Vic

This is the second forum on which I've seen a topic created by you about this game, Jora (the other forum you have a whopping 19 posts; most of which, I'd imagine, stem from the game's topic). Bit of a viral marketer, aren't you?

Uh, no... The graphics are only slightly better than Oblivion (which was an early 06 game, and was impressive for it's time) and it's going to come out at the end of 2008, that's a year and a half away. And this is coming from a studio that always had cutting edge tech when they're game is released. While the art direction looks superb, the actual graphics aren't anything all that special now, and won't be especially when it's released. If anything, it's going to look better, not worse later. Go look at something like Crysis or Mass Effect, then look at Fallout 3. It's not even close to CG... And as far as in-game with the UI included, you have two clear gameplay shots with the complete UI. The battle shot, and the Pip-Boy 3000 shot. The rest are taken from gameplay away from the player to show wider view of the gameplay scene.

I got the impression that many of them were artificially souped-up from 'true' in-game, kinda like the trailer. Quite a few were very probably actual ingame though, and they were pretty good. Bit too photorealistic I guess, but it's not terribly out of shape. Actually, the graphics are pretty tame for how late it's coming out. It's coming out at the end of 08, when long before then you have games that are much more technologically advanced like Crysis or even something like Mass Effect. Bethesda obviously put more work into the art direction rather than technologically advanced graphics.

With an exception of the concept art, all the of screens are clearly in-game. Unless you mean in-game as someone playing it with a visual UI, then nevermind. And on that note, I like what they did with the Pip-Boy.

NMA has scans up. The green text squares that are on almost every page are an account of a quest (and I believe some of the beginning of the game). The combat will make more sense when you read it yourself.

It's not a CGI cutscene, it was made with the game's engine.

Sand, are you by any chance bipolar?

Right, because teasers are usually made to get people in the mind-set of first day purchases, not to simply arouse interest. And it's Perlman.

He's saying the current picture, out of all the art revealed so far, comes closest to giving a "Fallout vibe".

Some people are thinking it's the USS Oriskany

Uh... It's pretty obvious it's a community of some sort. Look at the lights and the specs of people. Also, the capitol art should be a dead giveaway that it's at least partly in DC. And now people are assuming that the new art is a real navy yard in DC.

Apparently the concept art is of a real place:

At Looking Glass he was a level designer, which I believe included writing as well (it sounded like he had a hand in some of the whole story, not just his levels, but I could be wrong). In Oblivion he designed all of the Dark Brotherhood questlines, which included writing and quest/NPC/level design etc. I believe he also worked on the stealth system of the game, which was a pretty big step up from Morrowind's stealth. So no, it wouldn't be like putting a makeup artist on directing, it would be like putting someone who's directed smaller films to direct a large film. A Lead Designer is just a large step up.

You also have Emil, a former Looking Glass guy as the Lead Designer. He has the most creative control over the project second only to Howard.

I forgot to add, a lot of people seem to think Neeson's character will only have a couple lines like Stewart, but the press release says he: So maybe a full fledged NPC or have an Overseer type role.

If you haven't been following this, you can see some ongoing Q&A with some of the FO3 developers and the forumers at the FO3 forums. Of course, they can't talk about the game yet, but it gives an idea of what they're like. Two of the more prominently posting quest/world designers in those threads (or maybe they're only ones posting?) seem particularly witty and intelligent. They have multiple threads full of discussion: http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=692451 http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=691464 http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=689065 http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=687945 http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=693873

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3156953 Interesting tidbits: Sounds like it might be a large improvement over some of the faults of Oblivion. Fewer quests for more branches in quests. Fewer NPCs for NPCs that are actually fleshed out. Hope it delivers, at least a little bit.

Depends one which part of the Fallout fanbase you're talking about. If you're talking about the small amount that spend most of their time and post on sites like NMA, and proclaim themselves "True/Real" Fallout fans; then yes, they are bitter and much more. A psychologist would have a field day analyzing them. If you're talking about the majority of fans, the ones who don't visit NMA and their ilk (or even visit gaming sites, period), then I doubt many are bitter at all. The only reason Fallout fans have a bad rap is because the few vocal outputs are such awful representations of the majority that don't speak out. Which is a shame, really.

Yeah.... All 10 of you will stop this game from selling. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> lolzzzzzzz Dream On Girl. There are many, many uf Us. Down with Bethy and their attempt at F3. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How many of you compared to normal Fallout fans who don't visit those rabid sites? Or compared to the amount of people who will most likely buy it due to Bethesda's name on the cover with "From the makers of Oblivion"? Or the ones who will buy it due to hype and press? Not many.

Now that I've double checked it, the exact quote regarding turn-based combat was that they are "looking at many options." It's possible that I may have mixed it up with the "we don't do this well" sentence in that overwhelming fanatical zeal which you seem to constantly attribute to me. However, considering that all of the past ES games were real-time and that RT combat is "what they do well" you can easily draw your own conclusions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, it was said by a PR guy that zealots say is full of ****, before there was a team together to design the game. Why take his word, especially in the context that there was no team working on it, as likely? I draw the conclusion that he made a guess that really bit him in the ass because of zealots and knee-jerk reactions. He probably should have prescribed to his own PR philosophy of not talking about a game until everything is concrete and ready to show, and certainly not before said feature is being designed in said game. edit: Second, the "Looking at many options" for battle line. They said that during pre-production. Pre-production is for concept art, concept designs and such. Trying out things and seeing if they work, ditching those that don't etc. FO3 was in pre-production for two years, which is a relatively long amount of time for that AFAIK. God knows what they've come up with. Hopefully if they did decide on Real-Time (or RT and TB both), they've come up with a decent combat system. edit2: Lastly, like Alanschu, when I say "you", I most likely mean those three sites you mentioned, not specifically you. I should probably say "they" every time, but I forget. I wouldn't call you a zealot exactly, just someone who is unfortunately starting to subscribe to their sad philosophy.

It seems ironic to me that the PR is complete BS unless it's negative, and then they take Hines' word ( before they put together a team to, you know, design the game) practically as gospel. Also, point out to me the exact quote where they say, "We do not do turn-based well.". Edit: I know the Isometric thing. It was when Hines said: "Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in style. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well." Now, he said that the day they announced they purchased the license. There was no team put together to make it, and certainly nothing designed. He's a PR guy, not a developer. They sound awesome. NMA and DAC are the oldest Fallout sites still in existence. They rule. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They rule their little ****-heap sites, but that's about all.

What's the point? More content than there was in Fallout 1 = badness? I'd rather equate the badness to a ridiculously short development time. edit: woops, I'm still in the dark. You must understand I'm tired. Is he teasing Hades? edit 2: nevermind, I get it.

I think that deserves an LOL. So, rushing a long game to market doesn't have an effect on quality? Of course it does. They had a year to make a sequel to Fallout, and that year really shows.

Didn't they only have a year to make it, though? Given a more lenient time frame, they probably could have upped the quality substantially.

I think that's because the ES games are far too ambitious. They tried to bite much much more than they could chew with Daggerfall, in fact their jaw should have broke (I suppose you could say that the game actually did). I thought Morrowind was a natural progression from there, in terms of trying something smaller. There were alot of problems I had with Oblivion, though. Alot of design decisions were mistakes, which got in the way of what it could have been. Hopefully they'll learn from them. I'd like to see what they can do with a small game world like Fallout's, though.