Talk:Fallout 3/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Critical reception and controversy are very biased

Why is there no mention under the reception section of NMA's detailed preview, or any of the negative previews that have been written by European magazines? Also, there is no mention of the controversy of the fan reaction to the game. Fallout Fans have been the subject of multiple editorials, and even a scholarly paper, and it seems unreasonable to ignore that reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpops (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember that the game hasn't been released yet, and won't be until 10/07/08. The Reception section is currently being used to note the awards the game has gotten from E3 over the past two years, and once the game is released, the proper reviews will be added. NMA hasn't been used because the site is an unreliable source (fansites can't be used since it is self-published material, it doesn't matter if they support the game or revile it). Fan reaction isn't used either for the same reasons. If, after the game is released and the reviews are out, a reliable and relatively unbiased source publishes a piece on fan reaction from a neutral perspective, then that can be incorporated. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of opinionated and vocal fans going on about how the game is terrible or the best thing since sliced bread, etc. No one will know how the game is until they play it for themselves. -- Comandante {Talk} 21:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is October 7th 2008 really the release date?

On the official website I can't find mention of this date. But I see the date online at other places. Has this really been confirmed or is it an error? Fable 2 is officially announced for October and is already finished, so they'd probably get the October 7th release date and I see Fallout 3 more likely to be released on November 18th, a year after Mass Effect was released. Please comment on this. Dragonblades (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't be an error, too many sites are saying that it's the correct date. The only thing that can change that would be Bethesda announcing the date to be something different, and that still wouldn't mean that the other sites were wrong. By the way, what do Fable 2 and Mass Effect have to do with the release♠ date? Both games aren't related to Bethesda at all, and I don't think there's some restriction on how many video games can be released on one day. Anyway, we have proof that 10/07/08 is the date, so no reason to change it until we have proof of another date. -- Comandante {Talk} 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, since the official site itself doesn't reveal a release date. Fable 2 is a competitor to Fallout 3. Often games and movies released one year will be put on the same release date as similar games and movies from a previous year, to compare sales. I'm interested in this topic. :) Dragonblades (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never found official websites reliable until long after a game is released. They're usually slow to update, some are difficult to navigate to find specific things, and others simply show the bare minimum about a game before updating the day of the release with nothing more than we already know. I, too, found it strange that the date wasn't listed in the FAQ or something, but there is a distinct possibility they just forgot; a lot of things happened over E3. -- Comandante {Talk} 16:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This rules! I hope we get more information soon with gameplay of the story and talking. I see enough of the battles. Dragonblades (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The date is not official, I'm removing it. The developers have stated repeatedly at E3, before and after that they don't have a specific date yet other than Fall 2008. Ausir (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Could have sworn it was. IGN posted something about the release date being confirmed during E3, but never directly stated what it was; several other sites said 10/07/08 (and IGN later added it to the game's info page), so I assumed it was correct. Guess we're back to square one. -- Comandante {Talk} 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In this E3 interview, Todd Howard is asked about the release date and says that there is no official date yet: http://www.gamereactor.dk/grtv/?id=2676. Ausir (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Boyarsky Quote

I edited the quote by Leonard Boyarsky to the complete origonal quote, I think it somewhat misrepresented what he meant in context. SaderBiscut (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Release Date Set: October 17, 2008 in Australia

Fallout 3 has officially been confirmed a release date for Australia - EB Games has confirmed that the date will be October 17, 2008. This was confirmed by an EBLines email sent to all stores throughout the country confirming that the game would in fact be released and confirming the date. This can also be backed up on online news sites and retailers GamePlanet and PALGN.Damien Russell (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Retail sources (be they EB Games, Gamestop, or Walmart) aren't held as reliable on WP. An article from a notable online gaming news site (not a blog or fan site) would be preferred as a source, if you can find one. -- Comandante {Talk} 16:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Australian Version game changes

do we have any indication on the changes made to the australian version to get the 15+ rating? or is inclusion of such information unwarranted? Khing (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The exact changes were not specified in the OFLC's report, but I think they took out the animations showing the player inject the drugs, and possibly references to real-life drug stuff like morphine and syringes (I read it on some blog somewhere). As far as I know, though, the removed or altered content has not been officially mentioned. Whenever it is mentioned, though, the inclusion of such details would indeed be welcome. -- Comandante {Talk} 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship now worldwide

