fallout 3

[dunniteowl]

Well everything I saw was part of the cinematic sequence. I would never deign to say that it was an in-game screenshot, ever. It might be in the game, per se, but it is not a gameplaying sequence and, anyone who's had to watch the cool sequences of say, Mechwarrior III, IV, NWN/2 and others, where the opening sequences were always great to watch (a few times at least) and then play the game knows what I am talking about here.

 

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.

 

Sorry to disagree though I am not sure you get what I actually meant and so I will attempt to reiterate it a little differently and also add the caveat that I only looked at two of the shots (they are little on my laptop screen and I am not all that jazzed about the game at the moment, so I could easily miss something.) My point was that I think the way the art was done was purposeful to mimic the "look and feel" of the originals, at least in the cinematic sequence. Cinematic sequence does not necessarily infer CG quality, it inferes a movie like sequence (hence cinematic of or like being a piece of cinema or a movie picture...) where the gamer and the game do not necessarily meet with the same loving attention.

 

Actual gameplay rarely, in my experience, is reflected in the cinematic sequences used to hype the story and the game itself, though are not actually shown as gameplay that a gamer would get when playing. This is what I was referring to. I guess now I'll have to go back and look again to see what you're referring to. I am replying now to make sure that I am being clearly understood in what I said I would hope the current level of graphics ability could portray to make it seem like a clear successor to the original series. I didn't mean to imply that the graphics had to look like it in terms of actual quality, though in atmosphere. That's all. I have no idea how much better, graphically, the new game will look. It is just my hope that they capture the "look and feel" of the original game's atmosphere.

 

If I wasn't misunderstood the first time, then I truly apologize for my little exposition here and bid you chalk it up to being a bit more tired than usual at the moment.

 

regards,

dunniteowl

[dunniteowl]

I would just like to add after reading the article in question sideways sort of, that I stand corrected and from here on out, I will not say that I wouldn't say those aren't in-game shots. As to grapic technical excellence, I still disagree, they look great and just because they don't push the envelope of polygons and voxels doesn't mean they won't knock your socks off when viewing them in while playing. I read a little tid bit about depth of field focus that caught my eye. I am not going to worry about the Fat-Man nuclear catapult as an issue, or nuclear powered engines in cars -- it's 80 years after a war in 2077, meaning it's already 2157 or later if I am reading correctly. It could happen!

 

I am now officially excited and looking forward to getting it a few months after release. (I'm not going to buy even a Bethesda game before it gets a chance to be reviewed after release,) I have made that a pretty common practice since about 1987 when I bought my first computer. So, until something more comes out, I am just going to wait for my own Father's Day gift of the DVD Collection of FO, FO2 and FOT:BoS to arrive and play it between bouts of playing with NWN2's toolset, learning 3DS Max 9 and caring for my daughter during her leukemia treatments. (I give you one guess which is the most important one...)

 

In any case, I hope that Bethesda (one of the few game development companies that can afford to take the time to do it to their satisfaction in these times) will do justice to the games that made me wish I had the extra cash when they came out. (I was busy with divorce, custody and bankruptcy among other things, the games hadda take a back seat, don'tcha know?)

 

Thanks for pointing out the in-game use of screenshots Vic. It made me go back and actually read the article.

 

regards,

dunniteowl

[Pop]

As I read it, Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after the bombs dropped, which puts it roughly 40 years after Fallout 2. This makes the implied abundance of super mutants halfway across the country rather preposterous given the facts in the other Fallouts (even if they are the remnants of the Master's army, they aren't immortal, and most should logically be dead after 120 years of wandering).

 

And also, because my computer is somewhat dated in the processor department, it's heartening to know that it's definitely coming to the 360.

Edited June 17, 2007 by Pop

[Tigranes]

But then, this takes place in D.C., and what with the conditions after the apocalypse, it is possible that there is still little to no contact between such far-flung areas, and completely different stories are/were taking place from similar conditions. i.e. the mutants in the East Coast need not be the same as the West Coast; or different technologies or conditions might have ensured 'breeding' mutants or some other situation in which they still exist. Probably still a ploy to have them still in the game, but you can see that if it was laid out properly and well-integrated, it wouldn't be completely weird - come on, we had talking deathclaws and aliens.

[Musopticon?]

