×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bethesda Announces New Fallout Game For 2010

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the back-for-more dept.

Games 254

On Monday Bethesda announced a new title in the popular Fallout series called New Vegas, set for release sometime in 2010. It's planned for the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3. They said it wasn't a sequel to the highly-acclaimed Fallout 3, but rather a brand new game set in the same universe, though they confirmed that it will be similar in style to Fallout 3. The new game will be developed by Obsidian Entertainment, a studio containing members of the original Fallout team, which Bethesda's Pete Hines discussed in an interview with Shacknews. The Fallout series also made headlines earlier this week when Bethesda trademarked the name for TV and film.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

254 comments

Great! (5, Insightful)

G-forze (1169271) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657479)

As long as they remove the level cap.

Re:Great! (5, Insightful)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657601)

Good luck winning over the PS3 owners after shafting them with the "exclusive" 360 and PC downloadable content. Yeah, I want to go out and pay the same amount for a Bethesda game as another player, and then get less for my money.

Screw em.

Re:Great! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657631)

as opposed to paying 3-4 times as much (compared to the 360) for the games console itself? If "value for money" was your aim, you shouldnt have got the PS3 anyway.

Re:Great! (-1, Flamebait)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657665)

"3-4 times" - I'm not surprised you posted anonymously. It's not the price so much as the fact Microsoft obviously paid Bethesda specifically to shaft PS3 owners. And Bethesda did it. As good as Fallout 3 was, I won't buy another of their games, it just encourages this sort of short-term corporate money grubbing, and shows people Bethesda could really give a shit about their customers, they're in it for the money, and that's it.

Re:Great! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657699)

it just encourages this sort of short-term corporate money grubbing, and shows people Bethesda could really give a shit about their customers, they're in it for the money, and that's it.

Says the proud owner of a Sony product.

Re:Great! (5, Funny)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658243)

[i]they're in it for the money, and that's it.[/i]

This just in: Company works for money, customers shocked.
Tune in for the details after our special investigative report "Water: It's wet."

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658909)

Don't be a gorram tool. You have no proof that Microsoft did this. Go ask for a press release from Bethesda if you want an answer that's not <INSERT MINDLESS CONSPIRACY THEORY HERE>.

Re:Great! (1, Insightful)

Narishma (822073) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657743)

Troll much? The PS3 costs $100 more than the Xbox 360 (unless you pick the Arcade version which has no hard drive, and thus is of no use if you want to play the DLC of Fallout). In addition, if you want the DLC you'll have to subscribe to Xbox Live which is around $50 a year. Then if you need Wifi you'll have to pay an additional $90. All of these come free on the PS3, and you get a Blu-ray player as well. In the end you'll spend roughly the same whether you buy an Xbox 360 or a PS3.

Re:Great! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657813)

In addition, if you want the DLC you'll have to subscribe to Xbox Live which is around $50 a year

You can purchase DLC with a free Xbox Live Silver account. Most people won't need WiFi for a system that's sitting in the same place all the time, and to my knowledge the PS3 lacks the 360's streaming movie service.

Re:Great! (0, Troll)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658463)

I am willing to bet the percentage of people with networking from their study/office to their TV room is smaller than you think.

The only people I know with ethernet near their TV are those with both a Den and a Living room, with the Den being a TV/Computer room.

I could run a wire semi-tastefully into the attic, come down the with the plumbing into the basement, and then drill hole in the floor, or if I were really motivated put a panel in the wall and pull the wire up.

But that is all a lot of work, suffice it to say, my consoles use wifi, and only the office in my house is wired.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658791)

networking from their study/office to their TV room

oh look, the bourgeois has a special room for his tv. some people here are lucky to even have a meal or a roof over their heads, you posh bastard.

Re:Great! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657899)

Well, I got a pro for 200€ and didn't buy any extras for that (no mandatory ones at least, I got a 6€ or so HDMI cable but you can skip that since it makes no difference), just plugged it into the nearby switch (even came with a network cable for that), the other cable into the TV and it worked. Of course finding games for it is still proving difficult...

