|
On June 17 2015 09:01 whatisthisasheep wrote:
I think F4 made a big marketing mistake making its debut before the FF7 Remake. Now it is getting completely overshadowed.
FF7 remake is popular for nostalgic reasons only, and will likely be popular only among the people who played the original. I can't imagine teens being interested in what is essentially an incredibly archaic game (unless the combat system gets a complete overhaul, of course).
|
Well, the criticism in here might be strong. But I agree there is a point to it. It is just sad, what Fallout has become. Even though F3 and NV were far away from the original games (still liked them somewhat), F4 feels to be going in that far direction even more.
The focus totally is on FPS-action as we all could see, more monsters, more weapons (plus the new housing system which doesn't really fit to the world, but ok). But Fallout is not Far Cry, it has so much more potential. It is clear that Bethesday is just using the TES groundwork and creates their Fallout games as a side-kick. And TES games are notoriously known for their bad main story. Hopefully one day, a developer makes a real Fallout again.
That said, still gonna try it out. If you don't compare it to the original series and its RPG potential - but instead take it as what it is - an open world FPS - it can still be a nice and immersive game.
|
On June 17 2015 16:54 Caladan wrote:
That said, still gonna try it out. If you don't compare it to the original series and its RPG potential - but instead take it as what it is - an open world FPS - it can still be a nice and immersive game.
And this is exactly the reason why I am more excited for F4 than I was ever for F3 and FNV.
At least F4 might give us a good engine and fun FPS combat when their previous effort was crap in everything.
FNV had better story (or so I was told) but after 12 hours of useless wandering through crappy boring nothingness filled with supersmall and super boring villages all the while being irritated at the crappy engine and watered down mechanics I just gave up on it .
|
I see "Single player" in the OP. I keep hoping bethesda making TES or Fallout campaign coop. It would be so nice.
|
I think this game will probably be a disappointment akin to vanilla Diablo3. Bethesda turns the fallout universe into a mediocre FPSRPG that does average in both aspect.
If I could go back in time I would have told InterPlay to sell the rights of Fallout to anyone BUT Bethesda.
|
On June 04 2015 19:27 UdderChaos wrote:
Just watched the trailer, as a massive fan of fallout 3 this has defiantly lowered my expectations. I don't understand the need to call something the new instalment (IE Fallout 4) if it's basically an expansion. They made the decision to put 4 on the end, implying a new engine/generation of the game, and yet the trailer clearly wasn't. The rebuttal graphics has 0 to do with gameplay, while I understand what they are saying, this is not always true. Fallout is a very story driven game, relying on immersing you into its world, as such, the graphics play an important role in this.
It's really not acceptable for such a large developer with a lot of money at their disposal in a story driven game, which hasn't even come out I might add, to look like this. The Witcher is already out and has significantly better graphics, we don't even know for sure when it’s release is, by the time it comes out it may be competing with the like of the division, in which case it will look like total trash. I just hope it's the xbox/ps version and that the next trailer shows some serious improvements.
This post needs to be stickied. I felt angry after reading it, (not at you) but at the developers. Incompetent is a good word for them. Every Bethesda NPC has felt like lifeless dolls rehearsing the same line.
|
Since I'm a fallout noob can anyone explain to me why the main character of FO4 would still be alive after 200 years? Or even their child for that matter. They would all be dead.
|
It's not clearly explained. In FO 1 and 3 you start the game as someone who was born and grew up in a vault (2 starts with you as the resident of a settlement that exists post-FO1, not a vault dweller). The whole "alive after 200 years" thing is purely new to FO4, so even the FO junkies don't know what the deal with that is.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On June 18 2015 03:53 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 19:27 UdderChaos wrote:
Just watched the trailer, as a massive fan of fallout 3 this has defiantly lowered my expectations. I don't understand the need to call something the new instalment (IE Fallout 4) if it's basically an expansion. They made the decision to put 4 on the end, implying a new engine/generation of the game, and yet the trailer clearly wasn't. The rebuttal graphics has 0 to do with gameplay, while I understand what they are saying, this is not always true. Fallout is a very story driven game, relying on immersing you into its world, as such, the graphics play an important role in this.
It's really not acceptable for such a large developer with a lot of money at their disposal in a story driven game, which hasn't even come out I might add, to look like this. The Witcher is already out and has significantly better graphics, we don't even know for sure when it’s release is, by the time it comes out it may be competing with the like of the division, in which case it will look like total trash. I just hope it's the xbox/ps version and that the next trailer shows some serious improvements. This post needs to be stickied. I felt angry after reading it, (not at you) but at the developers. Incompetent is a good word for them. Every Bethesda NPC has felt like lifeless dolls rehearsing the same line.
Stickied for what, blind hate towards the game and Bethesda? Graphics are obviously improved and the outdoor environments look about on par with The Witcher to me (minus the cool vegetation animations).
|
Even still to this day I will never understand why people care so much about graphics. Sure, the graphics of a game can be super amazing as if it were actual real life stuff you were seeing, but if the gameplay isn't there then the game has nothing. Gameplay > graphics anyday.
|
On June 18 2015 04:50 Random() wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 03:53 parkufarku wrote:On June 04 2015 19:27 UdderChaos wrote:
Just watched the trailer, as a massive fan of fallout 3 this has defiantly lowered my expectations. I don't understand the need to call something the new instalment (IE Fallout 4) if it's basically an expansion. They made the decision to put 4 on the end, implying a new engine/generation of the game, and yet the trailer clearly wasn't. The rebuttal graphics has 0 to do with gameplay, while I understand what they are saying, this is not always true. Fallout is a very story driven game, relying on immersing you into its world, as such, the graphics play an important role in this.
