New Fallout 3 screens

[Sand]

In my ever so humble opinion it is everything that is Fallout that makes it Fallout. Rules System, artwork, Story, camera view, and so forth. I wouldn't want a 2D game today, but I still expect Fallout 3 to play and feel like Fallout even with 3D graphics.

[Pidesco]

WOW good to see people remaining objective about Fallout....

 

Next thing there will be console bashing.... wait...wait for it...

 

Well, this is a 360 game.

 

I was referring to the not very good texture quality, that the game is sporting for a late 2008 release. The 360 isn't exactly a cutting edge system anymore.

 

Oh, and for the record, I like consoles.

 

 

Also, about us just commenting on the graphics, well there's nothing else to talk about regarding those screenshots, is there?

[Sand]

Those screen shots do suck when compared to Mass Effect.

[Moatilliatta]

So are there any of you people who think the screenshots are ugly or meh that are willing to explain why you think so? I have an idea of why it seems to be very un-fallouty but I would like to hear a few different opinions.

[Musopticon?]

I don't think they are ugly as such, but just that the graphical standards are from 2002. It looks like someone sucked the fog out of Silent Hill 2 and added bloom.

 

I'm not going to judge art direction, since the concept art gives a very different view as well, because I haven't seen any wasteland screenshots or actual open terrain yet. I like the armor design and the mutants are alright. It's not retroscifi, but neither was Fallout 2.

[Starwars]

Most of my trouble stems from that it's not actually reminiscant of Fallout. If I didn't know about the A) The Vault Suit (though it's different as well) and B) The Brotherhood Armor there's no way in hell that I'd guess it's a Fallout game. Neither from what the (especially) actual gameplay seems to be, nor the purely visual style. The best one is the one only portraying the area, but even that seems rather cluttered and nothing seems to stand out. That's not a problem as it might look very differently in motion, but you'd think that screenshots released at this point would try to show off how it's connected to the older games. There's not much of a "future of the 50s vibe" going on here.

 

I'm actually a bit surprised that they actually released a screenshot with the atomic car exploding (yay?), and having a Super Mutant stand next to it seemingly completely unaffected (YAY!). I mean... whut?

 

That said, I do think the environments in the game will look quite amazing. I think it might be where the most talent in Bethesda lies, as the environments in Oblivion look extremely good for what they are (I think I read somewhere that the area around the Imperial City was actually supposed to be jungle?). I think the sense of nature is definetely there, and I'm sure these people will create gorgeous looking areas for Fallout 3. Whether these areas will have what I want in a Fallout game is another matter.

 

I've been pessimistic about the game being a sequel for the other Fallouts for a very long time now, but I'm getting increasingly pessimistic about it as a stand-alone game as well. It just doesn't look (again, only judging from what the gameplay seems to be like here in these screens, could obviously be *very* wrong) like a game I'd like very much.

[astr0creep]

I'm very excited about this game.

 

I loved ALL Elder scrolls games and I really like Bethesda as a developper. Second only to Bioware in my book(where RPGs are concerned).

 

I'm sorry to say this here but Oblivion with guns sounds good to me. I have a strong bias towards FP games, I feel more immersed, it's a personal thing.

 

Also, I've always wanted Fallout to be First Person so... there you go.

 

Sure it won't be turn-based combat and they seemed to have updated some conceptual designs, so what? Isn't it to be expected? Or do you want Fallout exactly the way it was, same story, same everything but in 3D?

 

Besides, I don't think we can expect a game like, say, DOOM in the Fallout setting. It won't be so fast. Oblivion was slow and this will be too. It will be deep, beautiful RPG goodness.

 

 

I need a new computer!

[Musopticon?]

I loved ALL Elder scrolls games and I really like Bethesda as a developper. Second only to Bioware in my book(where RPGs are concerned).

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaway!

[Sand]

Bioware and Obsidian are tied in the top spots of my favorites, with Bethesda being a distant third. Its like Obsidian is Obama, Bioware is Clinton, and Bethesda is Edawrds.

[Meshugger]

So are there any of you people who think the screenshots are ugly or meh that are willing to explain why you think so? I have an idea of why it seems to be very un-fallouty but I would like to hear a few different opinions.

 

The palette is bad, everything is a shade of grey (haha), and there's little contrast. Compare it to the previous Fallouts for a reference.

 

 

The difference is striking, even if the picture above is 90% brown/grey.

 

Also, there is so much clutter that it is borderline messy, and the mutants shown are as generic as it gets.

[mkreku]

I'm sorry to say this here but Oblivion with guns sounds good to me. I have a strong bias towards FP games, I feel more immersed, it's a personal thing.

 

Also, I've always wanted Fallout to be First Person so... there you go.

I agree. I've always thought Fallout would be great in first person perspective (or third person over-the-shoulder). I think STALKER proved that it can be done in an incredibly atmospheric way. Let's hope Bethesda fulfills at least some of the potential this game has.

[astr0creep]

Bioware and Obsidian are tied in the top spots of my favorites, with Bethesda being a distant third. Its like Obsidian is Obama, Bioware is Clinton, and Bethesda is Edawrds.

 

Obsidian is third on my list.

 

I failed to mention it because it seemed too obvious.

If it's not first, or second, it's gotta be third, right? Right?

 

Right.

