Fallout 3 Preview
-
Category: PreviewsHits: 11673
Article Index
Page 4 of 4
There's a slight obsession in the demo itself with juvenile behaviour. From chuckling about a mutant's head exploding to having a snicker at a Mr. Handy robot referring to the protagonist as a "stupid git", the demo is a rollercoaster ride of cheap laughs. One can only hope this is only for demo purposes and luckily Bethesda affirms that this is so. I really don't see this type of humor working for an entire game. There are some questions to be asked about the main plot, which involves you chasing down your father for no other reason that an assumed deep emotional tie and fighting supermutants, with it being unclear what kind of backstory or depth we can expect. How well this plot can offer the kind of freedom and choices the originals did is an open question.
The Ugly
There're few things as ugly as the reaction this game has garnered from the traditionalist Fallout fans. And considering that most of their worst fears came true, it's not so much a question of whether or not Bethesda's Fallout 3 so far lives up to their standards of a sequel, but more of what one can ask from a sequel like Fallout 3.
Is it fair to directly compare a sequel to its 10-year old predecessor? That's not a question I can answer here except in saying that in calling it Fallout 3, Bethesda is calling forth these expectations themselves. Like SeanMike of GamersInfo.net says:
On the other hand, Fallout 3 is being called a sequel to Fallouts 1 and 2, and I think that's a disservice to the games. While, technically, it is a sequel to the Fallout RPGs, it's not a direct sequel. It's set in a different area, with different characters, a different time, a different engine and a different style of RPG gameplay.
One could argue as Sean does that Bethesda is creating expectations by calling it a direct sequel. They are creating an atmosphere in which the fans of the originals fell they can expect this game to be approached much like the originals were, an approach that is pretty well-documented, most noticeably in the "A history of Fallout" article on NMA.
But if you feel you must judge the game by these standards (and it really is an open discussion if you should), Bethesda's Fallout 3 struggles. To name a few examples; it uses a RTwP combat system while the original TB combat system was chosen to "exactly represent" pen and paper roleplaying, its supermutants look more realistic than the original hulkish supermutants, the BoS soldiers are represented as "saviours of the wasteland" as opposed to the monastery-like xenophobic BoS organization, the 50s feel often seems sprinkled on rather than inherent of the setting. There are more details that they got wrong", but in a nutshell I can't help but agree with SeanMike that this is not close enough to warrant the moniker direct sequel, as it falls a bit more on the side of a spin-off.
There are two kinds of people in the world...
The game is still the game no matter what you call it, but how you approach it might have an effect on how much it fits your expectations more than the average game. A lot depends on whether or not you care if this game is a spin-off or a direct sequel. The debates surrounding this game are sure pitting groups of people against each other. If I have to give my idea of whom this game is being made for, well then...
Did you like Oblivion? Well, Fallout 3 is promised to be a much-improved version of that game, and with no significantly different design approach is almost guaranteed to be at least enjoyable by fans of the previous Bethesda game.
Are you a big fan of the recent evolution of RPGs? Well, the sand-box action-filled Fallout 3 might be right up your alley, though this will depend on how well the combat system plays out and how much Bethesda is able to fix its own vision of the game.
Are you a big fan of Fallout and did you expect a sequel to hold close to the originals design in both setting and gameplay? Set it and forget it.
