhere on the map, the rest is done by ai. In RTS, it doesn't hinder the game as the goal of gameply is different than in RPG games. When it comes to RPG games, the focus is usually on statistics of single units/heroes, each equipped with multitude of skills/spells. As was already mentioned before, in real time situation there is only so many actions a player can perform per time unit, which would result in most of the skills being unused, simply due to time constraints. Giving player more time for decisions, either by providing turn based combat or pause, allows to enjoy the full potential of the game, instead of relegating player to passive spectator of on screen actions of game AI.

  • m0thr4 #92 4 years ago

    You see, I loved (and still love) Oblivion, all the while fully aware of its flaws and limitations. A couple of years on, though, you expect some of those flaws to have been surpassed. I'm not sure I can overlook those same flaws in a new game.

  • haldier #93 4 years ago

    Definitively (hard word that for a swede, probably got it wrong) a buy, I love Oblivion, and the Fallout series.
    Can it get any better? Well some parts probably, but not the depth described (and in oblivion).
    Its only a couple of months away and hopefully a couple of months playing.

  • m0thr4 #94 4 years ago

    @haldier

    The word you were looking for was "definitely", but other than that, your English is better than my Swedish, which is limited to "Är din dotter sexton?".

    ;-)