Then again FO3 has nothing to do with my 360 anyway because I got it for the PC where it's 20€ cheaper. Haven't upgraded the PC in a while (five years) but the game ran fine anyway.

Re:Great! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657829)

Right there with ya, man. There's no business reason why Microsoft shouldn't go around one-upping Sony, but at least it would *feel* better to us gamers if it had been presented as "Buy this for Xbox to get exclusive content" instead of "Finished the game? Loved it? Well here, we'll give you some more of it -- unless you bought it for PS3, your game is over." The fact that we didn't find out until after we had bought the game that we had the inferior version made it feel like something that was done to us rather than something we chose to do.

Re:Great! (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657871)

I'm sorry, are you entitled to any DLC? No, didn't think so. I lose count of the number of times Xbox360 owners have been 'shafted' because of exclusitivity agreements for the PS3...

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657969)

I'm sorry, are you entitled to any DLC?

How come arguments like this always pop up when they have no relevance whatsoever? Where did he say that he was entitled to DLC?

No, didn't think so.

You pretentious twat.

Re:Great! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658163)

Technically you get the same for your money.

If you buy the game for Xbox 360 or PS3 at retail, you end up with the same game.

Okay, you don't get the option of the content, but that costs extra money that you're not paying in the first place.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657603)

I don't mind the level cap, what bothered me about Fallout 3 was the stupid, stupid fucking ending. They say one of the expansions is supposed to fix both problems.

Re:Great! (2, Insightful)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658447)

Yeah I think the one that will raise the level cap and change the ending is Broken Steel which is the one after The Pitt. Supposed to come out the end of this month or sometime next month. Personally I'm starting to suspect that they made the ending like that just to make you buy the expansions. I'm holding out for the gold version whenever it comes out.

Re:Great! (4, Insightful)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658549)

This was my take on the ending....

The chamber is filled with radiation, oh noes!

I equip an advanced radiation suit and pop a Rad-X. Wewt I have 85% rad resist.

I go into the chamber, I'm taking in about 2-3 rads/sec. Cool, that gives me about 5.5 minutes without using any Radaway. I go in, it takes me about 30 seconds to enter the code and start project purity.

Oh no, I'm passing out from radiation. WTF? I have 4.5-5 minutes left before I DIE from radiation poisoning, and I haven't even suffered the first level of radiation poisoning. I'm incapable of taking the 10 seconds to turn around an walk back into the airlock so I can escape the chamber? WTF?

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658149)

Wow, of all the complaints to make off fallout3 and that's all you could think of?

Elder Scrolls? (1)

setagllib (753300) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657513)

No more love for Elder Scrolls? I guess FPS will always win over RPG in raw popularity with Western audiences.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657531)

You should had at least read the summary: "The new game will be developed by Obsidian Entertainment". So they're basically outsourcing this one to the company that made Never Winter Nights, while Bethesda is probably working on Elder Scrolls 5. Just a thought.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657569)

Bioware made Neverwinter Nights, Obsidian made Neverwinter Nights 2. Worth noting that Obsidian is essentially made up of people from Black Isle Studios, the makers of Fallout 1 and 2. It'll be nice to see Fallout back in the hands of (some of) its original creators.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658369)

Worth noting that Obsidian is essentially made up of people from Black Isle Studios, the makers of Fallout 1 and 2. It'll be nice to see Fallout back in the hands of (some of) its original creators.

