Fallout 3/Oblivion Comparison

Galaga Bee · #1 (**permalink**) 02-15-2006, 07:27 PM

Judging from Pete Hines' recent quote that they are developing Fallout 3 "just like we developed Oblivion", it would seem as if these two games will have a lot in common (duh). Not sure if this was just a reference to the fact that they attempted to include as much TES history/lore from the first 3 games into Oblivion, and will therefore be doing the same for Fallout 3, or if this was meant as "we are going through the exact same development process for Fallout 3 which we used to make Oblivion", or "We are including the same kind of RPG and gameplay aspects we included in Oblivion", or what, but anyone with half a brain can see how easy it is to make comparisons between the 2 games.

Personally, I think it's great, which is why I am posting here instead of NMA or the Codex, where I would be instantly incinerated by flames for making this post. I'm sure the RPG "purists" disagree, but my feelings are that first-person perspective and real-time combat do not diminish the RPG experience, but only enhance it instead. I can remember thinking when I played Fallout 2 how great it would be if it was a 3D, open environment, and I am really looking forward to playing Fallout 3 for that very reason (among others).

It's time for the RPG Rip VanWinkle's to wake up and smell the 2006. Top-down, iso-linear (note the word "linear"), turn-based gameplay is a thing of the past (at least as far as major titles go). You don't have to like Oblivion or Fallout 3 in their new format, but it's all you're gonna get as far as these intellectual properties go, so I suggest putting your pre-conceived notions about RPG's aside and start accepting it, cause otherwise you'll be missing out on a couple of very good games. Who cares whether or not it's a "true RPG"? They're both going to be great games, and that's good enough for me.

Oh yeah, and don't even begin to think that your pleas to the devs for a return to the olden days are going to change anything, because unless Oblivion is a financial flop (Ha! yeah right), you can expect more of the same for Fallout 3. It's not that they're not listening to you, it's just that they have no desire to make another Pong.

PS This forum rules because I'm the only one posting in it and therefore everyone who visits this forum has to read what I have to say, because there are no other alternatives. Woohoo!

Kipi · #2 (**permalink**) 02-18-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaga Bee

Judging from Pete Hines' recent quote that they are developing Fallout 3 "just like we developed Oblivion", it would seem as if these two games will have a lot in common (duh). Not sure if this was just a reference to the fact that they attempted to include as much TES history/lore from the first 3 games into Oblivion, and will therefore be doing the same for Fallout 3, or if this was meant as "we are going through the exact same development process for Fallout 3 which we used to make Oblivion", or "We are including the same kind of RPG and gameplay aspects we included in Oblivion", or what, but anyone with half a brain can see how easy it is to make comparisons between the 2 games.

Personally, I think it's great, which is why I am posting here instead of NMA or the Codex, where I would be instantly incinerated by flames for making this post. I'm sure the RPG "purists" disagree, but my feelings are that first-person perspective and real-time combat do not diminish the RPG experience, but only enhance it instead. I can remember thinking when I played Fallout 2 how great it would be if it was a 3D, open environment, and I am really looking forward to playing Fallout 3 for that very reason (among others).

It's time for the RPG Rip VanWinkle's to wake up and smell the 2006. Top-down, iso-linear (note the word "linear"), turn-based gameplay is a thing of the past (at least as far as major titles go). You don't have to like Oblivion or Fallout 3 in their new format, but it's all you're gonna get as far as these intellectual properties go, so I suggest putting your pre-conceived notions about RPG's aside and start accepting it, cause otherwise you'll be missing out on a couple of very good games. Who cares whether or not it's a "true RPG"? They're both going to be great games, and that's good enough for me.

Oh yeah, and don't even begin to think that your pleas to the devs for a return to the olden days are going to change anything, because unless Oblivion is a financial flop (Ha! yeah right), you can expect more of the same for Fallout 3. It's not that they're not listening to you, it's just that they have no desire to make another Pong.

PS This forum rules because I'm the only one posting in it and therefore everyone who visits this forum has to read what I have to say, because there are no other alternatives. Woohoo!

First, I must agree with you about the NMA forums... have read somee discussions there, and the enviroment doesn't feel so... friendly...

But to the point about the 3D, I don't personally have anything against it if they make it 3D, but I still hope they wouldn't since my computer wont be able to run it. Also I fear that the original feeling of Fallouts is gone if it's turned to 3D, when it will probably loose quite much of things that made Fallout what it was...

But, time will tell, and we can't do more than wait and speculate...

