Talk:Fallout 3

Xbox 360 release ?!

I was looking over the article and it said that this game is coming out on the 360 (on the little tab thing on the right), it said later in that article that it was possible it could be released on the 360 but it was never confimed or anything, shouldn't that be corrected? (Eli 8:39, 3 March 2007

Until Bethesda gives an official word, I'll remove it. I wouldn't rule out a console version in the future, especially with the success of Oblivion under Bethesda's belt. -Xeon25 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Game Informer magazine reveals on the cover of the new issue (in which contains a world exclusive preview) that it's coming to PS3, 360, and PC. 74.39.35.61 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Van Buren v. Fallout 3

I realize I just made this article, but I feel I should defend having an article on Van Buren AND Fallout 3 (Which doesn't exist, but should. I might make it later. The article that is. Not the game.). They are different games, and could end up with different stories, characters, etc. They should be defined as different games. And that's my two cents. Miguel Cervantes 04:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it there will be a sequel, but not from BlackIsle. Bethesda has apparently bought the rights to produce any sequel to the fallout-series. This supports the hypothesis of two different entries (fallout_van_buren and fallout_3) (per9000, non-wiki guy 2006 mar 28) see: http://www.bethsoft.com/news/pressrelease_071004.htm

Van Buren is vaporware, Fallout 3 is in production by Bethesda AS WE SPEAK. Someone needs to make a Fallout 3 page for the upcoming Bethesda game and move keep Van Buren as a seperate entry.

Van Buren isn't "vaporware". It was simply the codename for Fallout 3 when it was being developed by Interplay. Everything to do with Van Buren was scrapped when the license went to Bethesda. I don't think a completely seperate page is necessary for something that barely existed to begin with. Perhaps when more info is available on this title, it can be given a mention in the "history" or whatever. -Xeon25 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Van Buren is a different game, which will never be finished, but which had existed for some time; as I understand, F3 is made from scratch by Bethesda. Because it's a different product from the Bethesda's version of Fallout 3, I think it deserves a separate entry, with a link from the current Fallout 3 article. agnus 17:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The alpha tech demo should belong to Van Buren article, not Fallout 3 as this article is about the title under development by Bethesda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingsword (talk • contribs) 01:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Release Status

Why was the reference to the estimated release date removed? Retailers having set release dates is not pertanent to the release status? I may have fudged the links (it's been a long time since I did any wiki work) but I don't see why the info was alltogethor removed. 207.161.7.91 16:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• IMO speculation about the release date only on the basis of a retailer's webpage is not required in wiki - the date has not yet been announced, period. We shouldn't be dealing with gossips of any sort, I believe. Moreover, these links looked to me as as an advertisement of this particular shop, which certainly isn't welcomed here.agnus 02:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• If a reference were available for the speculative release date, I believe that it would be appropriate to say "XYZStore claims to have received a release day of ZZZ. I don't think that's the case for the alleged EB date, so I have removed this. If it can be substantiated, even from an EB page or an interview with an EB source, I'd be happy to see it restored. Tlesher 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that now we have an official release date, is it necessary to keep all the older information about possible dates in the article? I believe they are unnecessary. agnus 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fallout 3 boxart

Is the fallout shelter sign the official, latest boxart? Or is this it? http://www.shacknews.com/screens.x/fallout3/Fallout+3/1/art/060520_fallout3_art_02.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.137.223.153 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no boxart yet, because the game is still in early development. Perhaps when the game reaches late beta stages, we'll see some potential boxarts appear. -Xeon25 18:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

None of this information is valid anymore

Bethesda isn't making this game anymore it was cancelled. Interplay took it over. [1]Papias256 04:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the date of the news post.--Miguel Cervantes 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

April fools, ahahaha, I almost believed it --ReCover 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just a dirty, rotten trick. Even for April Fools. :( -Xeon25 15:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

TDC's "Official Announcement and Fan Response"

Where is the footnote for that? I haven't been able to find anything, anywhere, that states F3 will be isometric, top down and turn-based. Dave the Brave 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure it was false information. It's gone now, and when it was there, there wasn't a source cited. Drak Swordsman 03:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question: when is fall 2008? What months?