Do you really think that 10+ years later that the same people that worked on Fallouts 1 and 2 are still working there? Maybe 2 or 3 people, but that's it.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658767)

Well, if these two people are Feargus Urquhart and Chris Avellone, then that's good enough for me to put "Fallout - New Vegas" on my wishlist.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657545)

This is being headed by Obsidian Entertainment, the company responsible for the sequel to Knights of the Old Republic, and which is the current home to some of the talent that worked on the first two Fallout games. Bethesda is working on a separate project, presumably The Elder Scrolls 5. I think I read somewhere about ZeniMax trademarking the name Skyrim, so I'm guessing that that will be the name/location of the next Elder Scrolls game.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (5, Interesting)

Ifandbut (1328775) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657663)

Oblivion was more FPS then Fallout 3 because you did not have the turn-based rpg combat in Oblivion, you just swung your sword randomly and sometimes blocked. I dont know about you, but I never got tired of blowing a super-mutant's head off in slow-mo. I did get tired of Oblivion's swing 2 times and block once combat by about level 10.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657667)

Yeah, and The Elder Scroll games felt like a single player MMO. Mindless questing for nothing. So did Fallout 3. The games that the guys from Obsidian has made in the past did not feel like that. So hey, no more love for Elder Scrolls is a good thing. Bethesda just can't make a decent RPG to save their lives. They only cater to OCDer's who can't stop questing for the sake of questing.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (1)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657695)

Well, if you want more Oblivion with guns... Wait, what are you trying to say again?

Re:Elder Scrolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657745)

Fallout: Las Vegas (as well as Fallout: Miami and Fallout: New York) are being made by an external studio.
Elder Scroll's V was announced by Bethseda a few week's before Fallout 3's release, they basically said they'd start on it when they'd finished Fallout's stuff, which the third and final announced DLC comes out in a few week's, So I would guess TESV has been at least in concept stages for a few month's and production will start in earnest over summer.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657775)

No idea why that would be.

I like FPS', in fact, I love FPS' but I thought Fallout 3 was a little crap.

I did however love Oblivion. Fallout 3 just felt like a really poor attempt to mangle an FPS into Oblivion and the end result wasn't IMO all that good.

FPS' still seem better if they focus on being FPS' - see Bioshock and Deadspace for excellent examples. All that said though I did enjoy Mass Effect which was I suppose also a mangling of the FPS and RPG genre.

I think Fallout 3's biggest fault really was just that they'd borrowed too much of the codebase from Oblivion such that it was effectively just Oblivion with different art and story and guns instead of magic/bows. It just didn't feel quite right IMO, presumably because the engine was built for the fantasy RPG genre and not the FPS genre.

I'd definitely prefer another Oblivion over another Fallout even though I'm a big FPS fan because Bethesda just don't seem to be any good at making FPS' at leat nowadays - they should stick with what they truly excel at, RPGs.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657873)

RPG nut here, just wanted to pop in to say that I loved Fallout 3, hated Oblivion and FPS games are about as appealing to me as your grandmother naked.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658105)

Fallout 3 wasn't for people who play FPS. It was mainly a way to see the series in 3D for old school fans of series.

In order to take the approach they did turn based was the most logical and even then you didn't have to pause and take turns.

Fallout != Oblivion stop making the comparison. So what if they borrowed the codebase (if they did) doing so does not mean much of it was left. Fallout 3 was made in the heart as the original games. And many of the fans (including) myself enjoyed it greatly. Sure there were bugs as it was based on a 3D engine and most 3D engines have their quirks. I don't blame this on idea that somehow using the Oblivion codebase made this happen. The issue you have is somehow you keep thinking that Fallout was supposed to be some straight FPS and its not nor ever was. What Fallout 3 did do was bring the Fallout Franchise into the 3D realm and make it that more immersive which is what Bethesda tries to do with their games.

Oblivion was a full on RPG with magic, character creation with races, etc. Fallout has always been a hybrid of action/rpg. One thing to note also about the Elder Scroll series as far back as I can remember its always been a first person-esque game. Even hearkening back to the days when the game characters looked like they were paper thin in Arena or Daggerfall.

Re:Elder Scrolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658849)

Sorry to point this out, but FPS means 'first person shooter' (or shoot 'em up if you like), both Dead Space and Mass Effect are third person games.

