Fallout 3: DLC news and screencaps

[Vympel]

Link

Confirmed- your character lives after the end, as the original blurb for the third DLC, Broken Steel, implies. Why? "Feedback".

Gardiner: Based on a lot of feedback, we're going to allow the player to continue on after the main quest ends in the Broken Steel DLC. While a lot of details still have to be sorted, this will allow the player to continue on and play in the Wasteland enjoying the side and freeform quests, along with any new downloadable content we have planned in the future.

Well DUH.

[PeZook]

I can only imagine what went through their minds when writing that ending, and then seeing fans howl and scream about it.

"Shit! I knew it was a bad idea!"

[Vympel]

It's pretty much guaranteed that someone in the team put their hand up with how unsatisfactory it was.

"What, are you kidding me? We know they're going to be wearing Power Armor, they've got Rad-X, Rad-Away, of the potential companions, two could go in and do it and come out completely unscathed at no cost to themselves, and we're going to have the main character die? Come on!"

[Darth Onasi]

Interestingly it sounds like Broken Steel will be the first ever Bethesda DLC/expansion that requires you to have made any progress in the main quest.

[Vendetta]

It's pretty much guaranteed that someone in the team put their hand up with how unsatisfactory it was.

"What, are you kidding me? We know they're going to be wearing Power Armor, they've got Rad-X, Rad-Away, of the potential companions, two could go in and do it and come out completely unscathed at no cost to themselves, and we're going to have the main character die? Come on!"

It seems to me that the "heroic sacrifice" ending was determined early on and became a sacred cow.

Sacred Cows can be the bane of game design, where a designer has a feature or occurrance that they absolutely have to have in the game, despite the fact that it no longer fits whatever the game turns into halfway through the design process.

Learning to murder your sacred cows is an important hurdle to get over in game design, and Bethesda are very bad at it. (Witness the Elder Scrolls skill system, plainly evident as a bad idea in Daggerfall, yet still it persists, with the only changes to be to cut out some of the visible rot)

[Pulp Hero]

About the Anchorage DLC:
Morbo: "FALLOUT DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY!"





Really, turning Fallout into a run-n-gun/stealth/tactical(?) shooter. Ugh.

[Darth Onasi]

About the Anchorage DLC:
Morbo: "FALLOUT DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY!"





Really, turning Fallout into a run-n-gun/stealth/tactical(?) shooter. Ugh.

Isn't that what Fallout 3 is already?

[chitoryu12]

About the Anchorage DLC:
Morbo: "FALLOUT DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY!"





Really, turning Fallout into a run-n-gun/stealth/tactical(?) shooter. Ugh.

Except the "tactical" part, that's how people generally play anyway. If you have an objective that requires you to kill a shitload of people, you usually run-n-gun. Hell, it's the same way I played Elder Scrolls. It works that way very easily.

[Vendetta]

About the Anchorage DLC:
Morbo: "FALLOUT DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY!"





Really, turning Fallout into a run-n-gun/stealth/tactical(?) shooter. Ugh.

From what I hear, the Anchorage DLC will be a military simulator which your character finds and plays, like the Tranquility Lane segment. The only problem is whether the engine will do a good job of it.

Really though, your objection is straying back into "Waaah I have a specific narrow view of Fallout and this is a few degrees off from it!" territory that started up as soon as Fallout 3 was announced.

[Terralthra]

It seems to me that the "heroic sacrifice" ending was determined early on and became a sacred cow.

Sacred Cows can be the bane of game design, where a designer has a feature or occurrance that they absolutely have to have in the game, despite the fact that it no longer fits whatever the game turns into halfway through the design process.

Learning to murder your sacred cows is an important hurdle to get over in game design, and Bethesda are very bad at it. (Witness the Elder Scrolls skill system, plainly evident as a bad idea in Daggerfall, yet still it persists, with the only changes to be to cut out some of the visible rot)

I find it more likely, given the short length of the mainline quest and the sporadic nature of sidequests, that the game was simply released far too early. The story was truncated, and the shitty end given is the best they could come up with on short notice. It reeks of the kind of horrid story-telling put out by people who don't know how to end a story cf. Michael Crichton.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It's pretty much guaranteed that someone in the team put their hand up with how unsatisfactory it was.

"What, are you kidding me? We know they're going to be wearing Power Armor, they've got Rad-X, Rad-Away, of the potential companions, two could go in and do it and come out completely unscathed at no cost to themselves, and we're going to have the main character die? Come on!"

It seems to me that the "heroic sacrifice" ending was determined early on and became a sacred cow.

Sacred Cows can be the bane of game design, where a designer has a feature or occurrance that they absolutely have to have in the game, despite the fact that it no longer fits whatever the game turns into halfway through the design process.

