|
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.
I disagree games are not close to photorealism yet. Even the most graphically impressive games currently released and to be released have yet to reach this level even with modding. And saying that they should focus more on story, writing, environments, etc doesn't make that much sense because they have separate teams for graphics and the categories mentioned before so there is no conflict in allocating time. Money is a factor in this allocation but talent is a bigger factor in story, dialogue and environments than sheer dollars spent.
|
On June 05 2015 00:49 saddaromma wrote:
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.
Skyrim's been in steam's top 10 most people currently playing this game since release. It's only now starting to fall off that list... 4 years (I think?) of being one of the most played games on steam probably isn't a sign that it's 1) bad or 2) something people only -search- for mods for 
|
On June 05 2015 12:27 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 00:49 saddaromma wrote:
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. Skyrim's been in steam's top 10 most people currently playing this game since release. It's only now starting to fall off that list... 4 years (I think?) of being one of the most played games on steam probably isn't a sign that it's 1) bad or 2) something people only -search- for mods for
Skyrim is pretty meh after first play through without modding. The modding community is pretty amazing for it.
|
Fallout 3 was fucking amazing, much better than skyrim and new vegas. Glad they are having it set in a city again. The New Vegas "world" felt so incredibly fake in comparison.
The trailer shows off the setting really well. Looks amazing.
|
ye, milk zose dem moniyz from franchiz
|
|
|
On June 05 2015 09:48 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +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. I disagree games are not close to photorealism yet. Even the most graphically impressive games currently released and to be released have yet to reach this level even with modding. And saying that they should focus more on story, writing, environments, etc doesn't make that much sense because they have separate teams for graphics and the categories mentioned before so there is no conflict in allocating time. Money is a factor in this allocation but talent is a bigger factor in story, dialogue and environments than sheer dollars spent.
Well, time is money. If you spend big bucks to develop your game's graphics fast and also have them be super realistic and beautiful, you have less money to look for and hire talent for the other parts of the game. Sure story will always be one guy, but quests and dialogues can be written by several people. You can have several game designers to design the combat and leveling system. So that it is done faster and better.
So I agree with radscorpion9, I really don't mind that level of graphics (in the Fallout 4 trailer) if the game is good in the end. In fact, if the game is bad, having good graphics won't change that. Few games are good just because they're beautiful (none?). Otherwise you're right of course, games are not photorealistic. I just don't think they need to be, at all.
|
What I got from trailer: Probably bad story\quests like in FO3, but now you have a dog companion. Similar engine to what was ugly 5+ years ago.
|
On June 05 2015 14:06 Xafnia wrote:
Fallout 3 was fucking amazing, much better than skyrim and new vegas. Glad they are having it set in a city again. The New Vegas "world" felt so incredibly fake in comparison.
The trailer shows off the setting really well. Looks amazing.
Wow! I don't even know if I should laugh or cry. Not everyday you can witness such impressive level of ignorance.
I don't think that arguing with someone who claims that day is night will be very productive, so I'll just live this here:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
F3 and FNV has such a crappy engine, could not decide if it wanted to be a RPG or a shooter and was crap at both.
And then there was so much walking and doing nothing in the game. I was bored which I never was in F1 and F2.
From F4 I just want decent graphics (because lets face it, they are crap at good story or choice and consequence) and good shooter combat mechanics (because VATS was terrible and they are not going to want to implement turn based combat).
Basically I want Stalker in Fallout world.
|
Any chance they stay away from the lame first person shooter / boring combat system?
Cause that's the main reason I could not play more than an hour of FO3 / NV and absolutely hated Skyrim (seriously, how does this game have a similar score to The Witcher 3 on metacritic?) though I gave it more time.
I'd love to play something similar to Wasteland 2 but with more money behind it.
|
On June 05 2015 12:37 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 12:27 Fleetfeet wrote:On June 05 2015 00:49 saddaromma wrote:
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. Skyrim's been in steam's top 10 most people currently playing this game since release. It's only now starting to fall off that list... 4 years (I think?) of being one of the most played games on steam probably isn't a sign that it's 1) bad or 2) something people only -search- for mods for Skyrim is pretty meh after first play through without modding. The modding community is pretty amazing for it.
Thats pretty much every Bethesda game since Morrowind.