Elder Scrolls ? (4, Interesting)

Mornedhel (961946) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657529)

So, what happened to the next Elder Scrolls ? Wasn't it supposed to be released in 2010 ?

Will they manage to release two large titles in the same year, or will they just postpone TES 5 ?

Re:Elder Scrolls ? (1)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657591)

Don't know about Elder Scrolls, but since this project seems to have been outsourced to Obsidian, Bethesda probably has enough resources to develop another big game.

Re:Elder Scrolls ? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657701)

Will they manage to release two large titles in the same year, or will they just postpone TES 5 ?

They should create a common engine for a double release of Fallout 4 and TES 5.

Or even a triple release with WhateverTheyComeUpWith 1. I'll buy any instance of morrowind as long as they keep the total freedom part.

My vote goes to Space-Morrowind 1.

Original fallout team (1)

registered_after_8_y (1445553) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657561)

Well, this certainly bodes well, just have to hope that they emphasize the role-playing and not the action. I think this is a danger when they made the game 3d over isometric view, somehow many developers focus too much on the FPS parts when they do this. I have to admit that I was highly sceptical of F3, partially because of this, but they certainly won me over after a couple of minutes play. Just have to hope that Obsidian does their job and the game will be playable at launch and not after 5 patches...

Re:Original fallout team (4, Interesting)

Thrymm (662097) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657723)

I totally agree, although I sort of liked Fallout 3 , I still felt like I was playing Oblivion or FPS games. The quests were ok for the most part, but lacked the obscure humor that made Fallout and F2 so much fun.

Also the original two seemed more like being in a bleak unforgiving world, Fallout 3 didnt give me that at all. You sometimes could run around for 5+ minutes and not encounter an enemy. At least the travel menu in the originals you would encounter enemies. The companions did not impress me.... I hope with some of the original team, they can make a modernized game which pays homage to the originals much better this time around.

 

Re:Original fallout team (1)

praedictus (61731) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657921)

New Vegas? wonder if you can continue your life as a porn star, or be relegated to fluffer. Or play the gang lords off against one another and knock up the mob lord's druggie daughter, after a fling with his wife.

Re:Original fallout team (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658027)

The quests were ok for the most part, but lacked the obscure humor that made Fallout and F2 so much fun.

That "obscure humor" is for the most part the sci-fi nerd's trivia fest. You don't need that crutch when you something as distinctive and rich as the Fallout universe to build on.

Re:Original fallout team (1)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658191)

However that created distinctive feel of Fallout. 1950s Science Fiction. Remove that and it is yet another generic postap.

Re:Original fallout team (1)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658869)

I never even bothered with a companion, lockpick + energy weapons + science and just ground my way until I got my first laser pistol, and after that the game was easy as shit, especially with a plasma rifle or scoped 44 magnum.

er... (0, Redundant)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657571)

Fallout 3 was just "Oblivion with guns".

Hopefull the next one will be isometric & be van Buren updated with nicer gfx

Re:er... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657637)

Wishful thinking.

Albeit, retarded wishful thinking.

I never enjoyed the original Fallout, nor Fallout 2. The isometric perspective never worked for me.

Now, another isometric Baldur's Gate game I could really go for.

Re:er... (2, Insightful)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658379)

Errr... WHY? I mean, what you're basically saying is "I want the exact same games I played years ago, but prettier."

Fallout 3 is fine in a 3D environment. It builds a more believable world. Being first person doesn't somehow diminish anything. Just look at the Metroid series when it jumped to a first person view. Neither are anything like the standard FPS du jour. They're both more open ended and exploration and detail oriented.

Stop viewing older games through the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses and realize some change is good.

Re:er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658565)

Errr... WHY? I mean, what you're basically saying is "I want the exact same games I played years ago, but prettier."

There's a reason the Madden series is up to about its two dozenth release, and is a best seller every year.