The changes apply everywhere now. JAF1970 (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction... The change ;) --ShadowFusion (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Drug animations

Removed line that claimed animations were cut. It has not been proved that there were any animations, that's just a guess based on the Australian Classification Board's report. It says in the report that there aren't any animations, not that there were before... Besides, when would the animations take place? Every time you take a drug? I don't think so... That would become extremely repetitive and annoying. --ShadowFusion (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dissapointment from fans of original titles

Why does this article not mention how angry the community was(and still is) when this game was announced? why does it not also list the exclusion of the dog and car(two important elements of the first two games.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.37.119 (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1). WP:NPOV (official policy), and 2). there is a dog in this game (should be in the article). The car, however, was only present in the second game and hardly an important element. Keep in mind this article is about the individual game Fallout 3, not its predecessors or the series in general, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum or fansite. -- Comandante {Talk} 04:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I protest the archiving of material required for -day to day- upkeep of the article, of long term relevance, of moderate length, of moderate tone, and of merit in every way that I can think of, that a discussion page should be.
Please state your reasons for doing so.
Interested parties may find the archived material through [Archive 1] or through the link above. Anarchangel (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The action was fairly routine. It was the end of the month, and I decided to clean out the talk pages of a few articles I've been editing, simple as that. You speak as though archiving in and of itself is detrimental to the maintainence of an article, whereas if that were the case, I'm sure I would never have considered the action in the first place, let alone have been allowed to do so at all under policy. Aside from that, I fail to see how keeping expired discussions on the talk page would have helped the article except as reference, which archiving does nothing to prevent; it is no difficult matter to point someone to the appropriate section of an archive if his/her issue has previously been brought up. With that, I conclude by saying that it would be impractical to keep all discussions on any article's main talk page, since eventually those pages would become too long and unwieldy to be of any help at all. If you oppose the act of archiving in general rather than on this page alone, allow me to direct you to WP:VILLAGE, where you can discuss the merits or lack therof of archives with a wider pool of editors. -- Comandante {Talk} 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack

    I just noticed that a song was missing from the soundtrack list. "Civilization" by Andrews Sisters & Danny Kaye

Thanks, Anonymous

Also in the game is "Way Back Home" by Bob Crosby & The Bobcats, "Into Each Life Some Rain Must Fall" by The Inkspots and Ella Fitzgerald, as well as "I Don't Want To Set The World On Fire", and "Maybe" by the Inkspots. 207.250.116.150 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeux review

JEUX issued the first review of Fallout 3. Anyone have a link or a copy of the mag? JAF1970 (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

All I've been able to dig up is this. Nothing at all helpful, especially since I only know a smattering of Spanish and no French to save my life. There's got to be a translated review or a link to a scan of the review somewhere. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception from Community

I wonder why it is not mentioned that when this game was announced fans of the game were very angry (and still are) About the fact the game is not being made by the original developers and that it lacks important elements found in the last two games, such as the car and the dog(which has only been recently been added.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.36.103 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See here for the answer I gave to someone else with nearly the same question (it's the very last topic). -- Comandante {Talk} 00:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The complaints are not about it lacking the car from Fallout 2 and Dogmeat, they are in regards to the numerous breaches of canon, retconning, treatment of canon that is preserved, the genre switch (from RPG to ARPG), entirely different gameplay, lack of choices and consequences, and the generally poor writing throughout. Community Reactions (or maybe a Disputed Sequel or Criticism [leave out fan reaction, focus on the major pieces criticized by journalists]) sub-section might be a reasonable inclusion as the Fallout fan communities all generally agree that it's a poor Fallout game but a good stand alone game. I'll work on writing up a short piece that concisely describes their major concerns and post in discussion for critique. If the Disputed Sequel section is more desirable I do have some official statements from Bethesda with rationale as to why it a sequel so representing both sides fairly is very doable. There are also some professional reviews that criticize it as a sequel so references could also be provided for criticisms.UncannyGarlic (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was always a fan of the Fallout games, and when I heard Bethesda was making the new one, I was very happy. So it goes both ways, some fans hate it, some fans like it. This article isn't the place to discuss it though. --Wes Richards (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Who the heck could be upset that this game wasn't ash-canned when Interplay took a nosedive? If Interplay didn't sell it, there would be no Interplay left today, and that would be the end of the series. I mean, seriously, if Bethesda (or anyone, for that matter) hadn't bought the rights, there wouldn't be a Fallout 3! Besides, an epic RPG in a hugely sprawling game world? The developers of the Elderscroll series wouldn't know anything about that, would they? I, for one, was tickled pink when I learned the series wasn't dead forever, and that Bethesda were the ones that got it instead of, say, Activision (or any on of the major houses, not singling out Activision here), who would have screwed it up out of the gate or delayed it into vaporware. Besides, the car was just in Fallout 2 and wasn't all that major, Dogmeat was just an easter egg recruitable NPC in 2, and neither appeared in Wasteland. Durty Willy (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, freezes and many other issues

