|
On June 04 2015 01:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 01:41 ref4 wrote:On June 04 2015 01:23 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2015 01:15 PhoenixVoid wrote:On June 04 2015 01:13 blobrus wrote:
I'm shocked by the amount of hate in this thread.
The game is going to be fun and while the graphics don't look amazing I'm sure there will be mods for that. Something we can't tell from a three minute trailer. Why don't we actually wait for a release before we start calling the game fun? Fun is pretty subjective and I am pretty sure it will be fun for a lot of people. These are the people who made Skyrim and that game was pretty fun. Fun is subjective to a degree but most people can objectively tell that a game has badly-animated characters and dated graphics. And from the trailer it looks like Bethesda hasn't kept up with the industry standard at all. Ontop of the inevitable bugs-riddle release (I mean, it is Bethesda we are talking about here, I don't think they know what a beta test even is judging from their track record) Fallout4 is bound to disappoint a lot of people. Hopefully this trailer is just an early development footage. I will never get tired of people telling me they can objectively tell if a game is good or bad based on the initial trailer. And the prophet like prediction that a lot of people will be disappointed with a AAA release. Because that hasn't happened before.
I'm usually on board with you on these issues PS, but this trailer was just bad. I'll give them props for giving us a trailer in (what I hope) is the in-game engine, but the graphics really do look like Skyrim at best, and a jumped-up Fallout 3 at worst, which is pretty unacceptable. People are fair to call that out, because it's lazy as shit. The Witcher 3 just proved that there is a better model for open world games, and FO4 looks like more of the same. I loved Fallout 3, New Vegas, and Skyrim, but yet another game in that engine with bad combat would leave a sour taste in my mouth. Obviously, we don't know what the finished product will look like, but their official trailer doesn't inspire much confidence, and that is the point of official trailers.
Now to venture into the realm of speculation, I feel Bethesda is getting further and further sucked down Ubisoft Avenue. If you know your game will sell millions upon millions of copies no matter how good it actually is upon release, you are relying purely on artistic integrity to keep it together and provide a complete, quality product. Are you confident that's the case? The millions of drones who shill out for CoD and Assassin's Creed every year prove that you don't need to change the wheel at all, let alone reinvent it, to sell a franchise.
|
On June 04 2015 03:47 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2015 23:48 PhoenixVoid wrote:On June 03 2015 23:41 jeeeeohn wrote:
I don't know why people are being so negative. I played FO3 at release, and this trailer made me shed an actual tear.
Then again, it's probably the dog's fault. Quite frankly lot of old fans of Fallout as well as RPG enthusiasts felt very let-down from Fo3 and Skyrim so they expect the same from Fo4. We don't know about the actual game other than a three minute trailer but graphically things aren't even that impressive so that doesn't help when people are nitpicking every detail to criticize the game. If it took you until FO3/Skyrim to be disappointed in a Bethesda game, you either didn't play Oblivion, or were exceptionally forgiving for it. Skyrim relatively speaking is a significant step up from Oblivion/FO3. Show nested quote +On June 03 2015 23:38 Plansix wrote:
So, yes, I am excited because Fallout and Elder Scrolls have never disappointed me. A trailer won't change that. If TES has "never disappointed you", then this game is going to be marketed precisely to you. Of course, if TES has "never disappointed you", I'm going to come right out and say I think you have shit taste in video games, because even diehard TES fans accept how much of a low point Oblivion was for the series, lol.
Yango, we established long ago that you think my taste in games is shit and I think your an elitist snob who likes to look down on others tastes. Why would this have changed?
And yes, I was not overjoyed with Oblivion, but I still liked it. Fucked up level and all.
|
On June 04 2015 04:21 Kickboxer wrote:
The correlation between graphics and fun is exactly 0
Many games are absolutely amazing and have shit graphics.
Countless games have amazing graphics and are utter shit.
the correlation between big name dev reusing 10 year old engine and milking a cash cow is significantly higher than 0, though.
You must look at the reason why they are using 5 year old graphics and animations, its certainly not lack of money, Skyrim was one of the best selling games ever and they had 3 expansions.
|
I rather have 60 fps over good graphics.
|
On June 04 2015 04:40 Klowney wrote:
I rather have 60 fps over good graphics.