If the don't change the gameplay... (3, Insightful)

papabob (1211684) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657607)

I think I'll pass. Not that I didn't enjoed Fallout 3, simply Im getting bored of those RPG games in which the main plot is about 10-20 hours long, and the subplots about 200. Im tired of little missions as "give this letter to X" or "bring me a piece of Y and I get you a powerfull gun" without any connection with the real mission. I think the last game I played that got the point on that missions was Gothic 2, where you know the real story after a long gameplay and most little missions was backgrounded by the election of your classes.

Yes, I know creating plots its the hardest part of a game and you, as a developer, don't want to throw away the efforts you put on creating missions just to see the gamer picking up a path and ignoring 4/5 of the story. But that's the way if you want people replaying and enjoying again your game.

BTW, why in most games you're limited by what the writers consider is the "real story"? You alwasy have to make the election between being 'good' or 'bad' with other NPCs, but most of time if you chose the 'bad' way you lose many subplots and hence the posibility of level up.

Re:If the don't change the gameplay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657627)

Yeah, it's the same in real life. If you kill some bastard, then he won't be giving you any work. It's part of being evil, what are you expecting?

Re:If the don't change the gameplay... (1)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657689)

Last I checked, video games weren't real life. And last I checked, in the fantasy and sci-fi realm, the bad guys always seemed to have an opportunity to get a lot of work.

Re:If the don't change the gameplay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657747)

Maybe evil geniuses can't get a job, and thus want to rule the world?

Re:If the don't change the gameplay... (5, Insightful)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657767)

This is sort of the inherent problem.

A clever evil person takes nearly everything someone has, but leaves them enough to survive so they can make more stuff for them to take later.

In video games, evil basically translates to "killing everything I see for the pure psychopathic joy of it. There's almost never any real quality evil going on anymore, you either raze the village to the ground, or you save it from danger. There's no depth.

Re:If the don't change the gameplay... (1)

homb (82455) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658019)

I liked what Obsidian did with NWN2:SoZ, the second expansion.
It's significantly better at being more nuanced in abilities, good/evil, etc..
For example, you can be just a little evil in certain situations, behave in a less than nice way, get what you want, and not kill every poor guy. It's not just an intimidation roll, there's more to it than that.

Re:If the don't change the gameplay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658723)

Dammit, I just uninstalled that one yesterday, after the intro failed to impress me enough.

Re:If the don't change the gameplay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657769)

I've finished Fallout 3 just yesterday night and I know what you're talking about. While I enjoyed the game I have to say that the main storyline seemed to me a little bit "disconnected" -- they just wanted to make a Fallout game and the story was only one of many aspects of the game development. Contrary to that, the game Witcher was imho perfect -- it was entirely driven by the main storyline, with only a few side quest.

Re:If the don't change the gameplay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657837)

Im getting bored of those RPG games in which the main plot is about 10-20 hours long, and the subplots about 200. Im tired of little missions as "give this letter to X" or "bring me a piece of Y and I get you a powerfull gun" without any connection with the real mission.

You're talking about two entirely separate types of design.

Fallout 2, which is one of the first games I ever played and to this date my favourite, didn't have very much in the way of main plot. The main plot wasn't the point, the world was. It was a tattered patchwork verse, held together (barely) by many different threads. The main plot was just a little thicker and longer than the rest. There really was several dozen times as much subplot content as there was main plot in that game. It wasn't difficult to complete the game without seeing the mentioned 4/5 of content. In fact, seeing even half of all the content in your first run would have been pretty hard, given all that's hidden.

Re:If the don't change the gameplay... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657891)

Not that I didn't enjoed Fallout 3, simply Im getting bored of those RPG games in which the main plot is about 10-20 hours long, and the subplots about 200. Im tired of little missions as "give this letter to X" or "bring me a piece of Y and I get you a powerfull gun" without any connection with the real mission.

To me that's one of the main reasons that MAKES it an interesting game. I'm still playing it, I guess about 3/4 through the main plot, but I'm taking my time and exploring the game world as well. It makes a change from standard linear FPS games, although I'm a big fan of most FPS games anyway.

