EPTIn any case why care about graphics? 3D graphics never stand the trial of time. Only games that age well visually are certain 2D games with some unique artstyle, aside from that only gameplay ever mattered.
Fallout 4! - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Andre
Slovenia3523 Posts
In any case why care about graphics? 3D graphics never stand the trial of time. Only games that age well visually are certain 2D games with some unique artstyle, aside from that only gameplay ever mattered. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On June 07 2015 12:05 Sonnington wrote: New Vegas was awesome. It was a true sequel to Fallout 2. On June 07 2015 16:11 daemir wrote: I have to say when FO3 came I out I was massively disappointed as I rate FO1 and FO2 in my top 5 games ever played even still. I actually really dislike direct comparisons between FO1/2 and FO3/NV. I personally think the originals are definitely better games, but even so they're fundamentally incomparable because of their differing design goals. FO1 and FO2 are special in that they're part of a small handful of games that really got nonlinear narrative and emergent storytelling to work. These things have always been an ostensible goal of open world game design, but despite the fact that Tim Cain actually made it work in the mid-90s, we still get a shitton of games striving for it and getting it wrong. Most RPGs, even those with branching plotlines and relatively dynamic narrative still ultimately give you a linear plotline--the game is still fundamentally telling the story TO you, even if you get a few "choose your own adventure" moments throughout the game--the core narrative is still ultimately fixed, and is experienced the same way by everyone who plays the game. In Fallout, you're given a starting point, and and end goal (e.g. "find the water chip"). Everything else in between is just the world. The entire narrative of your character crossing the wasteland and eventually finding the water chip is not you following any "intended" path by the designer. There are simply events, places, people, and an ostensible time limit. This is not you following a trail of breadcrumbs with sidequests and branching story points. What you're doing when you play Fallout is that you are actively the one driving the narrative, not picking from a few fixed options given by the designer. What's more, Tim Cain was able to do this while still keeping all of the events along the way sufficiently interesting and compelling so that it didn't feel like everything was simplified for the sake of the open-endedness. It was a dynamic narrative, but it still felt complete. This gameplay is unique to the two Fallouts and Tim Cain's later game at Troika, Arcanum (this is why despite Arcanum having abysmal combat and being riddled with bugs, I still consider it one of the greatest RPGs ever made). Neither FO3 nor NV had the intent of creating this type of experience. FO3 is an exploration-focused game in the vein of all of Bethesda's TES titles, and NV is a much more static story-driven experience in the vein of Obsidian/Black Isle's legacy of strong story-focused games. Neither really attempts this type of nonlinear storytelling that make the first 2 Fallout games special and so it's really unfair to both games to try and compare them this way. | ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6184 Posts
I also don't really care about which kind of graphic they will bring with Fallout 4. They could use the same game engine and I wouldn't be sad. I really can't wait for this one! | ||
|
Sonnington
United States1107 Posts
On June 07 2015 16:40 TheYango wrote: I actually really dislike direct comparisons between FO1/2 and FO3/NV. I personally think the originals are definitely better games, but even so they're fundamentally incomparable because of their differing design goals. FO1 and FO2 are special in that they're part of a small handful of games that really got nonlinear narrative and emergent storytelling to work. These things have always been an ostensible goal of open world game design, but despite the fact that Tim Cain actually made it work in the mid-90s, we still get a shitton of games striving for it and getting it wrong. Most RPGs, even those with branching plotlines and relatively dynamic narrative still ultimately give you a linear plotline--the game is still fundamentally telling the story TO you, even if you get a few "choose your own adventure" moments throughout the game--the core narrative is still ultimately fixed, and is experienced the same way by everyone who plays the game. In Fallout, you're given a starting point, and and end goal (e.g. "find the water chip"). Everything else in between is just the world. The entire narrative of your character crossing the wasteland and eventually finding the water chip is not you following any "intended" path by the designer. There are simply events, places, people, and an ostensible time limit. This is not you following a trail of breadcrumbs with sidequests and branching story points. What you're doing when you play Fallout is that you are actively the one driving the narrative, not picking from a few fixed options given by the designer. What's more, Tim Cain was able to do this while still keeping all of the events along the way sufficiently interesting and compelling so that it didn't feel like everything was simplified for the sake of the open-endedness. It was a dynamic narrative, but it still felt complete. This gameplay is unique to the two Fallouts and Tim Cain's later game at Troika, Arcanum (this is why despite Arcanum having abysmal combat and being riddled with bugs, I still consider it one of the greatest RPGs ever made). Neither FO3 nor NV had the intent of creating this type of experience. FO3 is an exploration-focused game in the vein of all of Bethesda's TES titles, and NV is a much more static story-driven experience in the vein of Obsidian/Black Isle's legacy of strong story-focused games. Neither really attempts this type of nonlinear storytelling that make the first 2 Fallout games special and so it's really unfair to both games to try and compare them this way. While it must've been about 9-10 years since the last time I've played Fallout 2 and longer since Fallout 1. I really don't agree with this. We're not talking about a tabletop RPG where you're allowed to do anything and the dungeon master has to respond to literally anything. We're talking about a CRPG that had limited and predestined choices for the player character to make. I would also argue that NV had less of a main objective than FO1-2. In fact, I felt New Vegas had far more choices for the protagonist to make and was far more dynamic than Fallout 2. This can be easily illustrated with the number of ending parameters there are. NV http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_endings FO2 http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_endings | ||