Galaga Bee · #3 (**permalink**) 02-20-2006, 06:50 PM

If you don't think your CPU can handle the 3D graphics now, and you think that it won't be released until 2008, then you better start saving cause it definitely won't be able to handle 2008 graphics if it gets released when you say it will. My suggestion: do what I did with Oblivion and buy a console once they announce what systems it will be available on. They're cheaper, they hold their resale value better, and you're guaranteed (edit: well, almost guaranteed) that it will be able to run whatever games you play in their "full glory".

I still don't see what would cause Fallout 3 to lose it's identity by going to 3D. I defy anyone to name something that was included in the previous games that can't either be updated into the new version using the 3D engine or simply replaced by something better. I would also put forth the suggestion that if something from the previous games gets the axe, maybe there's a reason behind it, and we're all better off without it?

Example: the "bloody mess" option in the original games allowed you to scale up the violence so that whenever someone died, they did so in the most violent way possible. I loved this option, yet I don't see how a 3D graphics system would benefit from this option, therefore it seems likely to me that they would choose not to include it. However, with the improved 3D graphics, it's a safe bet to think that they will have even more spectacular death scenes in Fallout 3, and therefore if I have to choose between a scalable 2D death scene and an always pumped-up 3D version, I'm willing to make the sacrifice in order to satisfy my bloodlust. In fact, when someone chooses not to go with the "bloody mess" option in the previous games, you can look at that as having "scaled-down" violence, rather than looking at someone who chooses the "bloody mess" option as having "scaled-up" violence. Is the glass half-empty or half-full? Depends on your viewpoint, but with 3D graphics you can have a completely full glass, therefore it seems like a moot point.

Anyways, the point is that sometimes, change is better, especially since otherwise you will experience entropy (don't know what entropy means? look it up), just like all systems do when they fail to experience change. Therefore, I say, embrace the changes, and enjoy the game for what it is, not for what you wish it was.

Monolith · #4 (**permalink**) 02-21-2006, 03:12 AM

In my opinion there is a major difference between a 2D top-down and a 3D first perspective game - especially if it's a RPG. The latter makes it easy to immerse. Therefore it is useful if one intends to make a dramatic game with serious content. The former allows the player to keep a certain distance to the game world. Therefore it is better for humorous content (now Running With Scissors' Postal 2 showed us that there are no restrictions and that even a 3D first-perspective game can be very humorous but that's a darn shooter).

For example, in Fallout 2 much of the dialog is out of topic. It's funny when a NPC tells the player character of the resemblance of many NPC (because there are not more than 15 NPC models or something). Now try to imagine that situation in a 3D first-person game - probably totally voiced out. It wouldn't happen. Bethsoft won't spent ca$h on garbage talk (especially when the dialog will be totally voiced out).

I think that Fallout 3 will be much more serious than Fallout 1 and 2. This doesn't necessarily mean that Fallout 3 will be a bad game. But it will be a different game. And the Fallout-Community loves Fallout. I wouldn't mind if they just made their own post-apocalyptic wasteland 3D first-perspective RPG and left the Fallout license to somebody else (Obsidian perchance?). But I have that feeling in my gut that they in fact are making their very own post-apocalyptic wasteland 3D first-perspective RPG - but still intend to name it Fallout 3.

About blood and gore:
Oblivion will be bloody -- but not nearly as bloody as Fallout is. Perhaps they will make a rather bloody Fallout 3. But that means a M rating. We'll see...

But before you think that I'm all against Beth's Fallout 3:
I'm not. I'm anticipating the game and I hope that it will be as much fun as Fallout 1 and 2 were and are.

thenenea · #5 (**permalink**) 02-21-2006, 04:05 AM

About the 3d I cannot but agree with you and I think it's a step they'll have to take anyway. 3d can allow for some interesting options and can look rather good even on medium spec PCs (I'm thinking Warhammer 40000 DOW here...). It could also give more options to the level designers and make the virtual world richer. So from me it's thumbs up for a smooth 3d engine (even if that means a mandatory upgrade for my machine ..)

About the 1st person though I cannot agree with you. The reason most people play izometric games is precisely because they do not want to play 1st person. And this is why most people picked up Fallout and Diablo. Remember, I'm not talking about guys who search for a specific themed game (post aphocalyptic, etc.) but for the around 90% of the buyers Joe who sees some screenshots on the web and likes what he sees. So passing from 3rd view to 1st would be a sham, like putting a Nike logo on a pair of cheap counterfait shoes. And "it would still be a good game" is not an excuse good enough for selling a toothbrush with a "Razor" label on it ...

