Talk:Fallout 3/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

oxm review

Anyone know when the oxm review is supposed to be out? I heard it gave Fallout3 a 10 or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangel R2 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The October issue will be on store shelves on the 21st, but I haven't heard what they rated the game yet. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the current issue and it was given a 10/10.Ice (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I heard it got a 10/11 (they up their scale to 11 for some games because of complaints for 10/10s in the past). UncannyGarlic (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre

'post-apoc RPG' is a huge miss. First off, of any of the Fallout titles, this is the least RPG-like. Infact, aside from SPECIAL, the game could be played entirely as an FPS without a second thought. Secondly, 'post-apoc' is a setting and not a genre. A genre details specific gameplay elements (platformer, RPG, third person adventure, etc) and 'post-apoc' is a setting. (like Future, High Fantasy, Dark Ages... etc.)

Bethesda Softworks specifically called it a "post-apocalyptic action role-playing game," but I recognize how the "post-apocalyptic" part has nothing to do with the actual genre and edited the article accordingly; however, your argument that this game isn't an RPG doesn't hold water. Take Mass Effect, for example: you could directly control your character during combat, but there were still major RPG elements. The fact that Fallout 3 has RPG elements (not to mention that the developer has repeatedly referred to the game as an RPG) inherently makes it an RPG, even if it isn't readily apparent. Changing the genre just because we think the developer is wrong would be against WP: NPOV. -- Commdor {Talk} 04:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotta agree with the nameless guy here.This is the developer that made oblivion; developers can't "name" their own genre like bands can't name what they play. Because its all for promotional purposes. Furthermore, the title "A post apocalyptic role playing game" is the subtitle for the classic fallout which they ripped and its horrible to see it on this bastard son thye original. Now that my biases rant is over, I have to say that the developer giving the genre is not a reputable source. ONLY because you habe the same situation as bands; promotional. Unfortunately, gaming websites don't know shit from shilola so eventually one of them will classify it as such and then you pretty much do have an excuse. Oh well, dress a pig in a dress its still a pig I suppose. I just wanted to set you straight that developers setting genres is not within the content of wikipedia's non-point of view or neutral non biased view or whatever.

It's got character developement, attributes, quests, fantasy setting, single-player only. Sounds like RPG to me. What genre would fit better than RPG?--Wes Richards (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should follow the developer over a cliff, just that in this case the developer is correct in its assertion that the genre is RPG. Several reputable gaming sites, like IGN and GameSpot, have also mentioned that Fallout 3 is an RPG. There is overwhelming evidence in support of the developer's claim, and that outweighs the opinions of a few gamers like ourselves. -- Commdor {Talk} 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is an RPG. Just because it isn't in 2D anymore and real-time combat is available doesn't mean it's anything else. Turn-based gameplay is still available, after a fashion. The focus is still on stats, leveling, equipping, story, and (here's the big giveaway) questing. Success in the game will be determined more by decisions players make and their statistics, not so much their skill. It's just as much an RPG as Oblivion, and more of an RPG than Mass Effect. Seriously, RPG's have to develop with technology, we can't get stuck in the top-down/isometric worlds forever! If tech was where it is today when RPG's were invented, they would have started like this: in a richly detailed environment, with player-to-game world interface as transparent as possible! The only change that could be made to the genre for Fallout 3 is "Action RPG," but I don't think that's really necessary. (I think it's rather telling that mot objections to "RPG" designations are from unsigned anons. Very similar to what's going on when "fan disappointment" is discussed.) Durty Willy (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

PS See also: Diablo, Jade Empire, Star Ocean, Fable, Secret of Mana, Knights of the Old Republic; all of these have been considered RPGs, despite genre-bending attributes. Durty Willy (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

sigh... They can name the the game whatever kind of genre the want. Its like when Metroid Prime came out. What did everyone call it? A first person shooter. What did Nintendo officially classify it? A first person adventure. So if the Bethesda wants to name Fallout 3 "A post-apoctalyptic Role playing game", then you know what, it is as such. As for whether the the first part should be added as the official genre for wikipedia, thats for wiki admins to decide. It is an RPG, so just live with it. SSBBchamp (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So... If I called my shit candy you would eat it, because I made it and should know what it really is? It's a shooter with RPG elements, in that sense it's more like System Shock than the original Fallout. --84.186.251.190 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

post apocalyptic role playing game sounds about right to me at least... it describes a basic setting and the genre of game in one line, and as far as I remember that is convention... your own personal dislike of the game ( before it even hits the shelves no less ) has no bearing on the issue 134.197.22.98 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RPG= Decisions and skill points, other things are just the game Dev' "mixing it up". Anybody who disagree's doesn't fully understand what RPG's are. If you still want to bitch look at FF7 a "Classic" of the genre. Post-Apoc= It is a genre.