Why doesn't this article mention all the bugs and freezes this game has (which are even more prevalent in the ps3 version)

-There seem to be severe problems on PC as well. I think there should be a mention of it at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsama (talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The post counters on this Bethesda forum http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showforum=35 show just how bad the bugs are. It seems the PC users have 10 times more problems than the others (failing that, there's more of them) This should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.3.82 (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for glitches/bugs.--Megaman en m (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only that but the bugs and glitches aren't effecting everyone, although it does seem to effect a lot more people then most would want in a new product. Myself and two other close friends haven't had a single issue with the game, PC or Console as well as many others. Just like with any other product the people that have the issues make the most noise. 12.177.80.3 (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But it's the place to gush about your new favourite utterly awesome piece of untouchable gaming greatness? Seriously, get real. Fallout 3 is probably THE most buggy and crashing-prone piece of software I've used in the last few years, and I regularly test alpha versions of open source software. In the five, maybe six hours I've been playing this game, I've gotten more than ten crashes, and my system is as ordinary as they come. I think you're just a fanboy who can't stand to read anything bad about this game. --84.186.251.190 (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia isn't the place to list the bugs but it should be mentioned as a problem in the reception area. UncannyGarlic (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a notable review talking about these "problems", go ahead and add it.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to the article being semi-protected I can't add what I just wrote up (was going to put it right after the 1UP section) but I'll post it here with the references I used for it. I also added in the comments about platform differences and a couple of non-bug related criticisms which are pretty universal. It could probably use some sentence restructuring so if someone edits this in, feel free to rephrase it.

"Other reviews have criticized the bugs in regards to the physics, crashes, and some that broke quests and prevented progression [MyPS3], the latter of which fixable by reloading from an earlier state [IGN]. The AI and stiff character animations are another common point of criticism [shacknews, atomicgamer, PSM3]. It has also been noted that the PC version is "the most fully featured, best looking, and best running version of Fallout 3," [IGN] and that the PS3 version looks worse than the XBox 360 version [IGN, PSM3#107]."

Andy Kelly. "Fallout 3 Review". Play Station Magazine 3 (107). October 2008.

Clayman, David. "Head-to-Head: Fallout 3". IGN. 2008-11-03. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/926/926646p1.html

Brudvig, Erik. "Fallout 3 Review". IGN. 2008-10-27. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/924/924345p5.html

Kelly, Matt. "Fallout 3 Review". MyPS3. 2008-11-06. http://www.myps3.com.au/FeaturedReview.aspx?id=294

Buckland, Jeff. "Fallout 3 Review". AtomicGamer. 2008-10-29. http://www.atomicgamer.com/article.php?id=672

Breckon, Nick. "Fallout 3 Review: An Old PC Game at Heart". Shacknews. 2008-10-27. http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1037