Just before starting Fallout 3 I finished Stalker which was a similar game structure (less RPG elements though) and thoroughly enjoyed that. I also used to be a fan of GTA: Vice City and GTA: San Andreas until I played Fallout 3 and Stalker, at which point the GTA games now seem puerile and shallow. (Before reigning death on me, I'm a gamer in his mid-40s so I accept the GTA games probably aren't aimed at my age group).

But I am disappointed that they're announcing a sequel so quickly. I thought the idea was to buy DLC for Fallout 3 to expand it's play time a bit and I know two DLCs have been released already - but 2010 isn't that far off and I get the feeling that it's "business as usual" for Bethesda as a games company; namely, rush out a sequel to make money and stop patching and expanding the original game.

Where have I heard THAT ONE before???

Re:If the don't change the gameplay... (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658401)

To me that's one of the main reasons that MAKES it an interesting game. I'm still playing it, I guess about 3/4 through the main plot, but I'm taking my time and exploring the game world as well. It makes a change from standard linear FPS games, although I'm a big fan of most FPS games anyway.

That's exactly what I'm enjoying about the game, too. I finished the main quest back in January and put the game down for a while. A few weeks ago, I fired it back up, loaded my last save, and headed back out into the wastelands. When I hit level 20, I took the "mark everything on the map" perk, so now I'm slowly going around and exploring all those places and doing those side quests. It's fun cos it breaks the game down into nice little 1-2 hour chunks to work on.

Oh dear god... (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657619)

The Fallout series also made headlines earlier this week when Bethesda trademarked the name for TV and film.

Please let that be so Uwe Boll can't get hold of it.

not Bethesda, Obsidian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657621)

...and I'm sure we all know what a bang-up job they did with NWN 2...

Re:not Bethesda, Obsidian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657661)

Actually, yeah, they did do a bang-up job with it, or at least I thought so. According to Metacritic/Gamerankings/Gamefaqs, that seems to be the general consensus, as well.

Re:not Bethesda, Obsidian (1)

SalaSSin (1414849) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657687)

Yeah, i was thinking the same thing...

I rather liked NWN, but NWN2 just didn't work for me (maybe it's just me that is tired of such gameplay).

I personally liked Fallout 3 a lot, and i just hope they will keep the same graphics, and not revert to something like the NWN series....

Re:not Bethesda, Obsidian (4, Insightful)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658917)

To me NWN2 LOOKED fantastic.

I might never know though, since on release it was unplayable due to stability and gameplay bugs.

Consider me less than enthused about Obsidian's involvement.

Re:not Bethesda, Obsidian (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657825)

I liked NWN2. The original NWN felt like a toolkit with a (rather shoddy) sample campaign bolted on. NWN2 actually felt like a proper game, with a plot and everything. Some of the dialogue, particularly that between party members, was very well written. If it didn't quite ascend to the quotable highs of the Baldur's Gate games, it didn't fall far short. I'll grant you that, on launch, NWN2 had some serious bugs that rendered it near-unplayable in places, but these have been fixed and if you haven't looked at the game since then, you really should give it another go.

The expansions are also very interesting. I still don't think anybody has really made an epic-levels AD&D CRPG that actually really works and is interesting, but Mask of the Betrayer is certainly as close as it comes. For what it's worth, while I don't play the tabletop game myself, I have friends who do who are really contemptuous of epic-level games (too fiddly, too much micromanagement needed, too hard to make proper scenarios that are actually testing for characters who are supposed to be of near-godly power), so it might be that the CRPGs that try to emulate this (the BG2 expansion, the second NWN expansion and Mask of the Betrayer) are just tilting at windmills anyway.

Storm of Zehir, the second expansion, is really quite unusual and ambitious. It's a lot less linear than is the norm for these things and feels, in a weird way, like some of the old Gold Box games.

So yeah, I think Obsidian did a pretty good job on NWN2.