With you. I dread every AAA release that "pushes the graphicZZZZZ" because it will be some poorly optimized POS that demands raw power over good graphics design.
|
On June 04 2015 04:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 04:40 Klowney wrote:
I rather have 60 fps over good graphics. With you. I dread every AAA release that "pushes the graphicZZZZZ" because it will be some poorly optimized POS that demands raw power over good graphics design.
I good example of this is Dragon Age Inquisition. Looks good. Plays bad.
Bethesda is like a tall blonde girl in her 40's. Used to be smokin hot 20 years ago but now is a shell of her former self.
|
Game engines themselves are sufficiently flexible at this point that developer experience and expertise in using a major engine generally outweighs the minor benefits of a newer engine.
Animation/models/textures looking bad is a product of bad artist work, not necessarily engine limitation.
|
On June 04 2015 04:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 04:40 Klowney wrote:
I rather have 60 fps over good graphics. With you. I dread every AAA release that "pushes the graphicZZZZZ" because it will be some poorly optimized POS that demands raw power over good graphics design.
I good example of this is Dragon Age Inquisition. Looks good. Plays bad.
Bethesda is like a tall blonde girl in her 40's. Used to be smokin hot 15 years ago but now is a shell of her former self.
|
Yeah well even Wasteland 2 was a let down, and that was supposedly designed by some of the fallout devs, although a lot of them did go to Obsidian entertainment to make games like Project Eternity (which was a pretty decent RPG). I'm really hopeful that Obsidian gets contracted by Bethesda to make another Fallout game in the future, because new vegas was a pretty fun game that was probably the third best in the series after 1 and 2.
F3 was certainly no masterpiece like F1 and F2, and it had quite a few annoyances, but it was still a pretty game that had decent combat and levelling mechanics. It just didn't have the same quality storytelling, questlines, or dialogue (or music). And the combat mechanic of crippling a limb was nonsensical, because it didn't actually reduce their ability to use their weapon, they simply took more damage when you shot their arm, for example. Unlike F2, when you shot their eye they would fall to the ground in extreme pain and then be blinded...or if you hit them in the head you would knock them unconscious or kill them outright. Legs hinder mobility, an arm means you can't use a two-handed weapon etc. And the groin...well lets just say if you get a critical hit there, they crumple to the ground like a sack of potatoes  .
In the original Fallout games you had paragraphs, pages to read of really good quality dialogue. The scenery and the areas you could discover were so much more interesting and mysterious (i.e. abandoned military bases with sentient AI, xenophobic Vault city, a gambling town divided between three factions vying for power, which had corrupt deals with neighbouring city-states like the NCR and Vault city. It was just so much more...adult? It felt like I was part of a much more engaging and fascinating story in which the choices I made had real consequences.
In bethesda games, its mostly just a collection of isolated quest lines that rarely interact with each other, or affect the outcome of the game. So it feels like the whole world is shallow and devoid of any meaning; everything is just about blowing other people up in ways that are cartoonishly gratuitous (i.e. your face explodes when I shoot it with a rifle). Rarely do you engage in meaningful conversations, its usually one word or at most one sentence dialogue.
In spite of all that, its still nice to wander around in an apocalyptic setting. But I really do feel like I'm playing a game that's targeted toward children. Heck it probably is, that's likely where they make the most money. I do find the "Tunnel Snakes rule" meme to be funny in retrospect though 
One more bad memory. I remember in F3 near the end, you had to enter an irradiated chamber to turn off a switch in order to make the water supply safe for an entire region. If you were smart, you could bring a super mutant with you and ask him to do it, because they are immune to radiation. But then he says "No. I won't deprive you of the honor of dying as a hero" or some such nonsense. That's basically Bethesda quality dialogue right there. They don't even make an attempt to rationalize it, they just want you to do something stupid on purpose in order to feel like a hero. A stupid hero maybe.
|
On June 04 2015 04:49 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 04:42 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2015 04:40 Klowney wrote:
I rather have 60 fps over good graphics. With you. I dread every AAA release that "pushes the graphicZZZZZ" because it will be some poorly optimized POS that demands raw power over good graphics design. I good example of this is Dragon Age Inquisition. Looks good. Plays bad. Bethesda is like a tall blonde girl in her 40's. Used to be smokin hot 20 years ago but now is a shell of her former self.