Galaga Bee · #6 (**permalink**) 02-21-2006, 06:56 PM

I think a lot of the fans who are holdovers from the original series are in the same boat on this one, which is that whether they do or don't agree with the idea of making it a single-player, 1st person, 3D game, they are still big enough fans of the series that they will enjoy the game regardless.

I also don't want to misrepresent myself here, since Bethesda still has the ability to do quite a few different things with the license, up to and including making a top-down, iso-linear, party-based game, or something with any combination of different characteristics. Keep in mind that Bethesda hasn't released much info about the actual game yet, so it's still entirely possible that I could end up being the one who is playing a game that doesn't have all of the characteristics that I want it to have (rather than the other way around), or even more likely, that *everyone* will have at least 1 little thing that they wish was different about the game.

Another thing I should also add is that I see nothing wrong with creating a game that is virtually identical to Fallout 1 and 2; to paraphrase a thread on a diffferent forum I read once, if they were to simply add a bunch of new content and make Fallout 3 look and play identical to the first 2 games, I would be satisfied. However, that is not the subject of debate; the subject of debate is whether or not a version with different graphics, different gameplay, etc. is capable of being a fun game to play while still staying true to the original series, and whether or not it would be a "better" (a term that is both relative and subjective) game than the previous games.

(Edited: Actually, I think I would be a bit disappointed if the developers just made a Fallout 2 clone. Not that I wouldn't play and enjoy it, but c'mon, they can do better than that.)

I think that part of the problem is that it's been so long since a worthy, legitimate sequel to the game has been released (Tactics doesn't count, IMO; not that it was a bad game necessarily, just not quite a "sequel") that the changes which will take place appear much more drastic than they would if there were only a year or two in between the development cycles. By the time Fallout 3 is actually released, there will be around 10 years difference between the Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 release dates (Edited: hopefully closer to 9 years), and this inherently means that there will be major differences between the 2 games, for better or worse.

I also think that it's worth mentioning (without delving into too much developer worship here) that whatever the developers at Bethesda decide to do with the game, based on my past experiences with the previous games they have made, they will probably be the things that the developers feel will result in the most entertaining experience they can provide. To put it another way, I believe the developers when they say that their intention is to compromise as little as possible on the choices they make for each of the games they develop, and I don't believe that they would compromise the integrity of the game just to get it released sooner or to placate a small group of fans whose ideas may not reflect what the overall fanbase wants to see.

Smoke_Jaguar · #7 (**permalink**) 03-03-2006, 07:03 PM

First of all, I just want to point out what I think you guys are missing.We are like a bunch of old people rambling about the *good old days* of gaming.I regret the time of Blizzard and Black Isle, but I think we should move on.
As for 3D, I may be willing to accept (note this term, 'accept') Fallout 3 being made by someone else, but I cannot hide the fact that I think all of Beth Soft games are GARBAGE.I'm sorry, but i hate being FORCED to buy a game from a company based on elfves and dwarf crap.

I think choice is what makes us who we are, so I think everyone is entitled to their on opinion, but i don't think we should be forced to live together, if you catch my drift.

3D rpg s were a hit, and Beth should respect that and don't make my dear Fallout a 'magic ability' game.Magic was regarded as CRAP in the Fallout series, a thing of TRIBALS.I loved the game for that.

Great Stephen King quote Monolith.

Vicsun · #8 (**permalink**) 03-04-2006, 01:26 AM

This thread will be 150% better with more sticking to the original topic and less 3D / Bethesda bashing.

I don't want to have to close one of the few active threads on the forum.

Galaga Bee · #9 (**permalink**) 03-05-2006, 11:25 AM

I agree with you about the magic, I don't see any place for it in the Fallout 3 universe. The Fallout series is much less "fantasy" oriented than other RPGs, with much more futuristic/sci-fi elements instead. I don't think anyone wants to see fireball spells (or any spells at all, for that matter) in Fallout 3, nor do they want to see "elves and dwarves" in Fallout 3 either.

However, it is a mistake to think that simply because Bethesda is known for its TES games, they aren't able to develop games for a different RPG series which has drastically different content. For example, Bethesda recently bought the rights to the Star Trek license, but you don't think they'll be including any "elves and dwarves" in those games, do you? Likewise, there's no reason to think that they would do that with the Fallout universe either. It just wouldn't make sense.