Re:not Bethesda, Obsidian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657853)

Well, it's certainly a lot better than NWN1. And NWN2:MotB is the best single-player RPG released in the past 5 years.

Next step (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657625)

Fallout: San Andreas? Are they going to go the GTA route with that?

Re:Next step (2, Funny)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657847)

Fallout: San Andreas? Are they going to go the GTA route with that?

What... a Fallout game set in and around the ruins of Los Angeles? What a novel idea!

A few other facts.... (3, Interesting)

Gauntt (1419065) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657635)

Found a few more bits of information in my searching today...

"J.E. Sawyer, who we last saw as the lead of BIS' last attempt at Fallout 3 (Van Buren), has confirmed he is lead on Fallout: New Vegas."

From NMA

Also Peter Hines has stated that they basically asked for an idea and that Obsidian pitched one to them.

"Pete Hines: I think we tried very hard not to put much in the way of parameters on them. To let them kind of come up with the idea. So we didn't go to them and say, we want a game that is set here, and--we didn't do that. We said, "What would you do with it? If we were going to do this, what would you guys like to do?""

From Shacknews interview

I think this is an amazing announcement and cant wait to see what they guys from Obsidian come up with!

Re:A few other facts.... (1)

chrish (4714) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658921)

Please, Obsidian, don't waste time "tweaking" the engine, just make the game. Spend your time doing what you do best... writing.

IMHO, with Neverwinter 2, they spent a huge amount of time working on the engine, and then had to rush together a game so they had something to ship. The writing and game design suffered for it.

With Knights of the Old Republic 2, they spent more time writing (until Lucasarts forced it out way too early) and it showed... the start of that game is completely awesome.

KOTOR II (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657735)

Remember when BioWare had Obsidian develop the sequel to KOTOR and ended up with an unfinished clone of the original? It's been years since then so I hope it gets done right.

Re:KOTOR II (2, Informative)

Spovednik (1247806) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657801)

Not Bioware, LucasArts. And it is Lucas's fault for rushing the game like 6 months early. And for clone part, ok, so the protagonist has amnesia. but storywise kotor 2 runs circles around kotor 1. also, dialog system is better and karma/influence should play major part in dialogue. but again, LucasArts rushed the game and made all the major cuts (robot factory and such). all the resources are on the disc, and afaik there is a team of people restoring the content.

TV / Movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27657763)

A film version is fine, on one condition...

Ron Perlman as the narrator!

blah (5, Funny)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657771)

I hope this game isn't brought down by bullshit polarized moral choices too. Kill woman in house, don't lose karma. Steal her toaster though, lose karma. Post about it on slashdot, regain karma.

Re:blah (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658139)

I hope this game isn't brought down by bullshit polarized moral choices too. Kill woman in house, don't lose karma. Steal her toaster though, lose karma. Post about it on slashdot, regain karma.

This is after the apocalypse. Nobody's making toasters anymore. Human life is cheap but toasters are priceless.

Re:blah (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658327)

I hope this game isn't brought down by bullshit polarized moral choices too. Kill woman in house, don't lose karma. Steal her toaster though, lose karma. Post about it on slashdot, regain karma.

This is after the apocalypse. Nobody's making toasters anymore. Human life is cheap but toasters are priceless.

If making post-apocalyptic toast is more important than the repopulation of our species.

Re:blah (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658529)

Yeah, the morality part of FO 3 (and a lot of other RPGs) is cliched. The Fallout universe in particular should be ripe for the kind of complex moral gray areas that are sorely missing in most games. The only game I've seen do a really good job with this is The Witcher.

The Older You Get (4, Insightful)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657935)

The older you get, the more everything starts looking the same...

There are only so many plots:
Man vs Man
Man vs Nature
Man vs Self

and the concept of Tragedy and Comedy.

At the very core of storytelling there are only so many stories, no matter how you decorate them. Thus it becomes an exercise in look at the decorations of a plot that makes the story enjoyable. The only thing remotely well written was the Dunwich building, the Wasteland Guide, and the android quests. The rest was damn near disposable but I'll give kudos to the Nuka-Cola Challenge walkthrough. The fake history was well written. The main quest was terrible....

