Talk:Fallout 3

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

DRM?

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)

I too have a sata dvd but did have the problem. However once I removed my disk burning software it booted fine. (mcdonis)