Q.E.D. (124.184.114.24 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

Page layout

I believe the system requirements should go up near the actual talk about the game, not in the section about Van Buren, which might be seen as misleading or simply shoddy. Were I to know how to do this, I would fix it myself, but I am still fairly new to things. Idiocrat (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The requirements couldn't fit compactly into the main infobox at the top-right of the page, so it was moved to the Development section. It's just coincidence that it's next to the Interplay subsection, there isn't anything in the article about the game's software where the requirements would better fit, at least not yet. Another article that has the requirements similarly placed is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. -- Commdor {Talk} 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Release date

The official site says Europe gets it on the 31st, not the 30th. Who is right? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The official site, of course. There should be a press release somewhere on there (currently the fourth article in the "News" section on the front page, dated 10.09.08) telling how the game has gone gold. The heading of this press release specifically mentions that the game will be released in Europe and Australia on Oct. 30, and in the United Kingdom on the 31st. Since the press release is more recent and directly from the developer, and it can be argued that the site itself just isn't up to date, I think this info about the dates is correct. -- Commdor {Talk} 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the official site has given December 4th, 2008 as the release date in Japan. RedWizzrobe (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Australian retailers are reporting that the release date is the 31 October, not the 30th as reported on the official site. EB Games Australia (124.177.114.217 (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, I've fixed it for Australia. JabbaXErnie (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Different Controversies

Should there not be sometning about the controversy proposed by being a child killer or the ability to be a woman slayer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by God Of Irony2012 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, both are non-issues here. The developer has already confirmed you can't kill children in this game, and killing female NPCs has never been a major problem in any video game I know of. Besides, no reputable gaming site has so much as whispered about that kind of controversy, if it were controversial anymore (the acceptable standards for violence just get lower and lower these days). -- Commdor {Talk} 01:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I expect something to pop up in the media about the perk you can choose that gives you 10% damage extra damage against the opposite sex. It gives extra convsersation options too...which I assume would be along wife beating lines. Pretty funny, but watch this space for controversy. Rekija (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This perk exists for both sexes, in the form of either Ladykiller or Black Widow. The added dialogue options I could find don't seem too crude. I wouldn't even bother mentioning it in the article.--84.186.251.190 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this was from a while back but neither dialog options for either perk are related to wife beating, they are (as far as I have seen) all flirty type things, using your gender to woe the person you're talking to thus changing what he/she does. You could infact imply this from the name Ladykiller. 88.211.96.3 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Score links dont work