from September to November? :)

You are on Wikipedia. A search would have told you that it´s from September 23 to December 21 :p --Threedots dead 15:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, not everyone lives in the northern hemisphere and it really gets on my nerves when people use seasons rather than dates for this kind of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.40.204 (talk • contribs)

LOL, come to think of it, there are multiple ways to hate using "Fall" as a time frame. "Fall" is American English. Fall is defined differently in different context/culture, let alone the hemisphere difference. Hey, it's a wordplay on "Fallout", so that's something. To be context independent, I think its save to say "Q4". --Voidvector 09:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Lock the page, please

Vandalism removed. JAF1970 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Easter Egg?

The Vaultboy advert as seen in the teaser trailer is not an Easter Egg as it is clearly visible for everyone to see. It is simply a cute homage to possibly the most popular character of the franchise, please rename the sub-heading appropriately.Kida1011 20:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's no more an Easter egg than is any other element common to the series: the retro music, washed-out palette, or typeface used for the titles. Unless there's significant objection, this should be reworded. Tlesher 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an easter egg, as the "Grunt Crossing" sign in the Halo 3 E3 announcement was an easter egg (and Bungie confirmed it was an easter egg AS an easter egg). It's not something most people unfamiliar to the serires would understand, and it's not exactly open. It is an easter egg -- please don't confuse video and computer game easter eggs with video easter eggs. JAF1970 23:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an easter egg. I don't care if it is in a game or a video - the whole point of easter eggs is they are hidden and are stumbled upon. This is a reference. If we call the appearance of pip boy an Easter Egg then I could point out 20 other things in the trailer which are also "eggs" as Tlesher points out.70.189.213.149 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is an easter egg, i think the Red Coca-cola truck should count as an easter egg^^ just my opinion87.194.248.56 08:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no easter eggs in the trailer. The red truck is a Nuka-Cola truck; a brand that has always existed in the Fallout universe. -Xeon25 07:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not enclave

The man who appears in the video is not enclave - but just a guy with powered armour. Enclave advanced powered armour looks different and in any case doesn't guarantee membership of that organisation. Dr v 23:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not brotherhood of steel either - same reason as above Dr v 23:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Brotherhood of Steel logo is clearly visible on his chest.Pcp.arx 07:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it as well later - it is indeed the BOS logo Dr v 10:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Even the BOS emblem on the armor doesn't necessarily mean the character is a Brotherhood member. Maybe he killed him and stole his armor. Even in that armor, they aren't invincible. Necro-File 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but with the logo (IMHO) its very likely to be that. Its seems difficult to imagine Bethesda making a complex plot behind a teaser! Dr v 11:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvega Billboard

The Corvega automobile advertised in the original Fallout can be seen while viewing the cityscape.

I tried to enter this in "References to previous Fallout games", but someone had erased the section before I could submit it. Was there something wrong with it? - Gerald

Looks to me, like it was removed by mistake, along with a bunch of outdated stuff. I did put it back. --Zigmar 08:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So is there NO INFORMATION about the game?!

I keep seeing that the game is supposed to be coming out towards the end of 2008, so I am sure that Bethesda has more to show for it than a fucking CGI video (that will most likely be the intro video). I can deal with lack of screens or videos of the game itself, but there's not even any God damn information about it?! The only information I can seem to find about FO3 is who's developing it, when it's scheduled for release, and everything that goes with the rights transference from Interplay to Bethesda. What type of game is it going to be? Is it going to be like the TES series and be a first-person Fallout game, or is it going to keep the series' tactical 3/4 view perspective? How is it going to be different, and what will remain the same? JUST WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?! Necro-File 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. The speculation is that Bethesda do not want to release information that will cause Fallout fans to become angry at their abandonment of various Fallout gameplay features. —Centrx→talk • 20:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Either that or they really don't have anything to show. I'm anxious for the game, but I know nothing about it. Hopefully as it gets closer to their targeted release date more information will trickle out, eh? 75.6.165.61 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

They are doing a good job at keeping quiet. I tend to agree with Centrx on the reasoning. Fallout fans are a bitchy crowd. Dr v 11:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Trailer Section?