|
Elizar
Germany431 Posts
On June 07 2015 10:07 LaNague wrote: wtf how do bethesda games suck now, they havent released anything after skyrim, which is one of the most well recieved games ever. I dont know what secret super games you are all playing that make Skyrim look that bad. It all boils down to the following queastion: Did you enjoy the game while playing it? Was it fun? Just me: Fallout3: Mainly yes. NV: Kinda similar to F3, which is a downgrade, but the story was better. Skyrim: After the first two hours, not anymore, since it got somewhat repetitive and the quests were not able to get me excited. Maybe I´m getting old and thus I have played too many games in my live. | ||
|
MyrMindservant
695 Posts
TheYango, why are you talking like Tim Cain is solely responsible for creating original Fallout and Arcanum? From what I've seen there are other people who also made large contributions to development of these games. Particularly Jason D. Anderson and Leonard Boyarsky which later founded Troika Games together with him. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On June 07 2015 17:35 MyrMindservant wrote: A bit offtopic but: TheYango, why are you talking like Tim Cain is solely responsible for creating original Fallout and Arcanum? From what I've seen there are other people who also made large contributions to development of these games. Particularly Jason D. Anderson and Leonard Boyarsky which later founded Troika Games together with him. Because for a significant portion of Fallout's development, Tim Cain *was* literally the only developer on the project. Others eventually were added to the project and made critical contributions, but undoubtedly many of the core elements that define Fallout were thanks to Cain alone. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On June 07 2015 17:18 Sonnington wrote: While it must've been about 9-10 years since the last time I've played Fallout 2 and longer since Fallout 1. I really don't agree with this. We're not talking about a tabletop RPG where you're allowed to do anything and the dungeon master has to respond to literally anything. We're talking about a CRPG that had limited and predestined choices for the player character to make. I would also argue that NV had less of a main objective than FO1-2. In fact, I felt New Vegas had far more choices for the protagonist to make and was far more dynamic than Fallout 2. This can be easily illustrated with the number of ending parameters there are. NV http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_endings FO2 http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_endings The dynamism of the story and the world of a game has nothing to do with the amount of endings, though. It's like saying Mass Effect 3 has a dynamic storyline because there are several endings possible (lol, no). The main quest in Fallout 2 was quite linear, but that didn't matter because the main quest in Fallout 2 was merely a small drop in an ocean of events and conflicts you could be a part of; there was never a feeling of the main quest being this kind of 'all the roads lead to Rome' thing. What made Fallout 2 so special in my opinion is that it never felt like the world was created around the main quest. There was the world, and there were hundreds of events and conflicts going on in it, and you were dropped right in the middle of it all, left to do whatever you wanted. Yes, many of the individual quests and encounters were much less 'non-linear' than RPG games nowadays try to make quests be, but the overall experience was still far more compelling. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On June 05 2015 09:48 PhoenixVoid wrote: 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. I guess this was already responded to, but I'll just add in my thoughts. I mean you're right, I was probably wrong to say photorealistic, I exaggerated a little there. Its just that what I've noticed is that the main advances in graphics lately have been really minor tweaks in how things look up close. Like if you play Skyrim with mods (or just check some youtube videos online), I feel like we're approaching the upper limit. So I feel like there really should be a change of focus away from the engine because there isn't that much meaningful stuff left to do there, assuming that they can easily recreate such a high level in a standardized engine. Also I feel like there's always a way to expand the game in terms of story, writing and environments. You're right in that you can't throw more money at one person necessarily, but you can make a bigger game by hiring more writers, more environmental artists, and have groups of them work on different parts of the game world, and then integrate all of their work at the end. Might take a little coordination but that's also where the extra money can come in. The return on investment for focusing on the actual game itself would pay off way more than just having an even more detailed environment that IMO, most people won't really notice (you would also need to have a really high end computer for some of those details). To some degree I feel like they've already gone down this path with Skyrim, they recognize that the bigger it is the better it is (although I feel like they could make it much better if they focused on making each part of the world feel more meaningful and interactive). Its not to say that we should just stop working on the engine though. Just that it should be deprioritized considering that the 'return on investment' is so small. For the most part I feel like I am making an obvious point on this though lol | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
On June 07 2015 16:40 TheYango wrote: I actually really dislike direct comparisons between FO1/2 and FO3/NV. And that's exactly why they shouldn't have called it Fallout 3............*starts popping veins* Edit, also, some sweet Tim Cain interviews ?  | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
| ||
|
MentalGNT
Denmark1264 Posts
| ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On June 07 2015 10:07 LaNague wrote: wtf how do bethesda games suck now, they havent released anything after skyrim, which is one of the most well recieved games ever. I dont know what secret super games you are all playing that make Skyrim look that bad. I liked Oblivion, up until I noticed how empty and lifeless the world is. I once found a hidden house in the middle of a forest, hoping that I might find goodies or a quest as a reward for the fact that I went exploring, but no. Just an empty shack. The same with skyrim: plenty of small villages, but the people don't say anything interesting and there's often nothing to do. In terms of gameplay (which is to me what games should ultimately be about) it is actually ridiculously easy to make Skyrim look bad. Skyrim got good scores on account of the gaming world, definitely not on account of its gameplay. Personally I felt that Bethesda made a lot improvement with Fallout 3 compared to Oblivion: the world felt more immersive, the quest lines were better and it just made more sense to explore a wasteland since you were a lone person in need of supplies, and stealing things from people who also didn't have much and also largely relied on scavenging just never felt right. I put about 40 hours into Fallout 3, and they were incredibly enjoyable. Even the main story, which was ultimately about providing clean water to a village or area (if memory serves) made sense considering the state of the world, even though it was obviously not quite as epic as gamers have become used to. Additionally I was really fond of the combat mechanic. Skyrim just ended up being a hiking simulator. Fighting dragons turned out to be more of a chore than anything else, akin with how annoying the oblivion gates were in Oblivion. In the end I just ended up opening the console and command-killing them every time I came across one. I really couldn't be bothered anymore. It also doesn't help that the GameBryo engine is clearly not made to have dynamic combat. It's good for making lifelike landscapes, but that's about it. If you want my list of "supersecret" games that make skyrim look bad: Dark Souls Dark Souls 2 Bloodborne These games mop the floor with Bethesda games in all aspects except open world. Then there's The Witcher 3 too, which has better gameplay (though not up to par with the above three), way better graphics (Skyrim's graphics were already considered subpar in 2011), a way more immersive open world, a way better story and way better sidequests. | ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
i really liked that game but damn those gates damn those towers damn those demons | ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
On June 10 2015 17:18 maartendq wrote: Even the main story, which was ultimately about providing clean water to a village or area (if memory serves) made sense considering the state of the world, even though it was obviously not quite as epic as gamers have become used to. to derail this thread a bit: am i the only one who is bored to death by "epic" storys by now? in almost every game you at least save the country, if not the whole world. why cant i get a much more down to earth storyline in my (fantasy)rpgs? just let the protagonist find a missing loved one or avenge a murder or something without secret societies, multiple kingdoms involved or slaying the most powerful beast in the universe if not becoming it. | ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
On June 10 2015 18:35 hfglgg wrote: to derail this thread a bit: am i the only one who is bored to death by "epic" storys by now? in almost every game you at least save the country, if not the whole world. why cant i get a much more down to earth storyline in my (fantasy)rpgs? just let the protagonist find a missing loved one or avenge a murder or something without secret societies, multiple kingdoms involved or slaying the most powerful beast in the universe if not becoming it. have to agree i personally adore romantic story lines the most :D good ones are hard to find though | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On June 10 2015 18:35 hfglgg wrote: to derail this thread a bit: am i the only one who is bored to death by "epic" storys by now? in almost every game you at least save the country, if not the whole world. why cant i get a much more down to earth storyline in my (fantasy)rpgs? just let the protagonist find a missing loved one or avenge a murder or something without secret societies, multiple kingdoms involved or slaying the most powerful beast in the universe if not becoming it. You have to justify the PC becoming monstrously powerful (if it's still a RPG with levels, cool spells, super weapons and stuff), and the easiest is to make up epic goals. If all the quest is is getting Jenny back from that douche Chad, unless Chad is a dark magician warlord, you probably won't need that obsidian blade  .I'm not saying I don't agree with you btw, just pointing out that it's easier for the game devs when the main story doesn't put constraints on how cool the powers of the main guy can be. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32746 Posts
On June 10 2015 18:35 hfglgg wrote: to derail this thread a bit: am i the only one who is bored to death by "epic" storys by now? in almost every game you at least save the country, if not the whole world. why cant i get a much more down to earth storyline in my (fantasy)rpgs? just let the protagonist find a missing loved one or avenge a murder or something without secret societies, multiple kingdoms involved or slaying the most powerful beast in the universe if not becoming it. Probably because the RPG genre is heavily linked to fantasy so when legendary magic, ancient evils and kings are involved the fate of the world is at stake. If it's a post-apocalyptic world you want to redeem the world from the mistakes of the past. It's cliche but it makes you feel good that you are the ultimate hero and saved the world but as you said, cliche. That's what I liked about Witcher 3 (sorry this game is brought up so much) up until a certain point came up because it was a very personal and focused story, then ancient magic and saving the world came up and somewhat devalued the experience. I hope Fallout 4 has less of the "saving the Wastelands" nonsense and more of "save yourself and your family in the face of Armageddon" type deal. | ||
|
Faruko
Chile34173 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + That she end up saving the world is kinda another story lol | ||
| ||
