Fallout Online

[Purkake]

Bloodlines had jiggle physics?

[Oner]

Yep.

[Ausir]

  Purkake said:

The talking heads thing in FO1/2 was a necessity of the time, I don't think it would fly these days. Just adding decent facial animation with some body movement thrown in should be good enough.

 

Thing is, they are still much more detailed than any character faces in Fallout 3. Too bad they didn't give at least some major characters custom faces.

[Purkake]

Did Obsidian actually do anything about the animations/faces in New Vegas?

 

They did a pretty good job with that In AP.

[WorstUsernameEver]

  Purkake said:

They did a pretty good job with that In AP.

 

Actually I think I heard a lot of criticism regarding choppy facial animations, though I agree with you, excluding a couple of 'deformed faces' instances (common to Bioware games too).

 

Unfortunately, going by videos, they didn't touch the facial animations department (my completely uninformed guess is that they'd have needed to change all the facegen stuff to touch animations, but of course, probably I will be contradicted by a dev).

Not too bad for me, but I can already see the criticism 'They didn't work on the game hard enough, see? They didn't even change the mediocre animations!' coming from some segments.

I'm not sure if it will hurt the game's reception (likely very positive) much though.

 

EDIT : Since this is the Fallout Online topic though, I'm curious if Interplay will go for the talking heads route with major quest givers. After all, the graphics likely won't be super shiny, considering the game has to run on a variety of rigs, and also, considering the fact that Interplay is likely trying to keep the budget not too high.

Edited July 8, 2010 by WorstUsernameEver

[Gizmo]

  Purkake said:

The talking heads thing in FO1/2 was a necessity of the time, I don't think it would fly these days. Just adding decent facial animation with some body movement thrown in should be good enough.

I have to disagree with it being a necessity of the times; Especially since they did not do it that way with Stonekeep ~but also because it looks to be somewhat how they will do it with Diablo 3.

 

If you mean the Interface along with the talking face... Well that was pure character and setting, practically a prop.

(and could have been done something like this in Fallout 3 ~Had it not been primarily an FPP shooter...)

 

*youtube links Edited July 8, 2010 by Gizmo

[Purkake]

So what exactly do you mean by talking heads in a modern context? How exactly is D3 going to do it?

[Gizmo]

  Purkake said:

So what exactly do you mean by talking heads in a modern context? How exactly is D3 going to do it?

Not like that exactly..

What you see in the released videos is a pop-up menu center screen with a portrait.

 

(Pop-up like the popup in my aimed shot clip from a few posts before.)

 

**scrambles off to Youtube to make sure

 

**Edit: Here is what I meant...

Edited July 8, 2010 by Gizmo

[Thorton_AP]

  Luckmann said:

  Purkake said:

The only actual AAA turn-based games I can think of are strategy games.

 

[...]

Ha.. the.. wha.. bu...!

 

What about Fallout/2, Jagged Alliance/2 and X-Com/2/3?!

 

 

As a giant fan of the Fallout and Jagged Alliance games, I wouldn't call any of them AAA games. They have always been a part of their little niches. XCom too for that matter (and really, only the first one would be among the top ranking games).

 

These games are also over a decade old.

 

Fallout 3 didn't seal the fate for a turn-based Fallout. The gaming audience did (and really, that's what pisses the old schoolers off I think).

Edited July 8, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Gizmo]

  Thorton_AP said:

Fallout 3 didn't seal the feat for a turn-based Fallout. The gaming audience did (and really, that's what pisses the old schoolers off I think).

As one... I would say that it was the developer's choice to clone their previous title draped in the Fallout setting that did it.

 

** This was not Fallout 3, but it... "coulda been a contenda" back when Bethesda out bid them.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Gizmo

[Purkake]

  Gizmo said:

  Purkake said:

So what exactly do you mean by talking heads in a modern context? How exactly is D3 going to do it?

Not like that exactly..

What you see in the released videos is a pop-up menu center screen with a portrait.

 

(Pop-up like the popup in my aimed shot clip from a few posts before.)

 

**scrambles off to Youtube to make sure

 

**Edit: Here is what I meant...

Pop-up cutscenes don't seem particularly revolutionary.