Learning to murder your sacred cows is an important hurdle to get over in game design, and Bethesda are very bad at it. (Witness the Elder Scrolls skill system, plainly evident as a bad idea in Daggerfall, yet still it persists, with the only changes to be to cut out some of the visible rot)

The skill system is certainly broken and shitty as it stands, but I think it would be much improved if they took out levels. TES skill system is clearly made for a levelless system, and suffers greatly when you also shoehorn levels in there, especially when the monsters get tougher as they level and you may or may not. They should have either had skills determined solely by level, or got rid of levels entirely and instead used an algorithm based on your combat skills and your equipment to scale (and had limits of course so that bandits don't show up fully decked out in Daedric kit). Levels and TES don't mix, and I can't understand why they still haven't figured that out after 3 sequels.

[Covenant]

Really, turning Fallout into a run-n-gun/stealth/tactical(?) shooter. Ugh.

Oh pleeeaaase. Fallout 1 and 2 were tactical games, and they only did the 3rd Person perspective out of need and not design, and the turnbased system just helped keep things sane. It was run and gun like you wouldn't believe, since cover didn't mean anything, you could just run around in armor shotgunning or sniper-rifling everything to death. It certainly wasn't there to make it more cerebral. Turbo Plasma Rifle to the eyes! Again! Such a thinking man's game!

Combat was also way more gun-gun-gun than it was in FO3, where you can legitimately play as melee and unarmed, use explosives, traps, or stealth. Explosives and traps were entirely irrelevent since they did not work properly, so FO3 has improved that, and stealth in FO1 and FO2 was only used as a prelude for pickpocketing, since the stealth detection was really poor. FO3 improved that too, unless you think stealth is the bane of a shooter, in which case I think you're pushing the "run and gun" aspect even further. And the melee options, while present in FO1 and FO2, were only useful in FO2 because of the million street-fighter moves you got with Unarmed--and then only barely, certainly not like it is now. Hell, in FO1 and FO2 you couldn't even use the targetting window for anything that fired bursts, so they've even made Big Guns more viable--even if they're forgotton to add the light machineguns that made it more interesting.

So if it's not run and gun then it was certainly wait and gun, which isn't any better. It was tactical, but not as much as X-Com, since your partners were uncontrollable and moronic. Followers in FO3, by comparison, are genius ace snipers who understand the meaning of "hang back a bit." It had stealth, and if you ignore the stealth kills in FO3, it operated nearly exactly the same, and silent running made it even easier. So what's the big deal? The beef people has nearly always can be traced back to the lack of a turn-based, isometric system. And I cannot see why anyone still defends this perspective, other than tactical shooter fans like Jagged Alliance and X-Com players, something Fallout never was--it was only one character you controlled.

So I'm sorry, that's bullshit, isometric systems are not the be-all end-all of the gaming world and Fallout's fixed third person camera simply does not suit Fallout. To play a single character on a squashed tactical grid in a relatively unadvanced turnbased format is fine, and Fallout 1 and 2 are fun, but the first person or third person shouldercam views add a lot of depth to the game. Fallout 1 and 2 were immensely combat heavy but the combat engine was poor. Sure, you could be tactical if you wanted, slowly disarming and crippling guys, but you can do that in FO3 as well. Same difference.

For people who haven't played, or want a refresher, here's a Fallout 1 speed-run. Beaten in 10 minutes. You'll note that the vaunted no-kills victory possible in Fallout isn't due to brilliant conversation skills, but mostly running and a few levels worth of lockpick, sneak and speech. I'm nearly positive I could beat Fallout 3 without engaging in combat, similar to this.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

The skill system is certainly broken and shitty as it stands, but I think it would be much improved if they took out levels. TES skill system is clearly made for a levelless system, and suffers greatly when you also shoehorn levels in there, especially when the monsters get tougher as they level and you may or may not. They should have either had skills determined solely by level, or got rid of levels entirely and instead used an algorithm based on your combat skills and your equipment to scale (and had limits of course so that bandits don't show up fully decked out in Daedric kit). Levels and TES don't mix, and I can't understand why they still haven't figured that out after 3 sequels.

At the very least, they should have figured out that their system sucks when one of the most popular Morrowind mods ever (GCD) changed their system to make skills the important bit, and levels/stats just some numbers that the computer needed to make everything work, and that were updated automatically based on what skills you were using. None of that ridiculous 'jump up and down in a corner for three hours to get a x5 multiplier' crap.

Predictably, some of the first mods for Oblivion, within the first fortnight IIRC, were to change their retarded leveling system to be more like GCD.

[Darth Onasi]

Oh pleeeaaase. Fallout 1 and 2 were tactical games, and they only did the 3rd Person perspective out of need and not design, and the turnbased system just helped keep things sane. It was run and gun like you wouldn't believe, since cover didn't mean anything, you could just run around in armor shotgunning or sniper-rifling everything to death. It certainly wasn't there to make it more cerebral. Turbo Plasma Rifle to the eyes! Again! Such a thinking man's game!

