Fallout 3


What is it?
A post nuclear role playing game, sequel to Fallout and Fallout 2, 2008, Windows, Xbox360, and PS3. This game is from the United States.
What computer or emulator will it run on?
A dual-core processor with 2GB RAM, XP or Vista.
Tags
3D

History

After the release of Fallout 2, luck ran out for the Fallout fans. Of course, Interplay could have pushed out a new sequel every year or two using the same engine with slight updates and the same graphics, just adding constantly to the latter. The fans would have been happy, and Interplay's accounting department should have been happy, for this kind of development isn't all that expensive.

Ten or fifteen years earlier, this is probably exactly what they would have done. It's how Ultima and Wizardry started out. But the nineties were all about graphics, not about content, and no self-respecting developer could do this kind of thing any more. Having one sequel of this kind had already raised enough eyebrows with the critics.

So a new sequel with a new engine and everything was announced. But somehow developing Baldur's Gate was more important. Traditional RPGs in a fantasy setting sell better, they said. Then they decided they would make a new Fallout, but it would be a tactical RPG, since that is easier to do. So in 2001 Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel came out, with one of the highest numbers of pre-orders in history, but finally disappointing everyone. Since an editor was later released, it still has a modest popularity with modders.

In 2003, it looked as if Fallout 3 was finally coming out. The codename of the project was Van Buren, an internal demo was created and three screenshots published. Then Interplay decided to go console, released Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (known as FoPoS by fans) and soon afterwards closed its doors. The dream seemed once again crushed.

Enter Bethesda

On 2004-07-12, it was announced that Bethesda (of Daggerfall fame) had bought the Fallout license and is going to develop Fallout 3, so the dream most Fallout fans had given up to ever see fulfilled.

The Teaser Trailer

After four weeks hype, Bethesda released a teaser on 2007-06-05. Being a teaser, and the game due out only in fall 2008, it doesn't show too much, but it does show to what lengths Bethesda is willing to go to make this a genuine Fallout experience. They even secured the rights for I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire, which had been Interplay's first choice for a title song!

Reviews

Links

Official

Interviews

Reactions

Some forum threads and other comments from back in 2004, when it was announced that Bethesda had bought the Fallout rights.

Old Rant

I wrote the text below back in July 2004, in the wrath of the moment about the reaction of many Fallout fans to the takeover of the franchise by Bethesda. There is a lot I would write different now, but for the moment I'm just leaving it up as it is.


But are they happy now?

Mostly not. To my astonishment, I read that Morrowind completely lacks depth when compared to the Fallout games, that a Fallout games absolutely must have turn-based combat and the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system and that in general Bethesda is just not up to the task.

Sheesh.

Anyway it's interesting to see how people can like one and the same game for totally different reasons. For me, the character system and the combat system were always the weakest spot of the Fallout games, and I consider PnP emulation in CRPGs a very, very bad idea.

And some of the statements made and repeated on these boards are downright amusing:

True RPGs are in isometric view…
An enlightened statement seeing that isometric view was hardly used previous to 1993. And it was never typical to RPGs. There are very few RPGs prior to Fallout that used it: The Immortal (Amiga), which is the exact opposite of a "hardcore" RPG, The Summoner, Shadowrun (SNES), Diablo. And afterwards, it was mainly an Interplay, BiS, Troika thing.
…and certainly not first person.
Yeah, sure. Guess what: this was the typical view for CRPGs previous to Diablo. Akalabeth, Wizardry, Might and Magic, The Bard's Tale, Drakkhen, Betrayal at Krondor (though it switched to something similar to isometric in combat), Arena, the Ishar series. Console RPGs had a top-down view, Computer RPGs first person.
First person does not go well with a party.
Again, most of the first person RPGs mentioned above had a party. What actually does not go well with a party is real time. Both on consoles and computers it was always real time/single hero (Terranigma, Arena, Diablo), sometimes with NPC followers (Shadowrun), or turn based/party (far more popular). Then IP/BiS saw it fit to change that around, having a single hero (with later added NPC followers) in turn-based Fallout and full party control in the real time Infinity Engine games (Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment).
Nobody buys a console to play RPGs.
This may exactly have been the reason why some people bought a SNES. Maybe nobody does so now, but this may change again and may well be different by the time Fallout 3 is released.
True RPGs…
There is no valid definition what a true RPG is. There is no definition for RPG other than that you build up your character(s). Other than that everybody has their own ideas what they want from an RPG.
Read the Fallout Bibles!
Sure, they will, no doubt. But the Fallout Bibles aren't that good a reference for the Fallout world, since they are mostly retcon, things the developers made up long after the games were finished to creat a consistency that was never really there (the world of Fallout is far less thoroughly thought out than Tamriel). They are a good reference for development history though. And it contains a very true sentence:
Let it be forever recorded that Fallout fans run neck and neck with Trekkies in the marathon race of insanity.

Last modified 2008-10-31