Re:The Older You Get (4, Insightful)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#27657993)

I was going to type a reply, but the older you get the more all words start to look the same.

Abstract anything far enough up and you can dismiss it. Takes all the fun out of it though.

Re:The Older You Get (1)

genw3st (1373507) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658615)

... the older you get, the better things USED to be... and present things suck worse and worse...

amirite?! AMIRITE?!

Re:The Older You Get (1)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658871)

That Dunwich building still gives me the creeps. I stay far away from that building, and quadrant if possible.

I think the main quest mainly suffered from feeling the need to deliver some sort of final good in the game, among so much gone bad. It really lacked the evil choices that made the good all that much better. But in sense of disposable...I dunno.

Not sure. (1)

N4p4lm (1048704) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658039)

While FO3 was fun, it still doesn't feel like Fallout. RIP, I'll miss you Black Isle. I think I might skip this one.

Queasiness when playing (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658065)

I've played the original Fallout 1/2 and enjoyed them immensely. I got the F3, and after a disappointing few weeks before the patch, started really getting into it.. It's my first FPS that I've played extensively. I noticed that it makes me queasy though, almost nauseous. Though I'd love to continue playing the game, it's not possible. Any experienced FPS that have suggestions (yeah, besides taking Rad-X or Radaway)..

Re:Queasiness when playing (1)

FirstNoel (113932) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658241)

Hit 'F' and put in it in 3rd person mode... It gives you head a break. I have to do that every so often otherwise I'll puke my brains out too.

Re:Queasiness when playing (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658431)

Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with experience... You're just prone to motion-sickness.

You might ask a doctor what you can do to combat it.

Have the bugs been fixed on the old one yet? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658085)

I'm intrigued by the premise of Fallout but I've heard bad things about broken elements in the game, bugged quests, stuff where you're left trying to read walkthroughs online to figure out how to fix what went wrong. Any patches for this stuff yet?

Re:Have the bugs been fixed on the old one yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658399)

Yes, they patched it and added some more new and exciting bugs. The 1.1 patch was the best VATS has lag issues and you can be standing on top of someone and have 0% chance to hit them in the head.

-- Dauvis (forgot my password)

Re:Have the bugs been fixed on the old one yet? (1)

drewvr6 (1400341) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658537)

There were very few "bugs" that I found. A couple times I got stuck in rubble and had to reload my game in order to continue. But there was never a point where I "had" to do something which was impossible to accomplish. Such as a door that wouldn't open but you had to get inside. The only quest I just got pissed off about and read up on was Tranquility Lane. It is a required quest and the puzzle you had to solve in one of the houses was just a p.i.t.a. It's not that I didn't understand but the combination of actions needed left me thinking "no way". I'd give "Fallout 3" 9.5 out of 10 in worth of money spent. The number of quests, the depth, the size of the "universe" where all way up there. The only thing I really disliked was the scroll bar for the bartering and the talking. It was so small it was difficult to even use. Plus you always had to scroll to the bottom to exit the dialog so you had to dick with it every time you talked to someone.

Re:Have the bugs been fixed on the old one yet? (1)

drewvr6 (1400341) | more than 4 years ago | (#27658585)

In replying to my own reply, I just wanted to ask people; do you remember where games were so buggy you could never even finish them? I remember playing on my C64 and basically having the game lock up or just crash at a certain point. I'd think how the hell could anyone ever have tested this all the way through? Then you'd have to wait and see if they re-issued a new version you picked up at Babbages. The good thing was that you could play a game all the way through and if you thought it was lame you could return it and trade it in for a new game. I guess that was our version of software piracy.

What about OSX ports?! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27658171)

Fed up with dual-booting from OSX to Windoze to be able to play Fallout 3, come on Aspyr and MacSoft, get the rights to port the Fallout games!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...