Fallout's perspective was hardly out of necessity; both Arena and Daggerfall predate the original Fallout. If the designers had wanted to go first person, they would have.

So I'm sorry, that's bullshit, isometric systems are not the be-all end-all of the gaming world and Fallout's fixed third person camera simply does not suit Fallout.

How on earth does it not suit Fallout when the two original games were built on it?
My personal preference is third person (which Fallout 3 does *not* have in any truly playable way, it is clearly built around 1st person gameplay) but if I had to choose only between 1st person and isometric for Fallout, I'd go with isometric every time. 1st person just feels too restrictive and ultimately dull.

[PeZook]

Explain how first-person is "restrictive" in any real way.

[Darth Onasi]

Explain how first-person is "restrictive" in any real way.

Well for one thing I'm never entirely sure where my companions are.
Often I'm walking along only to realise Dogmeat got stuck on a rock a mile back. Yeah, generally they'll snap back to my position upon resting (which makes me believe Bethesda were paying attention to all those Oblivion companion mods).
Then there's just how I like to see my character, again the afterthought-ish 3rd person mode doesn't do enough for me.

[Ohma]

*snip long post about Fallout combat mechanics*

Pretty much yeah. Tactics did a much better job than 1 or 2 did with combat (even including the weird ass quirks that came up due either to things inherent in the SPECIAL system or their attempt to do both real-time and turn based, or other random glitches in the game) but even then most of the big guns, explosives and traps just weren't worth the effort (though, it's kind of difficult to make traps useful when you're the one attacking). Too bad Tactics just had to have more of a story than "BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL, FUCK YEAH!".

[Graeme Dice]

Fallout's perspective was hardly out of necessity; both Arena and Daggerfall predate the original Fallout. If the designers had wanted to go first person, they would have.

Both Arena and Daggerfall had absolutely terrible graphics compared to Isometric games at the time.

[Covenant]

Well for one thing I'm never entirely sure where my companions are.

Your FO1 and FO2 companions were a lot worse, but I will admit that they tend to run off too much without telling me. I suppose I overlook this because I'm happy that they're finally not dying to forcefields and other inanimate objects, that they're actually survivable, and that I actually got my companions in FO3 very, very late in the game. My Fallout companions, even in 1 and 2, were mostly useless outside of their associated quests--which were fun, and I miss in FO3. I got sick of Marcus tearing me open with a minigun or killing Dogmeat, to be honest, and he was my favorite. Tell them to stick close, glance back every once and a while, and you should have no trouble.

Fallout's perspective was hardly out of necessity; both Arena and Daggerfall predate the original Fallout. If the designers had wanted to go first person, they would have.

Probably not to achieve the effect they wanted, which was Wasteland style gore and a spread-out party. Wasteland had way better party management though. I just think the effect they were going for can now be better served outside of an isometric map--and I say that mostly because Fallout 1 and 2 had no interest in controlling your party, so the tactical map and turnbased format is just a waste and unbalances the game. They obviously didn't choose to have every NPC in leather armor look the same, but they did simply out of a need. They could have theoretically created unique sprites for Tycho and the Vault Dweller and Dogmeat, but they didn't, and I wouldn't say they were uninterested in those things--just that it was too much work for not enough gain, from their perspective.

How on earth does it not suit Fallout when the two original games were built on it?
My personal preference is third person (which Fallout 3 does *not* have in any truly playable way, it is clearly built around 1st person gameplay) but if I had to choose only between 1st person and isometric for Fallout, I'd go with isometric every time. 1st person just feels too restrictive and ultimately dull.

It doesn't suit it because it was just the best available option. Hell, what do you think Fallout is? A tactical RPG? A D&D turnbased dice game? An adventure game with miniguns? The game is what we'd now call a standard Baldur's Gate style CRPG engine with a turn-based third-person simulation for a first person shooter built into it. It specifically included pre-shot accuracy feedback (something most normal RPGs never do), a lack of NPC control (only necessary to de-tacticalize the game), and a huge emphasis on aiming, bursting, and time management. This all sounds like a way of simulating a first person shooter combat sequence in a turn-based form. Now, you need to ask. Why make it an abstracted shooter game when it could be a real shooter game more easily?

Why don't you tell us? There has to be some actual reason why, if Bethesda had simply remade Fallout 1's story exactly and in perfect, stunning 3D, you would feel it inferior to the original simply because your camera wasn't top-down.

One thing I can think of is that you prefer a slower gameplay experience, where you can aim, sip your soda, take the shot, and then turn around to see what the dog is up to. And I think that would be a legitimate complaint--they've turned a game that could be played relatively leisurely and made it an adrenaline game. I'd assert that the shooting is very forgiving with VATs though, and very similar to FO1's aimed gameplay. But while I think that's a legitimate, worthwhile point to bring up, trying to say it's restrictive or less immersive is simply incorrect.