I always do 1 no-mod run and then i start to mod the shit out of their games adding new quest/weapons/armors, etc...
|
On June 05 2015 20:10 Merany wrote:
Any chance they stay away from the lame first person shooter / boring combat system?
Cause that's the main reason I could not play more than an hour of FO3 / NV and absolutely hated Skyrim (seriously, how does this game have a similar score to The Witcher 3 on metacritic?) though I gave it more time.
I'd love to play something similar to Wasteland 2 but with more money behind it.
Standard rule is you need about 50 mods for a Bethesda game to make it playable and actually fun to play. Skyrim all modded up is better than Witcher 3.
|
On June 05 2015 19:46 MyrMindservant wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 14:06 Xafnia wrote:
Fallout 3 was fucking amazing, much better than skyrim and new vegas. Glad they are having it set in a city again. The New Vegas "world" felt so incredibly fake in comparison.
The trailer shows off the setting really well. Looks amazing. Wow! I don't even know if I should laugh or cry. Not everyday you can witness such impressive level of ignorance. I don't think that arguing with someone who claims that day is night will be very productive, so I'll just live this here: + Show Spoiler +
That video has absolutely nothing to do about the "world" in the way that I mean it. I mean it geographically.
Quick reason why I feel the fo3 world is more believable than new vegas world.
Fallout 3 actually feels like your in the ruins of Washington DC. Getting lost in the metro system, the remains of the highways, factories. The entire downtown DC area is fucking amazing. In total the fo3 map only covers a corner of downtown DC and a section of the surrounding area. Walkable IRL in a day. It's obviously not perfect, it is shrunk down some, but it feels pretty alright.
New vegas on the other hand is like a massive 60x120km area, all of vegas, all it's suburbs, multiple surrounding towns and lake mead, all shrunk down to approximately the same size as the fo3 map. The strip and all it's massive hotels is basically represented by 3-4 smallish buildings. Does not feel like you are actually in Nevada, or Vegas, in the least.
As for that videos key complaint, the food thing, neither "worlds" provide even close to enough food for the massive amount of people in them, all the raiders, monsters, etc. It's at least believable that people walk/boat from DC to the surrounding areas to, you know, the massive surrounding area which is prime farmland, as opposed to a completely barren desert. Just saying. The smaller relative size of the fo3 map at least makes it plausible. The new vegas one does not. At all.
Now, you don't have to agree with me, but I'd say the only one displaying any level of ignorance is you, deciding that your criteria for what makes or breaks a believable world is universally the same for everyone.
|
FO3 and NV's world-building is equally unbelievable due to the ridiculous level of compaction resulting in absolutely ridiculous density of "stuff" in each game. I mentioned this several pages ago.
The difference is that fundamentally NV is a stronger narrative-driven experience with better writing and stronger characters. It does not rely on the world-building as much to deliver the experience because it has it's merits elsewhere. Obsidian can delivery strong story, strong writing, and strong characters, while world-building isn't necessarily their strength as a studio.
Bethesda's writing, even in their best games, is their weakest aspect, and so Fallout 3 can't afford this. Bethesda at it's best in their good games is only capable of delivering on strong world-building, and FO3 fails to do so, even if you might consider it better than NV's.
|
On June 06 2015 08:59 Xafnia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 19:46 MyrMindservant wrote:On June 05 2015 14:06 Xafnia wrote:
Fallout 3 was fucking amazing, much better than skyrim and new vegas. Glad they are having it set in a city again. The New Vegas "world" felt so incredibly fake in comparison.