What's the point of the trailer section? --Voidvector 12:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it's the first major piece of Fallout 3 media since the game was first announced. Kida1011 12:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no other game article (I am aware of) that has a section describing the content of its pre-release trailer in detail. So in all likelihood, it is going to be deleted when real info on the game becomes available. --Voidvector 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Halo 3 Wiki page has had extensive discussions about each and every Halo 3 trailer/documentary. As did the FF XII page and more recently, the Gears of War page. So yes, there are other pages detailing pre-release trailers. Kida1011 19:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove any content from this article for being too detailed, please move it to The Vault Fallout wiki instead of deleting it. Ausir 13:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fallout 1 music

I'm putting a fact tag on the claim that Interplay intended to use "Don't Want to Set the World on Fire" as the music for Fallout 1. I've heard this for a long time, too, but I can't find a source for it just now. I'm going to dig up the Fallout Bible files and check there. Tlesher 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's in Fallout Bible #9. Ausir 10:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! Tlesher 17:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

FPS and Battle System

I don't recall ever hearing official word of Bethesda making Fallout 3 an FPS or with the battle system that is described in the article. Unless there are official sources for this information, it needs to be removed. - Gerald

It says "action RPG" on the top left corner of the first page of the Game Informer article.[2] That is the most reliable source you can get. You may feel it should be called a "FPS", but putting your interpretation here would constitute original research. --Voidvector 22:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gerald. None of the information in the article is 100% official. Bethesda have yet to issue their own press release concerning Fallout 3, and until they do, I don't think second hand information should really be posted on this aticle. Kida1011 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Being a RPG fan myself, I hate to see the game turn into anything other than a RPG. Nevertheless, Check out this page: [3], it says right there "A Post Nuclear Role Playing Game." --Voidvector 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear what?

Can someone with access to the Game Informer magazine verify whether User:Xombi p edits regarding "nuclear catapults" are correct? Seems like utter rubbish... Tlesher 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There was mentioning of a nuclear catapult in the game informer article. I don't have a copy, but I remember reading it. However, I don't recall any nuclear reactor reference.

I was very displeased with this weapon idea when I first read it. I hope Bethesda replaces it before production.--Voidvector 04:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Not that I'm happy to see it, either... Tlesher 04:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's not exactly a "catapult" in the traditional sense; more of a bazooka-type weapon. There is some historical basis for such a weapon, though I definitely don't like it being called a "Fatman". It's on page 59 of the Game Informer issue, by the way. Orffen 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay

The Vault-tec Assisted Targeting System, or V.A.T.S., will remain basically unaltered, in that various actions will cost action points and that specific body parts can be targeted on enemies, or on you by your enemies, for specific injuries, but combat can be set to run continuously as well as turn-based, as it can in Fallout: Tactics.

VATS is not a turn based mode. In the article and the clarification from GI Unlimited FAQ, it saids that

Q: Is the game turn based or real time? AND How’s the V.A.T.S. combat system work again? A: I talk about this a good bit in the July magazine article, but to be clear, Fallout 3 plays in both real time and a paused tactical combat mode. It’s not really turn based, however. Instead, you can pause the real-time action in order to make aimed ranged or melee attacks on your opponents, smashing their legs to slow them down, or perhaps shooting an arm to hurt their weapon aim. Like in the original Fallout games, doing these aimed shots take action points, but since there are no turns, those AP recharge over time after unpausing the game. You can shoot in real time, but that will then slow your recharge rate. In practice, this means players have the option to play the game very much like an RPG, but with a good bit more action than traditional RPGs. Are there other details to the way this system works? Almost definitely, yes. Do we know all the answers to how V.A.T.S. works after seeing it in one demo? No. We’re waiting just like you to find out more.

So, the actual VATS is still remain unknown, but so far, we only know that VATS is going to be a RTwP from the description. 87.194.248.56 11:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reserve Now"?

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but how is it gathered that that particular phrase is a "double entendre"? Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but I don't think it's available for reservation. Booticon 03:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)