UncannyGarlic (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaked

today, actually, only the 360 version. http://www.scenereleases.info/2008/10/fallout-3-readnfo-xbox360-seed4me.html (NOT A LINK TO THE TORRENT, JUST AN ANNOUNCEMENT) should this go in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.3.93 (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.84.170 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, It should not. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.182.175 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The leak itself is irrelevant to the article, and should not be mentioned. Mentioning the leak could be construed as promoting it, which is the last thing we want to do since obtaining and using leaked copies violates copyright laws. If it is specifically stated by the developer or reputable gaming news site that the leak has directly affected the game's sales, or that the developer is beginning legal proceedings due to the leak, then that could be added to this article. -- Commdor {Talk} 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If its sourced and has links then it should go on the article, I don't see the reason not to, its happening, if spore and Halo 3 had discussions about the link I think fallout 3 should too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.244.29 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku has now mentioned the leak, and thus is sourced. Oh, and these "NO U" posts do not belong in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.241.21 (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable. Pretty much every 360 game is released on torrent sites. Even GTA IV was and it's not mentioned there. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 07:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What does "notable" mean here? Doesn't "notable" have a very particular meaning here in the form of WP:N, and as detailed on WP:N that meaning should only be applied to article topics because any other way lies unreachable, unmaintainable madness? I've seen this issue pop up a couple of times, so I'm asking for clarification. --Kizor 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So the game has been leaked almost a MONTH before it is to be release and you find that not notable? Bless your hearts. Your are such idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.246.175 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be included. If it is, then every other video game needs it added. Would make more sense to add it to the main article on video games, just put, " video games get leaked before their release" --Wes Richards (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources pick up on this in a non-trivial manner then it may warrant inclusion. That doesn't include random gamer websites. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But I very much doubt that it will. I don't see why this leak would be seen as any more important than any other. Like I said, even GTA IV was leaked before it's release and that was a very high-profile game. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 17:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sooo a game that has been leaked a month in advance, has gotten sourced and is notable since Halo 3 had been leaked 2 weeks early shouldn't be added to the article. Someone has been smoking something bad 75.169.191.186 (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more sites mentioning the incident, there's propably more but these are the ones I found so far. Gamebanshee, Videogamer, Edge Online, Gamespy, Gamasutra 91.153.102.152 (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I added mention of the leak into the article given that Halo 3 also has a leak section (if I had known that to begin with, we could have avoided much of this) and a decent source was provided. -- Commdor {Talk} 15:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku has some more info 91.153.102.152 (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, whats with the arguing guys? Sure, it is notable that the leak came out a month before. Thats impressive, i believe that its the earliest leak for a game. Question is, should it be put into a main article about leaks, or in the actual artical? I think it should be both, but the actual mentioning in the Fallout 3 article should be listed along with other such leaks with the game if there are any. One leak does not deserve its own section unless its substantially notable, unexpected, and surprising. Lets just not mention it, and see what wiki admins say on it. And for the love of god, dont disrespect them. SSBBchamp (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The main problem I'm having is that the leaked information all falls under Wiki guidelines but we got hippocratic bureaucratic retards telling us that its not when its obvisously and painfully is! Honestly just stupidity has hit an all time low on Wiki..I'm about ready to stop coming here. Ripster40 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've readded the leak info to the article. There did seem to be a consensus to keep the info out based on its seeming non-notability, but I changed my stance on the info's inclusion after finding out that Halo 3, a featured article, also has info about pre-release software leaks. This precedent wasn't factored into the original consensus (had I known that there were other articles that also mentioned leaks, I never would have been against it), so I'm adding the leak info back in since such info does seem to meet the notability rules. -- Commdor {Talk} 22:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Commdor for the clarification and fixup and for your help, very much appreciated. Ripster40 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And this should never have been a subject. A leak two-three days before release, after it's been shipped to stores? No big deal, happens all the time. A leak nearly immediately after going gold, three weeks before release? Obviously notable. The difference? Former has just a store employee doing it, whereas the latter has been leaked from the company or affiliated companies receiving an early copy. 62.106.48.195 (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article reads "Bethesda Softworks was aware of the situation, but made no public comments concerning the leak," but that is in fact incorrect. Pete Hines said "We're looking into it. Since we haven't sent out a single disc, it greatly reduces the number of places this might have come from." From http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/10/10/fallout3_leaked/.UncannyGarlic (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)