|
On June 04 2015 22:30 Zdrastochye wrote:
I have no issue with DLC content as that's how the game industry makes a lot of their money post-sale. I do hate FORCED DLCs for online play however, but that's not the problem in this case.
And the DLCs in NV were plenty of fun, but definitely not part of the game itself. I'm alright with them being separate from the main storyline.
Aside from the obvious silly stuff like the item packs, NV DLC was actually used quite well. Obsidian's designers used it as a chance to explore gameplay/roleplaying concepts that they couldn't afford to in the main game, and might not appeal to everyone. It was a chance to try new things without the financial risk of a full game, while at the same time not being tacked-on content that should have been in the original game.
|
Besides Dead Money, New Vegas DLC was very very good, especially Old World Blues.
|
Old World Blues is definitely DLC done right.
|
All of bethesda games starting from Oblivion suck. Lets be honest with ourselves. Games generally have good stuff here and there, and they seem interesting in first few minutes but quickly degenerate into repetitive boring gameplay. Skyrim is basically alive only due to modding, even then, people spend most of their time trying different kinds of mods rather than playing.
|
Yeah, lest be honest.
i like them
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Normally not one to complain about graphics but it doesn't look very good.
|
On June 04 2015 23:35 Grettin wrote:Thought this is worth sharing. Pictures inside the Imgur album of the trailer. Significant difference, imo. Fallout 4 Trailer (YouTube vs High-Quality Download) https://imgur.com/a/kFqfZ#0
raising this one up again, if someone missed it.
|
Oh boy, I actually enjoyed Oblivion as well as Fallout 3 and especially New Vegas. All the hate irritates me, but obviously wont change my own stance. I am looking forward to FO4 and I am mentally preparing to ignore the pre release overhype as well as the post release bashing.
|
On June 05 2015 01:15 Kipsate wrote:
Normally not one to complain about graphics but it doesn't look very good.
I don't have a problem with weak graphics in an indie game or a game that relies on the art style to convey itself visually. My problem is in this generation for a AAA game why Bethesda is still using the same buggy awkward engine and not even bothering to push the envelope or at least keep up with the current trends in terms of graphics. The trailer looks last gen and not in a good way. And if people are saying, "B-b-but CDPR lied about graphics at least Bethesda are being realistic" I take it as a sign that they don't even see Bethesda has any ambition to push technology further and remain a dinosaur in gaming.
I'm not saying judge Fallout 4 based purely on graphics and technology but looking at it from that standpoint it looks mediocre. Outdated graphics and wonky animations don't impress me in 2015, even if Bethesda is aiming to open up for a larger audience for consoles and people with low to medium level PCs.
|
that mad ex employee said they are using a completely new engine. why dont we just wait and see instead of judging from the first 20 mb we see
|
United Kingdom31935 Posts
To be fair guys, FO3 and NV looked like shit compared to most other games even back then and I and many other still enjoyed em.
This may seem like an unpopular opinion but I have always had my fun with Bethesda games and NV was great as well so I am looking forward to this 
|
Well there are reports that the game will release on Ps3 and XB360 too (but next year)... if those are true, then i guess thats something that would explain quite a few things.
|
On June 05 2015 03:20 Faruko wrote:
Well there are reports that the game will release on Ps3 and XB360 too (but next year)... if those are true, then i guess thats something that would explain quite a few things.
the mentioned mad ex-employee said that they will be released on ps3/360 , a year later, but also on a different engine (the old one)
|
I am 100% in favour of sacrificing detailed graphics in exchange for varied environments. One of the main reasons that Morrowind is better than Oblivion/Skyrim. I still really enjoyed Oblivion and F3 though, and this is the most excited I've been for a game for a while. Skyrim was a bit of a let down for me, hope this can hold my attention. Dog is a bonus for me :p
|
I expect the game to be a buggy mess though and they will count on modders to fix it again, so I wont buy it for that reason.
|
this is genius, show 1 trailer, instantly open preorders for unspecified date.
Wait a day, discount old Fallout games for a little bit, but not too much.
|
Please don't do the paid mods thing ever again Bethesda. I hope you and Valve learned your lesson.
|
United States845 Posts
On June 05 2015 02:10 Kleinmuuhg wrote:
that mad ex employee said they are using a completely new engine. why dont we just wait and see instead of judging from the first 20 mb we see
We have no reason to believe a word that the "mad ex-employee" said. The only thing she got right is that it is set in Boston, which was already a circulating rumor. Everything else is either obvious (There will be ghouls and super-mutants, and the Brotherhood of Steel might show up? What a bold claim.), nonsensical (only being able to play as a man but being able to get a sex change after the main story, and standalone DLC for female characters? What the actual fuck?) or actually wrong (the trailer came out before E3, not at. This could have changed, sure, but it seems like a really safe bet that F4 info will be released at E3, she just got the year right.)
The graphics look fine, in my opinion. Using the same engine is disappointing, but aesthetically I don't mind it at all. It may not be The Witcher 3, but it's certainly not ugly by any stretch of the imagination.
I also agree that varied environments would be sweet. From the trailer, it looks like there's a nice bit of variety, with the more parched terrain with the deathclaw to the F3-style urban ruins and some places with a little more color.
|
At this point we don't really need better graphics. There's a point at which increases in graphical fidelity aren't really noticeable because games are already nearly photorealistic. Sure you might get more realistic grass, or trees by rendering every individual leaf. But for the most part its unnecessary, hogs resources and is barely noticeable (at least to me)...I feel like the focus should really be on the story, on dialogue, on designing interesting and artfully varied environments.
I feel like we should be approaching the point at which game engines are relatively static, and new worlds can be created with only minor modifications of previous engines, such that most of the development money can be put into actual content rather than silly things like adjusting the precise arch of your cheekbone and other facial characteristics (which is in all recent Bethesda games for some reason), or enhancing graphics to the point where you can see the goosebumps on a player's skin. But that's just me, I suppose there are people who really, really want to play games where they can see all these details for the complete immersion experience (and I imagine they will use 3D goggles too).
I guess I'm just not one of them, or at least to me it should be a secondary priority to actual gameplay itself.
|
On June 05 2015 02:10 Kleinmuuhg wrote:
that mad ex employee said they are using a completely new engine. why dont we just wait and see instead of judging from the first 20 mb we see
it means
A) they're to lazy to do a cinematic trailer for their game to build hype
or
B) they've done a shit job of implementing the new graphics engine.
if modders can create high res textures for free, I don't see why Bethesda can't do the same, especially for a short trailer shot.
Both speaks to laziness from Bethesda's part.
On June 05 2015 09:15 radscorpion9 wrote:
At this point we don't really need better graphics. There's a point at which increases in graphical fidelity aren't really noticeable because games are already nearly photorealistic. Sure you might get more realistic grass, or trees by rendering every individual leaf. But for the most part its unnecessary, hogs resources and is barely noticeable (at least to me)...I feel like the focus should really be on the story, on dialogue, on designing interesting and artfully varied environments.
I feel like we should be approaching the point at which game engines are relatively static, and new worlds can be created with only minor modifications of previous engines, such that most of the development money can be put into actual content rather than silly things like adjusting the precise arch of your cheekbone and other facial characteristics (which is in all recent Bethesda games for some reason), or enhancing graphics to the point where you can see the goosebumps on a player's skin. But that's just me, I suppose there are people who really, really want to play games where they can see all these details for the complete immersion experience (and I imagine they will use 3D goggles too).
I guess I'm just not one of them, or at least to me it should be a secondary priority to actual gameplay itself.
this is a fucking lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