 

So you want better quality models for dialogs/cutscenes for the future of Fallout?

[Thorton_AP]

  Gizmo said:

  Thorton_AP said:

Fallout 3 didn't seal the feat for a turn-based Fallout. The gaming audience did (and really, that's what pisses the old schoolers off I think).

As one... I would say that it was the developer's choice to clone their previous title draped in the Fallout setting that did it.

 

** This was not Fallout 3, but it... "coulda been a contenda" back when Bethesda out bid them.

 

 

I suspect that that game would have been probably not very successful either.

 

Sure, you are happy. Just like Ausir is happy with a game like Bloodlines. I probably would be too. Heck, I love Bloodlines as well. But lets be realistic here: It was a game with a less than trivial budget and development cycle that sold something like 80k copies in its first month?

 

As much as I love big budget games catered specifically to my tastes, I also understand that it's just not a smart business decision to keep doing so.

[Gizmo]

  Thorton_AP said:

I suspect that that game would have been probably not very successful either.

 

Sure, you are happy. Just like Ausir is happy with a game like Bloodlines. I probably would be too. Heck, I love Bloodlines as well. But lets be realistic here: It was a game with a less than trivial budget and development cycle that sold something like 80k copies in its first month?

 

As much as I love big budget games catered specifically to my tastes, I also understand that it's just not a smart business decision to keep doing so.

This was a real strength , and fluke luck... Its part of why the originals were so incredible ~and why Fallout 3 could not be... (in the same exact way) ~Ultimately its the budget.

Watch these if you have not seen them and want to understand a bit of the other side of the coin. (Its an interview with the lead designer on Fallout 1)

 

** I certainly agree that Bethesda's way is the path to more sales... but IMO its a path that abandons the series in favor of a mutation. In truth, I love the art design in Fallout 3, and use the GECK a lot, and like wandering the wastes... but I avoid the towns entirely, and the gameplay of FO3 holds nothing I want, or that would draw me back to the series (except the art).

~Yes I've pre-ordered NV

 

  Purkake said:

Pop-up cutscenes don't seem particularly revolutionary.

Do they need to be? It works, and well.

 

  Quote

So you want better quality models for dialogs/cutscenes for the future of Fallout?

Of course ~I have a 9800GTX wasting watts.

I have nothing against good graphics, but I do believe that a game need not have them to be a good game ~Gameplay does not hinge on the graphics (if its a good game).

Edited July 8, 2010 by Gizmo

[Thorton_AP]

After watching that tech demo (without seeing anything else to bias my opinion), what is it about that demo that is so phenomenal?

 

On its own it's a tech demo, but I don't feel any Fallout atmosphere at all (nor do I fault it). I honestly think people are ascribing their own expectations onto that Tech Demo simply because it's from Troika. I'm certainly skeptical that, if that tech demo came from Bethesda, it'd not be so highly thought of.

 

I'd like a list of the good points from that tech demo. The only one I can think of that's unique would be: "Isometric"

[Gizmo]

  Thorton_AP said:

After watching that tech demo (without seeing anything else to bias my opinion), what is it about that demo that is so phenomenal?

 

On its own it's a tech demo, but I don't feel any Fallout atmosphere at all (nor do I fault it). I honestly think people are ascribing their own expectations onto that Tech Demo simply because it's from Troika. I'm certainly skeptical that, if that tech demo came from Bethesda, it'd not be so highly thought of.

 

I'd like a list of the good points from that tech demo. The only one I can think of that's unique would be: "Isometric"

Its not Fallout related (though it actually uses Fallout menu art it seems )

 

There are no points, other than did you notice that the demo did FPP if the player chose?

This is not a game, its a lighting demonstration that looks a heck of a lot like Temple of Elemental Evil, and IceWind Dale 2 ~except done fully 3d, and with Post Apocalyptic artwork.

 

What it gives the past Fallout player, is a glimpse of what they had in mind ~even if they would have started from scratch and not used that demo as a base.

 

*Having played both Fallout and ToEE, I can imagine (in the same ballpark) what they might have produced, and I would have been very happy indeed if it was even close.