[Gfted1]

So are there any of you people who think the screenshots are ugly or meh that are willing to explain why you think so? I have an idea of why it seems to be very un-fallouty but I would like to hear a few different opinions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Fallout_01.jpg[/img

 

 

"You see Tandi, she looks sexy in leather."

 

I gotta play those games some day!

[Moatilliatta]

The palette is bad, everything is a shade of grey (haha), and there's little contrast. Compare it to the previous Fallouts for a reference.

 

 

 

The difference is striking, even if the picture above is 90% brown/grey.

 

Also, there is so much clutter that it is borderline messy...

If you put most of the emphasis on it being too cluttered and messy (not neccesarily a bad thing but un-fallouty) then those are my exact thoughts about the Fallout 3 art direction, fallout looked much more like it was put together like building blocks and got a somewhat more cleaner look from it. And yes they lack dirt and desert instead of endless amounts of cracked asphalt.

 

I strongly disagree about the mutants though as generic sounds like a buzzword with little meaning. My main beef with their mutants are that they seemingly ignore that the fallout 1/2 mutants were predominantly green. Instead choosing something that can best be described as light brown-greenish, as well as aiming for a more steroid muscular look rather than the lumpy ungainly but very strong mutants of the past.

 

I'm not going to judge art direction, since the concept art gives a very different view as well, because I haven't seen any wasteland screenshots or actual open terrain yet. I like the armor design and the mutants are alright. It's not retroscifi, but neither was Fallout 2.

There can sometimes be a long way from vision to implementation.

Granted this is not concept art, but I was always surprised at how different those screens looked from the actual game.

[Musopticon?]

Oblivion concept art wasn't too far from the actual art direction. Bethesda's FO 3 concept arts look like a bunch of left-over Arcanum concepts, but they portray a wasteland that I would fancy seeing to come into fruition. Here's hoping they deliver.

 

As for the cities itself, I've seen like two street corridors and a couple of buildings, not a lot to go by, so I'm not gonna grasp at straws here.

[Gorgon]

So much time has gone by from the earlier fallout games that all thats really left is a name. I mean, the devs were probably all in highschool when it first came out.

[Gorgon]

teaser. dunno if its a repost

 

[Musopticon?]

Yeah, it's sort of lame to expect FO 3 to be anything like the previous ones.

 

 

Now, if they just got it to look good.

 

Edit:

gameplay video looks new to me. Edited January 29, 2008 by Musopticon?

[Gfted1]

Edit:

gameplay video looks new to me.

 

 

Rick James was a friggin genius. The sparklies in the hair is a nice touch though I was dissapointed he wasnt sporting the red leather codpiece. I gotta get me one of those.

[Starwars]

It's not really that lame if you ask me. Sure it shouldn't be exactly like the old ones. But hey, update it to a fancy 3D engine, give the turnbased combat a huge overhaul/upgrade, put in camera options similar to NWN2. I mean, if Fallout is really just a name nowadays, then why even bother making a sequel instead of developing something new of their own?

At least for me, games that hit me the hardest are brand new games. Sequels will always be compared to what's been done before. The game seems to differ so much from the original games, that I honestly can't see why they chose not to just develop a franchise of their own instead and have it be inspired by Fallout or whatever.

If Baldurs Gate 3 shows up, should that be a first-person free roamer as well? I don't think it's to hard to understand why many Fallout fans are pissed off at the changes. Just imagine a similar gameplay change in a franchise that is even bigger than Fallout. What if Elder Scrolls V underwent a similar change? Fans would cry bloody murder.

 

Also, it's strange as I was really glad to hear that Bethesda made the game take place on the East Coast. I figured that was a great way to avoid having to deal with how to develop the existing setting in a logical way. And also that it allowed them to make their own imprint on the series. I also (stupidly I guess) thought that Bethesda would keep the gameplay somewhat intact, or at least make an effort to go away from the free-roaming first person RPGs like the Elder Scrolls, try something really different (for Bethesda).

 

So what happens? Turns out that the Brotherhood of Steel makes a return, as well as the Super Mutants even though the game is set on the East Coast. The writing effort showcased in previous Bethesda games kinda leads me to believe that the reason for their presence in DC will be rather hard to swallow. And the gameplay is changed around completely.

 

I agree that STALKER was a very atmospheric game (though I think it was a rather flawed diamond so to speak). But what made the game special for me was that it was a very new and fresh idea, started on a "clean slate" so to speak. I wish Bethesda had chosen that approach with this game.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Starwars

[Sand]

I would rather Bethesda made an original Post Apocalyptic CRPG than Fallout 3. I would be more apt to play it than I would their Fallout 3.

[Musopticon?]

It's good that I was never a fan.

 

I think it's great that they are using existing assets to base their game on.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Musopticon?

[kirottu]

It's good that I was never a fan.

 

I think it's great that they are using existing assets to base their game on.

 

There are fans and then there

[karka]

What if Elder Scrolls V underwent a similar change? Fans would cry bloody murder.

 

An isometric, turn-based, 2D Elder Scrolls game would be cool.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Oh and also Bethesda devs should try and figure out how to use bloom properly. Oblivion had awful bloom, and by those screenies, Fallout 3 is going the same way.

 

I'm going to laugh now, because I'm sure you don't ACTUALLY understand anything about bloom, and HDR.