These are not Aristotle's Ideal Forms afterall, just because FO1 had turnbased isometric gameplay doesn't mean that's what's best for the game. It's too bad you prefer third person isometric gameplay, but I can't imagine why. As Zook has asked, how could first person be any more restrictive than third person? You can see the area around you better, and more easily find items than play hunt-the-pixel. It's much easier to build a sense of suspense and tension using first person gameplay, as well as have great stunning vistas and so forth. You simply cannot gaze upon the ruins of the Boneyard, or feel the bitterness of leaving Vault-13 for that first time... your only actual glimspes of the Wasteland are top-down or in postcard format. So in any objective sense, first person is far more powerful a tool for setting a stage. It also makes more sense for gunplay, since it really brings cover into effect, something that FO1 and FO2 could barely do at all. A modern isometric game could, but why bother when you can do it yourself in first person?

Oh, by the way, I forgot to paste the Speed Run. It does make Fallout 1 look like a total joke though. It's just to dispel some of the mythos around the game, especially the red herring of noncombat play.

Yeah, you can win without combat, but it's not like you were really playing the same game as the rest of us.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I like Tactics a lot and what it did with the combat system. The classic perspective with full party control and quasi-real time worked really well. Too bad the Fallout fans spewed so much vitriol for so long it preconditioned the rest of us to give undue notice to the game's faults when it came out. When I finally gave it a real playthrough a year after owning it, I was amazed it was so good after having been so heavily trashed and berated. Fucking Fallout fans...

[Darth Onasi]

When I say 3rd person I mean more of the Mass Effect style, or even the style in Fallout 3 (if it actually worked) rather than straight out isometric. Though I do like isometric too and - ideally - I would have liked to have seen Fallout go into a more hybrid tactical RPG route, with elements from Tactics which was alas the game nobody wanted (though to be fair it's as much Interplay's fault for dicking around as the rabid fans' when it comes to the downfall of Tactics).

In other news, The GECK is out. Yay!

[Covenant]

When I say 3rd person I mean more of the Mass Effect style, or even the style in Fallout 3 (if it actually worked) rather than straight out isometric.

What, seriously? That sounds kinda absurd to me. How is Mass Effect 3rd Person Combat significantly different than Fallout's? All I see besides the massive view-obscuring form of my meatslab commander are slippery controls, more "tactical shooter" metal gear garbage that you yourself said shouldn't be in there, and bullshit autoaim. VATs takes care of the need for autoaim, and Fallout 3's shouldercam mode not only allows you to zoom way far out for better views than that, or zoom real close in for a much tighter camera. Here, I just loaded up a save in Paradise Falls--so forgive the muddy colors--and tried to match the level of zoom behind my character to that of in Mass Effect.

I'd say it's pretty close.

If anything, the Fallout Shouldercam being off-set allows you more visibility where it matters, which is the direction your gun is pointing. In Mass Effect your reticle is basically on your shoulderpad, obscuring your visibly quite a bit. Combine FO3's zoomycam, offset, and First Person options and I'd say that anyone has more options for where they want it to be viewed from, more control, greater accuracy, and greater precision. Even for a console user who doesn't have the benefit of a mouse for aiming, VATs makes life a whole lot easier, and this targetting is relatively sparing already. So I can't really imagine that you believe this. I think you're just upset about the fact that it doesn't look like Fallout, and you're buying too much into the bile from self-styled Fallout fans. I've crapped all over the game's legitimate faults in the FO3 thread at length, but I don't think this is a fair criticism. Just check the links I posted and I doubt you'll see much reason to complain either.

[Stark]

Centred third person is terrible; offset like F3, Deadspace and Gears is definately the way to go. Many games (like Oblivion) that have a 'third person option' use centred or otherwise useless cameras and it's awful.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Explain how first-person is "restrictive" in any real way.

Well for one thing I'm never entirely sure where my companions are.
Often I'm walking along only to realise Dogmeat got stuck on a rock a mile back. Yeah, generally they'll snap back to my position upon resting (which makes me believe Bethesda were paying attention to all those Oblivion companion mods).
Then there's just how I like to see my character, again the afterthought-ish 3rd person mode doesn't do enough for me.

having to tell my companions to wait here, because they have no idea of "Stealth, don't kill that it's a mission objective, yes I know it's spitting acid at you, run ok?" and dogmeat getting lost fighting something. (oh nice of you to come back, your a good boy, oh yes you are!, what you brought company?, Redscorpions, deathclaws and Protectrons?)

[Stark]

Just this morning Chardok was telling me he used mentats to push out his detection range at night, to allow him to kill badguys before his NPCs ran off, aggro'd everything, and then got killed.