When comparing the Elder Scrolls series to the Fallout series, it's important to note the difference between content and a gameplay convention. Gameplay conventions are things like 1st person vs. 3rd person perspective, 2d vs. 3d, the type of RPG stat system used, etc., whereas content consists of things like elves and orcs vs. humans and mutants, or clubs, bows and arrows, and daggers vs. crowbars, guns, and knives, or the thieves' or fighters' guilds from TES vs. the factions from the earlier Fallout games. Gameplay is how you play the game, content is what is in the game.

It's safe to say that TES content (ie. "elves and dwarves") will not be spilling over into Fallout 3, or vice versa (although I'm sure someone will make mods for both games using content from the other). However, IMO the gameplay will be at least somewhat similar to Bethesda's TES games, just as it will be similar to other recent RPGs out there by different developers, which was the original point of this thread, before I got sidetracked.

Smoke_Jaguar · #10 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 03:34 AM

they only bought the Star Trek license BECAUSE it has elves and dwarves type things

(vulcans are good elves, romulans are dark elves, check the ears)

No really, I don't like RPGs where the player can choose between 100 races, 100 statistics, 100 signs, 100 weapon proficency, and I am irritated i didn't have the money to buy off Black Isle from Interplay, and with them, the Fallout license was freeeee.I woulda have gotten the investment back plus a whole lot more when they would have release F3 and PST2.

Galaga Bee · #11 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 07:10 PM

They bought the Star Trek license to make money. Period. Just like the reason they paid for the Fallout license. Yes, I know that they are committed to artistic creativity, yada yada yada, but in the end the people who run the company wouldn't do it just to break even.

I highly doubt the "Van Buren" version of Fallout 3 would have been profitable.

Edited:
Oh, and I personally would love to play a game with "100 races, 100 statistics, 100 signs, 100 weapon proficency", except that it would take a million years to make one. I think it's possible to be overwhelmed, but for the most part, more customization and more choice is better (IMO) when it comes to RPG's, or any game for that matter.

Galaga Bee · #12 (**permalink**) 03-18-2006, 10:19 PM

Just to try to steer this topic back to what it was originally intended to be, I'm anxiously looking forward to getting my copy of Oblivion here in a couple days so that I can see what kind of ideas Bethesda implemented into Oblivion and relate them in comparison to what I would like to see in Fallout 3.

Vicsun · #13 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 03:30 AM

I just had to delete a bunch of spammy posts -- keep the thread on topic, guys

Niteowl3915 · #14 (**permalink**) 04-28-2006, 06:48 PM

To be honest I personally didn't know that Bethesda had acquired the rights to Fallout. I remember playing through Oblivion and fantasizing about supermutants, ghouls, and slavers instead of maruaders, bandits, and theives, about crowbars and combat knives instead of maces and swords.
In short, I was thinking about what one of my favorite alltime games would look like tricked out in 3d and with all the new technologies!
I'm at a total loss to concieve of what all you guys are saying about 3d ruining Fallout. I mean, people complained about pen and paper games dying too, but we didn't really hear them because they were drowned out by the people who were peeing themselves to see what they had only previously imagined.
I think these complaints are motivated more by fear that Bethsoft will somehow screw up Fallout 3 than anything else, and I personally have that fear.
A point was brought up earlier about how since now everything will be voiced there will be less if any sillyness. This is, in my opinion, a very clear and present danger.
What made Fallout so awesome for me was that the npc's stepped out of character so often. From cows going "Moo, I say!" to a drunken friar in New Reno giving the character the "Fallout 2 hintbook" the campiness of Fallout is what made it so great.
Losing that aspect would truly be a tradgedy, as it seems to be out of Bethsoft's style. I've spent over 120 hours adventuring in Oblivion and have seen less game acknowledgement (that is, acknowledgement that the player is in fact playing a video game) than in the first two of either Fallout game.

Raine · #15 (**permalink**) 05-21-2006, 09:18 AM

I actually enjoy the idea that fallout will be recreated in a new 3d perspective. I've enjoyed fallout 1 and 2, A LOT, but I doubt that fallout can't be fallout without a traditional top-down view. Fallout wasn't just about the top down perspective, what made fallout was the entire universe. The post-apocalyptic atmosphere, the music, the violence, the fight for survival, the misery and the dark sense of humor. And I think that with today's technology, that universe can come to life even better than it did in fallout 1 or 2. And with the beauty of Oblivion, I can only imagine what Bethesda can do for fallout when we're another 1 or 2 years further along with the technology.