Wait... what?

I looked on the internet and couldn't find anything concrete with financial backing regarding Troika and Fallout outside of their funds to obtain the license, which I couldn't find a publisher to match that money up with. That's why I still questioned Troika's financial backing. Got any links to confirm?

I wasn't taking each post individually but as a general concensus, and out of every complaint, the one that came up the most was no prostitution, no humor and no child killing, which makes it seem like those were the biggest abandonements in the game, and some of us wondered how anyone could expect such things in glorified HD 3D without a big fat AO rating in the US, and the certainty of banishment in most European countries(outside of the humor part). In fact, almost no one has complained about the gameplay or setting at all, which lead me to believe that these child killings and prostitutions, which really can't be put into a game nowadays, were the blasphemies that Bethesda are commiting.

I can fully understand some of the other concerns like gameplay and humor however. They seem like big oversights on Bethesda's part. The setting I can't comment on, because it seems to me Bethesda has kept the architecture intact from the original two, just really upped the polygon count. If you mean the fact that it takes place in Washington D.C. instead of Cal, I don't see how that's a big deal.

I didn't just mean that there would be child killing, as I'm sure many games have had it. This is what child killing in Fallout 3 will look like though:

You see the difference between child killing in The Sims and child killing in Fallout 3 now? This would be a bit on the gruesome side. It could very easily get an AO rating putting a shotgun to a child's head and watching it explode. Just remember that Manhunt 2 got an AO rating even without the child killing.

Also I'm going to have to go with Words of Wisdom and ask you about Smash Bros. What Smash bros. are you playing that features child killing? 

Without reading anyones posts. I'll give my response.

Fallout 1 & 2 are two of my favourite games of all time.

This doesn't look like Fallout 1 or 2.

This makes me apprehensive.


That said, I'm fairly optimistic that Fallout 3 will be a great game. I just don't like the whole part about it not being like the games I love.

Oh please, Bethesda could just turn off blowing children's heads ingame, I don't even remember if Bloody Mess affects children or not in the old Fallout games. And in the Sims it was MUCH WORSE, where the kids could suffer a much worse fate: they could be starved for days until they died.

And in all other games you had almost no consequence by killing children, which means no punishment for child-killers. But in Fallout if you killed or even touched a child you would be outcasted and pursued.

My judgement before I know anything is that they:

Will write crappy dialogue that sucks ass.

Will dumb it down and make it a "console game" in their strife to mainstream the concept.

Will take away everything that would make a dark post apocalyptic world feel dark and post apocalyptic.

Will allow you to download additional meaningless content for a few dollars

Will use poor voice actors that will deliver the crappy dialogue in a crappy way

I'm sure you could turn off the head shots, and the gruesomeness, but doesn't that break the immersion? You could actually just make the whole experience of child killing text based with a simple yes or no answer and have it happen off screen but then it just seems so tacked on. If it's going to stay in, it should blend in with the rest of the game not take the player out of the setting.

I'm also not trying to argue that child killing is a bad thing, as I'm sure i'd love to kill some Fallout kids if they were rolling around on Heelys, it's just that this could get them the AO rating possibly, and that's not a risk most companies outside of Rockstar like to take. As far as The Sims, starvation alone does not get you an AO rating, it's what's visible on screen that does.

You've got to answer on the Smash Bros. thing because I'm dying to go into that game and see whatever child killing you speak of. 

 Very true, Fallout had some of the best voice works ever in videogaming, and there was a preview from some mag that watched a demo and said that some of the voice acting shown in Fallout 3 was uninspiring.

 Some comments on Troika's activity: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16708

As for the setting change, it's not simply moving to the east coast. However, suddenly the super mutants, a creation by Richard Grey on the west coast are over there? Likewise, the Brotherhood of Steel has upped its roots and moved east, and not only moved east, but taken on a whole new appearance? The BoS was a very private, inactive organization that prided themselves in their technology and keeping it clean. In the screens, they're running and gunning with the best of them.  

That link you gave me states that Troika never bid on the Fallout license and merely asked Bethesda if they could work on the project with them and Bethesda said "no", which he then agreed was a fair decision. It doesn't mention anything about getting funding for the license bid, or who would publish the title or anything.

About the setting, you're probably right. The only answer I'd have is that I believe the third game takes place at least 80 years after Fallout 2 and people could have moved around a lot since then and changed their leadership, strategies, etc. 80 years in videogame time is usually nothing, but if you compare it to 80 years in our world, major changes happen between a time frame like that.