Your Link on 53 and 52 does not work. I can not follow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by God Of Irony2012 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are from print media (i.e. gaming magazines), and the citations do not link to any website. See WP:CS for more information about citing sources. In any case, depending on what reviews we get and can add to the article, the two reviews that you refer to could eventually be edited out since most articles usually only have the reviews and scores from more well-known gaming publications. We can actually have too many positive reviews, so we keep only the most notable or even negative reviews from reputable sources to prevent cluttering or the perception of a bias in favor of the game. -- Commdor {Talk} 01:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I recently noticed there was semi-protection for this article. I've attempted to put the new Gamespy review onto the article, however I was rejected. Why is this the case? Only administrators can edit this article or what? kliu1 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean rejected? I've been able to edit the article fine, it's only normal semi-protection (I did fix what you were editing so that the GameSpy review is visible in the article now). -- Commdor {Talk} 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is your account at least 4 days old? (I think that is how old it needs to be before editing semi protected articles). Ice (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't edit it either. I have been registered since 2006. At any rate, I was going to edit the first section of the main article to change that you create your appearance *after* your mother dies to - you create your appearance *before* your mother dies. It's minor, but how it is entered now is inaccurate. (Once you create your appearance, your father remarks to your mother that you look like him, she acknowledges and then goes in to cardiac arrest.) -- Dracorat (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also unable to add reviews from About.com, both PC and Xbox 360 reviews were in last week but not able to add because semi-protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mklappen (talk • contribs) 03:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To people who can't edit the article because it's semi-protected, click the lock and it'll take you to the semi-protected page, then click the autoconfirmed on that page. You need a certain number of edits before you reach that stage so if you don't edit many pages, you're probably not autoconfirmed.UncannyGarlic (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Now that reviews are coming in fast we need to expand the text (not table). Given how previous reception sections of well recieved game articles with a featured status, it would be a balance of pros and cons slightly in pros favor (60%) given it being well recieved thus far so do remember to add cons... HOWEVER I am aware of a strong bias AGAINST this game so when I mention adding plenty of cons, not to much on the other hand, it was well received after all (although it should be pointed out the PS3 version seems to be getting lower scores than the PC and 360 from the same reviewers). Stabby Joe (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviews shouldn't be included based on giving the game an appropriate average score; that's ridiculous. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, I'm just suggesting we adopt in advance the structure featured game articles have done being a balance of pros and cons yet given the positive reception, a slightly larger emphasis on pros to reflect its overall reception while still mentioning the cons. For example Super Smash Bros. Brawl and BioShock, both well received have more pros yet plenty of cons. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Other articles don't (or at least shouldn't) be deliberately picking a certain number of positive reviews and a certain number of negative ones - NPOV is more complicated that simply including one bad point for every good. What should happen is that all reliable sources are collected, filtered for the different points given, and then those points represented in the article as weighted by their presence in the sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree that criticism or kudos should be included for reasons of substantiveness, rather than equal totals of arbitrary and PoV determinations of content like 'pro' and 'con'. However, see below. Anarchangel (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and right now the reception section references only a single review, which is a problem. It needs to be expanded to include references to many reviews and not just the 1UP one. See below for more concern about the 1UP section.

All of the prerelease awards and references to them should be removed as they awards for good marketing at events (E3 for the most part) rather than for the game as a finished and released product. It has been noted as a candidate for Game of the Year in many sources so if/when it wins or is nominated, those awards should be put up. All in all, this section lacks NPOV and reads like an advertisement instead of an informative piece. Out of curiosity, is there a standard for what sources for game scores are normally listed (not criticizing what's there, just asking for future reference)? UncannyGarlic (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically other featured articles for well received titles seem to have a balance of pros and cons yet with more pro, for example 60 to 40%, a certain number isn't picked per say as the section can be long or short, its just I've been told averaged well receieved have slightly more than the other to reflect that (if not the case then find them). If we should do so as you have mentioned then take it up with those articles then, I'm not demanding we do anything, by all means do the other you mentioned, I was just suggesting given last time it saved a lot of hassle in getting the SSBB, Age of Mythology and Halo 3 article up to better standards. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, that's not the way it's supposed to work. Just grab as many reviews as you can, see what they all say, and weigh the arguments made in the article based on how often they appear in the references. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

While agreeing with the argument against an even number of pros and cons, as shown in my above edit on this same day, I must say, to the comment of 9:10 on 30 Oct by thumperward: Absolutely not. Numbers of articles believing one thing or another is indeed a fact worthy of inclusion. Unfortunately, there is no reliable source for polling data on this. For editors to engage in an editing process that includes their perception of which and how many articles are 'pro' and 'con', even within a specific game mechanic, etc, is inserting private polling data into the article. Imagine if this process was delineated specifically in the article "This editor searched x number of reviews, finding y number of them thought 'blah' and z thought 'bleh'." With more than due respect, the polling abilities of no editor here is notable. The arguments must be substantial; it matters not, how many.