 

[bugs and all ]

Edited July 8, 2010 by Gizmo

[Purkake]

  Gizmo said:

  Purkake said:

Pop-up cutscenes don't seem particularly revolutionary.

Do they need to be? It works, and well.

I mean why have pop-up cutscenes when you can just have cutscenes without popup windows? Obviously Diablo 3 is doing it because of the forced perspective and because Blizzard has more money than Scrooge McDuck.

 

  Gizmo said:

  Quote

So you want better quality models for dialogs/cutscenes for the future of Fallout?

Of course ~I have a 9800GTX wasting watts.

I have nothing against good graphics, but I do believe that a game need not have them to be a good game ~Gameplay does not hinge on the graphics (if its a good game).

Having to do two different sets of graphics sounds like a monumental waste of resources. It's easier to just have nice looking models in the first place, which I suggested a page or two ago.

[Gizmo]

  Purkake said:

  Gizmo said:

  Purkake said:

Pop-up cutscenes don't seem particularly revolutionary.

Do they need to be? It works, and well.

I mean why have pop-up cutscenes when you can just have cutscenes without popup windows? Obviously Diablo 3 is doing it because of the forced perspective and because Blizzard has more money than Scrooge McDuck.

It may be true, but that's news to me... Diablo 3 is fixed view? Dawn of War is Fixed view by default, but the camera can swing 360^o if the player wants. I'd be very surprised if D3 is not similar; but I certainly don't know that it is.

 

  Quote

  Gizmo said:

  Quote

So you want better quality models for dialogs/cutscenes for the future of Fallout?

Of course ~I have a 9800GTX wasting watts.

I have nothing against good graphics, but I do believe that a game need not have them to be a good game ~Gameplay does not hinge on the graphics (if its a good game).

Having to do two different sets of graphics sounds like a monumental waste of resources. It's easier to just have nice looking models in the first place, which I suggested a page or two ago.

Fallout 3 has two sets of graphics on plenty ~and the heads are separate from the bodies. Every time you swap helmets you swap heads, and a super detailed head would be no big deal to make.

 

** To clarify though... It might be a hassle if you had not planned it from the beginning. What I was saying was, that this could have been done had they intended a closer final product.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Gizmo

[Purkake]

I don't know if D3 has a rotating camera or not, but I don't think that you can zoom so the perspective would still be forced.

[Gizmo]

  Purkake said:

I don't know if D3 has a rotating camera or not, but I don't think that you can zoom so the perspective would still be forced.

My guess is that it can... but only because they appear to use the engine for in-game cutscenes ~See the Wizard trailer.

(These may not actually be in-game... but I get the impression that your PC wears their current outfit in the cutscenes).

~Won't know 'till it comes out. (Could also be that they have double graphics sets too. MIP's & mesh)

 

 

It'd be neat (I think), if Fallout Online were not an FPP shooter, and more closely resembled that Troika clip; So long as its not taking the WoW route.

(this includes the optional FPP)

 

  Mamoulian War said:

D2 had an option of very simple zoom ... not seamless, it only made your character 4x bigger and the view of surroundings 4x smaller, but it had it nevertheless... so i do not think D3 will be without the possiblity to have at least such a simple zoom aswell, unless ofc Kottick found something "more appropriate" for the franchise...

Cool! I remember they did that in Diablo 1 as well. Edited July 8, 2010 by Gizmo

[Mamoulian War]

  Purkake said:

I don't know if D3 has a rotating camera or not, but I don't think that you can zoom so the perspective would still be forced.

 

D2 had an option of very simple zoom ... not seamless, it only made your character 4x bigger and the view of surroundings 4x smaller, but it had it nevertheless... so i do not think D3 will be without the possiblity to have at least such a simple zoom aswell, unless ofc Kottick found something "more appropriate" for the franchise...

[Thorton_AP]

That was done for performance reasons I think, wasn't it?

[Gizmo]

  Thorton_AP said:

That was done for performance reasons I think, wasn't it?

Possibly... but was it really playable like that? (I didn't think so myself).

[Thorton_AP]

I didn't think so haha.