What was weird for Fallouts 1 to Tactics, was that there were actually no "regular" mutants as enemies. In the wasteland, I'd expect anyone to have their share of malformeties, however small, but there were no harshly mutated beings portrayed besides the remnants of the Master's army, which I found kind of weird. I hope F3 does have your normal scraggly morlochian mutants.

[Gorth]

What was weird for Fallouts 1 to Tactics, was that there were actually no "regular" mutants as enemies. In the wasteland, I'd expect anyone to have their share of malformeties, however small, but there were no harshly mutated beings portrayed besides the remnants of the Master's army, which I found kind of weird. I hope F3 does have your normal scraggly morlochian mutants.

Wouldn't the Ghouls qualify for the job?

[Musopticon?]

I thought about that, but the design was more inspired by Romero's radiation zombies. Just walking corpses, really.

Edited June 17, 2007 by Musopticon?

[metadigital]

Maybe "regular" mutants were just impaired and unable to harm others.

[Llyranor]

Hahahahahahaahahaha, this is going to outsell FO1/2 combined multiple-fold.

[Nick_i_am]

and sleep with their sisters.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The thing I hate too is how the camera view choice is likely the result of being designed for console first and PC second. A birds eye view click to move type system would suck on consoles, so we have to suffer because of it.

I don't know why anyone would have thought Bethesda were going to use a click-to-move system, or why a birds-eye view necessitates it. Games like Crusader and Alien Shooter use directional key controls.

[Sand]

I hope this game has as much success as FOPOS enjoyed.

 

Lookslike I was right about this game being a worthless POS Oblivion with Guns. I still like to know why the hell did Bethesda had to go about and ruin Fallout even moreso than what Interplay did. If they wanted to rewrite the rules system and interface that it is totally unrecognizable to the originals they should have made their own original IP instead of this crap. Seriously, is Bethesda that brain dead that they can't come up with original games any more?

Edited June 17, 2007 by Sand

[Llyranor]

I quit gaming forever too!

[kirottu]

I hope this game has as much success as FOPOS enjoyed.

 

Lookslike I was right about this game being a worthless POS Oblivion with Guns. I still like to know why the hell did Bethesda had to go about and ruin Fallout even moreso than what Interplay did. If they wanted to rewrite the rules system and interface that it is totally unrecognizable to the originals they should have made their own original IP instead of this crap. Seriously, is Bethesda that brain dead that they can't come up with original games any more?

 

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

 

Wait I have more.

 

HAHAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAAAHAHAHA

[Sand]

I am so happy to entertain you.

[Nick_i_am]

I....wait, rofl.

[metadigital]

I think I'll but three copies.

[Sand]

I think I'll but three copies.

Sounds like a tight fit.

[metadigital]

I'll upgrade first, of course.

[Sand]

HA!

[Arkan]

Weapons degrade with use....mother fxcker....

Edited June 17, 2007 by Arkan

[J.E. Sawyer]

I like equipment degradation. It gives you reasons to keep other equipment around and switch things up occasionally. It also provides you with motivation to a) learn repair/craft skills b) re-visit certain areas (like trade hubs) and c) use resources like $$/gold/bottlecaps and any "building materials" a game may provide.

 

I also like the idea of some weapons being differentiated as "fragile" or "beefy". High tech weapons might degrade quickly while the venerable AK-47s of the world can go the distance. If melee weapons are/were particularly durable, people might be more motivated to keep them around and use them when possible.

[Tale]

I like equipment degradation. On conditions:

 

1) No special one-time weapons.

2) If 1, I can repair them completely.

[mr insomniac]

Being able to repair an item completely could be dependent on your repair/craft skill, and materials available. It's not necessarily a bad thing if this were the case.

Edited June 17, 2007 by mr insomniac

[Oerwinde]

The thing I hate too is how the camera view choice is likely the result of being designed for console first and PC second. A birds eye view click to move type system would suck on consoles, so we have to suffer because of it.

I don't know why anyone would have thought Bethesda were going to use a click-to-move system, or why a birds-eye view necessitates it. Games like Crusader and Alien Shooter use directional key controls.

 

I just prefer click-to-move over directional keys, and figured since fallout 1 and 2, and hell even fallout: tactics had it, they just might try to stay true to the predecessors. No idea why I would have had hope they would stay true to the predecessors.