It's really not acceptable for such a large developer with a lot of money at their disposal in a story driven game, which hasn't even come out I might add, to look like this. The Witcher is already out and has significantly better graphics, we don't even know for sure when it’s release is, by the time it comes out it may be competing with the like of the division, in which case it will look like total trash. I just hope it's the xbox/ps version and that the next trailer shows some serious improvements. This post needs to be stickied. I felt angry after reading it, (not at you) but at the developers. Incompetent is a good word for them. Every Bethesda NPC has felt like lifeless dolls rehearsing the same line. Stickied for what, blind hate towards the game and Bethesda? Graphics are obviously improved and the outdoor environments look about on par with The Witcher to me (minus the cool vegetation animations).
someone missed out on the graphics downgrade outrage regarding witcher 3.
lol.
On June 18 2015 05:29 Disengaged wrote:
Even still to this day I will never understand why people care so much about graphics. Sure, the graphics of a game can be super amazing as if it were actual real life stuff you were seeing, but if the gameplay isn't there then the game has nothing. Gameplay > graphics anyday.
because after 8 years, you expect devs to put in more work into high quality texture development that a community has done for free.
|
I could care less about that.
Gameplay is always going to be more important then graphics.
|
On June 18 2015 08:13 Disengaged wrote:
I could care less about that.
Gameplay is always going to be more important then graphics.
yeah, too bad bethesda can't deliver on either.
lol.
|
Yeah doom graphics looked awful, and lets type "lol" at the end of each sentence, it may help to make my point.
lol.
|
On June 18 2015 08:27 Reaps wrote:
Yeah doom graphics looked awful, and lets type "lol" at the end of each sentence, it may help to make my point.
lol.
doom graphics looked great for their time, and doom 3 tried to push the envelope. but okay dude.
On June 16 2015 08:15 TheYango wrote:
Once upon a time, there was a game called TES2: Daggerfall.
All told, the game was pretty mediocre, but it tried a lot of really amazing things. The game world was one of the largest that's ever been in a game, and while core dungeons and landmarks were hand-crafted, a lot of towns and side-dungeons were procedurally-generated. To give you an example of the scale, world generation creates a world that has ~15,000 towns and ~750,000 NPCs, and that's 10,000x the land area of Morrowind, Skyrim or Oblivion. Of course, the technology of 1996 was nowhere near good enough to make that kind of dynamic world have any real depth. But there was ambition there that made you think "in 10 years, if they make another game like this, it's going to be fucking awesome".
Then Morrowind came out. The world was tiny, none of the massive expanse of Daggerfall, none of the procedural generation stuff. They hand-crafted everything, though, and there was a remarkable attention to detail. It wasn't as ambitious as Daggerfall, but it got all the little things right, so on the whole it was a more fun game to play than Daggerfall was.
Then Oblivion came out, and it was a piece of shit. It had none of the ambition of Daggerfall, nor the attention to detail and meticulousness that went into Morrowind. And I went "what the fuck?" But maybe it was a fluke. NOPE. They got the license to Fallout 3, and not only did they prove that their prior butchery of their own franchise was indeed not a fluke, but they also butchered a second IP that wasn't theirs to begin with in the process.
Now we're almost 20 years later, and despite the advances in technology, I still don't have my damn modern sequel to Daggerfall because Bethesda's too interested in voice acting everything and letting you play with your face like it's made of clay.
It's not just about pushing graphics, that's whatever. The problem is Bethesda doesn't push any boundaries anymore, and very few devs do, which is really the big problem.
If you want just "omg gameplay over graphics", then you guys should all be looking at games in the late 90's super early 2000's, instead of talking about fo4. Or a lot of the indie games being tested out now.
Hell, I've just been introduced to geneforge by Yanger's, and I'm playing through it right now. So if you guys wanna talk about "muh gameplay>graphics" to me, you're preaching to the choir.
The problem is ,FO4 is a modern AAA title, if this is what passes as "good" for a modern AAA title, that's a fucking damn shame, and a joke.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
Yup, you've seen a 15-minute trailer and that is all you need to know that the game sucks. As in, the world, the exploration, the side quests, sheesh, all that is so not AAA, what were they thinking.
|
On June 18 2015 09:21 Random() wrote:
Yup, you've seen a 15-minute trailer and that is all you need to know that the game sucks. As in, the world, the exploration, the side quests, sheesh, all that is so not AAA, what were they thinking.
Yeah, we totally haven't seen what bethesda's modern works of oblivion, skyrim, fallout 3, has turned out.
|
We get it you dont like bethesta games and you think fo4 is going to be shit. We really get it. Could you please stop now, you have said all you have to say multiple times.
|
not sure which is funnier, obvious troll or people getting upset over his opinions.
Anyone else playing Fallout Shelter? Radroach invasions are pretty killer man!
|
Seems like that world editing / house building stuff is going to be a big part of the game...i dont want to do that shit...its not fallout-like at all :| Like, im sure it will be designed well and be fun / entertaining to play around, but in a fallout game? Not really atmospheric or mood-setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