The trailer shows off the setting really well. Looks amazing. Wow! I don't even know if I should laugh or cry. Not everyday you can witness such impressive level of ignorance. I don't think that arguing with someone who claims that day is night will be very productive, so I'll just live this here: + Show Spoiler + That video has absolutely nothing to do about the "world" in the way that I mean it. I mean it geographically. Quick reason why I feel the fo3 world is more believable than new vegas world. Fallout 3 actually feels like your in the ruins of Washington DC. Getting lost in the metro system, the remains of the highways, factories. The entire downtown DC area is fucking amazing. In total the fo3 map only covers a corner of downtown DC and a section of the surrounding area. Walkable IRL in a day. It's obviously not perfect, it is shrunk down some, but it feels pretty alright. New vegas on the other hand is like a massive 60x120km area, all of vegas, all it's suburbs, multiple surrounding towns and lake mead, all shrunk down to approximately the same size as the fo3 map. The strip and all it's massive hotels is basically represented by 3-4 smallish buildings. Does not feel like you are actually in Nevada, or Vegas, in the least. As for that videos key complaint, the food thing, neither "worlds" provide even close to enough food for the massive amount of people in them, all the raiders, monsters, etc. It's at least believable that people walk/boat from DC to the surrounding areas to, you know, the massive surrounding area which is prime farmland, as opposed to a completely barren desert. Just saying. The smaller relative size of the fo3 map at least makes it plausible. The new vegas one does not. At all. Now, you don't have to agree with me, but I'd say the only one displaying any level of ignorance is you, deciding that your criteria for what makes or breaks a believable world is universally the same for everyone.
I agree with you. FO3 is way more atmospheric than New Vegas.
|
On June 05 2015 19:46 MyrMindservant wrote:I don't think that arguing with someone who claims that day is night will be very productive, so I'll just live this here: + Show Spoiler +
For the record, I think that video completely misses the mark on why NV is so much more replayable than FO3.
It's because Obsidian does a better job of setting up choices with narrative consequences, with the heavy factioning of the game resulting in real alterations to how you interact with the world based on those choices. You can't see everything on one playthrough because the choices you make change what you can see on the rest of your playthrough, so it demands multiple playthroughs to really experience everything.
Bethesda just puts everything out there but fails to make you feel like you actions and decisions have any impact on the world, or that people care about what's happening in any way whatsoever.
|
On June 06 2015 09:41 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2015 19:46 MyrMindservant wrote:I don't think that arguing with someone who claims that day is night will be very productive, so I'll just live this here: + Show Spoiler + For the record, I think that video completely misses the mark on why NV is so much more replayable than FO3. It's because NV does a better job of setting up choices that have narrative consequences. Obsidian does a better job of setting up choices with narrative consequences, with the heavy factioning of the game resulting in real alterations to how you interact with the world based on those choices. You can't see everything on one playthrough because the choices you make change what you can see on the rest of your playthrough, so it demands multiple playthroughs to really experience everything. Bethesda just puts everything out there but fails to make you feel like you actions and decisions have any impact on the world, or that people care about what's happening in any way whatsoever.
Bolded is sadly all too true, not even blowing up megaton has any real influence or any real consequences.
|
Was sick of FO3 in about 4 hours, went into NV expecting the same, 150 or so hours played across multiple playthroughs.
Just my 2 cents
|
On June 06 2015 18:25 Unleashing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2015 09:41 TheYango wrote:On June 05 2015 19:46 MyrMindservant wrote:I don't think that arguing with someone who claims that day is night will be very productive, so I'll just live this here: + Show Spoiler + For the record, I think that video completely misses the mark on why NV is so much more replayable than FO3. It's because NV does a better job of setting up choices that have narrative consequences. Obsidian does a better job of setting up choices with narrative consequences, with the heavy factioning of the game resulting in real alterations to how you interact with the world based on those choices. You can't see everything on one playthrough because the choices you make change what you can see on the rest of your playthrough, so it demands multiple playthroughs to really experience everything. Bethesda just puts everything out there but fails to make you feel like you actions and decisions have any impact on the world, or that people care about what's happening in any way whatsoever. Bolded is sadly all too true, not even blowing up megaton has any real influence or any real consequences.
Speaking of blowing up Megaton, karma in Fallout 3 is a dumb system. "Oh you blew up a relatively thriving community for a greedy bastard who wanted a better view, now give a few dozen bottles of clean water to homeless guys and it's all ok!" At least in New Vegas you had to account for faction relationships and standings even if the karma there was pretty dumb too. In general I'd like to see those binary karma systems done with in general or at least implemented far better and with overreaching consequences than, "You're a bad guy, boo hoo, -10 karma" which doesn't make me feel bad at all. This is what I appreciated from The Witcher. There is no morality meter to tell you if you did anything wrong, no black and white sense of good and evil (especially in a world like Fallout it should be morally grey as all hell) and consequences can't be seen until far later at times. Make the player feel like a part of the world by having the game react to your major decisions and feel good or like shit for making one, that's one way to make me want to buy Fallout 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