Then in that case take it up with them, not me. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to the matter of substantiality, I propose that the last sentence under Reception: "The review concluded that despite the game's shortcomings, Fallout 3 is a "hugely ambitious game that doesn't come around very often," and one would "be a fool not to play it and enjoy the hell out of it."[53]" (note the citation number may change) should be shortened to, ""The review concluded that despite the game's shortcomings, Fallout 3 is a "hugely ambitious game that doesn't come around very often".[53]" The latter quote not only makes an assertion of subjective value, but attempts to predict the subjective reaction of the reader. Its assertions are just too pushy for its weak substance to back up. Anarchangel (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The reception section reads: "The review concluded that despite the game's shortcomings..." without mentioning any of the shortcomings, which is a problem as it's non-informative. UncannyGarlic (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of the reviews with scores listed, the following awarded Fallout 3 editor's choice awards (already in the links provided): Gamespy, IGN (PC, PS3, XBox 360), and Gamespot (PC and XBox 360). Also, the PC version also got a 9.6 on IGN (from: http://pc.ign.com/articles/924/924346p5.html). UncannyGarlic (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

DRM Lawsuit - Why is not mentioned in the main article??

What kind of Digital Rights Management system does this game use? I can't find a reliable source for this information, but I think it is an appropriate thing to have on pages for PC video games.

It's got a disc check version of securom (ie no online activation, no limited activation, no drivers, just a simple check to see if the CD is in your computer) and a CD key check for Games for Windows Live functionality (achivements and such) 88.211.96.3 (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that the version of SecuROM attached to the game goes a tad farther than that; this page mentions that it apparently also does check for the presence of any elements that could potentially be used for piracy, (such as disc image mounting software) and will fail the check if it detects them. Taking a look on The game's forums seems to suggest that this is causing widespread problems; some are saying that it also is crashing on computers due to having SATA DVD drives, though I've not been able to confirm that. It's apparently causing a degree of controversy, but I've not been able to link together enough to add a whole section yet. Nottheking (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm on an SATA DVD drive, and I have no issues, but the detecting CD emulation software is actually pretty standard, and has been for some time. Just making sure it doesn't boot on start up or using the inbuilt masking tools should get around this. 88.211.96.3 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, hence why I mentioned that I couldn't confirm it. Nonetheless, while detecting other software is standard for SecuROM, so far I'd put a on a claim that it's standard for pretty much any other software... It's part of why SecuROM has become so infamous, that it does these things by default, things that are relatively unique to it and other controversial DRM systems. So it's clearly beyond the realms of a "simple CD check" as was implied by Pete Hines in a relatively recent interview. Nottheking (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I too have a sata dvd but did have the problem. However once I removed my disk burning software it booted fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonis (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 October 2008

SecurRom goes well beyond a simple Disk Check, it also compares installed software on the end user system with database of Black Listed software. If any of the Black Listed software is found on your system it won't install. SecurRom also collects information about the user system and sends that back to SecurRom servers. SecurRom/Sony is currently in the middle of multiple class action lawsuits brought on by gamers and other industry leaders and is even under court order to disclose what information is being collected. Last update I read,yesterday, they have yet to comply with the court order and still are keeping information withheld.

Why is this not mentioned in the main article? 82.23.60.119 (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put it in the main article because it is semi-protected and I can't edit it without logging in. I really should create an account from home so I can add it to the main article with proper references. 12.177.80.3 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Others might like to know that you can remove SecurRom from your system in a couple of different ways. The Fallout 3 forums are loaded with articles and links to removal tools. I would love to provide sources for this information, but Wiki is about the only website I can access from work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.80.3 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Outdated

I've noticed this article still contains a lot of phrases referring to what the game "will" contain; these should be changed to what the game "does" contain, as the game has now been released around the globe. I'd do it myself, but I'm unable to edit semi-protected articles for whatever reason. Acc3ss (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the "wills". Hopefully I updated most of it.--Megaman en m (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

PC Powerplay Score

I'm holding the current issue oc PC Powerplay in my hand, and they've scored the game a 9/10. The magazine is arguably the leading PC gaming magazine in Australia and New Zealand, and I believe the addition of the score to the article is relevant. As a simple user of Wikipedia, I can't add it. Would somebody care to add it to the article. 121.216.154.109 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure if you can give us a source.--Megaman en m (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Moore, Alan. "Fallout 3" (in English). PC PowerPlay (158): 55. October 2008. That said, is there a standard of what sources for scores are normally listed? I'm not sure that adding PC PowerPlay to the list really adds anything to the article. I also ask because release day reviews (for most games) tend to be lacking as the reviewers generally don't get to play through the entire game. UncannyGarlic (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)