The Witcher is a good example of a game taht manages to be both. It looks fine on lower setting, but can jack it up. The most notable example is Crysis, which ran like shit for everyone. Then they released Warhead, which ran better because the artists were told to keep performance in mind when it came to level design. It ran much better and everyone thought it looked as good as Crysis Prime.
Also, I think the setting of the post apocalyptic future has been played out. Since Fallout 3, there have been a LOT of games in that setting and Fallout doesn't stand out a much as it used to.
|
On June 04 2015 04:51 radscorpion9 wrote:
Yeah well even Wasteland 2 was a let down, and that was supposedly designed by some of the fallout devs, although a lot of them did go to Obsidian entertainment to make games like Project Eternity (which was a pretty decent RPG).
There is no "fallout devs" plural. Games weren't necessarily made by massive teams back then. THE fallout dev is Tim Cain who worked on Fallout by himself for the majority of its development. Others were brought onto the project later in its life cycle, but the core gameplay elements that really make Fallout are thanks to Tim Cain, who is at Obsidian.
InXile has devs from Interplay, but being at Interplay doesn't mean you worked on Fallout.
|
On June 04 2015 01:52 Faruko wrote:
and the graphics look straight up bad
but thats what mods are for, sad for console owners thou.
Indeed get them 200 grapic mods
|
On June 04 2015 04:49 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 04:42 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2015 04:40 Klowney wrote:
I rather have 60 fps over good graphics. With you. I dread every AAA release that "pushes the graphicZZZZZ" because it will be some poorly optimized POS that demands raw power over good graphics design. I good example of this is Dragon Age Inquisition. Looks good. Plays bad. Bethesda is like a tall blonde girl in her 40's. Used to be smokin hot 20 years ago but now is a shell of her former self.
ROLF dude:p
|
On June 04 2015 05:01 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 04:51 radscorpion9 wrote:
Yeah well even Wasteland 2 was a let down, and that was supposedly designed by some of the fallout devs, although a lot of them did go to Obsidian entertainment to make games like Project Eternity (which was a pretty decent RPG).
There is no "fallout devs" plural. Games weren't necessarily made by massive teams back then. THE fallout dev is Tim Cain who worked on Fallout by himself for the majority of its development. Others were brought onto the project later in its life cycle, but the core gameplay elements that really make Fallout are thanks to Tim Cain, who is at Obsidian. InXile has devs from Interplay, but being at Interplay doesn't mean you worked on Fallout.
Maybe we can hope bethesda lets obsidian develop another fallout game.
Oh who am i kidding, the dream is dead ;_;
|
On June 04 2015 03:47 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2015 23:48 PhoenixVoid wrote:On June 03 2015 23:41 jeeeeohn wrote:
I don't know why people are being so negative. I played FO3 at release, and this trailer made me shed an actual tear.
Then again, it's probably the dog's fault. Quite frankly lot of old fans of Fallout as well as RPG enthusiasts felt very let-down from Fo3 and Skyrim so they expect the same from Fo4. We don't know about the actual game other than a three minute trailer but graphically things aren't even that impressive so that doesn't help when people are nitpicking every detail to criticize the game. If it took you until FO3/Skyrim to be disappointed in a Bethesda game, you either didn't play Oblivion, or were exceptionally forgiving for it. Skyrim relatively speaking is a significant step up from Oblivion/FO3. Show nested quote +On June 03 2015 23:38 Plansix wrote:
So, yes, I am excited because Fallout and Elder Scrolls have never disappointed me. A trailer won't change that. If TES has "never disappointed you", then this game is going to be marketed precisely to you. Of course, if TES has "never disappointed you", I'm going to come right out and say I think you have shit taste in video games, because even diehard TES fans accept how much of a low point Oblivion was for the series, lol.
Funny you mention Oblivion because I never finished it and frankly got bored of it quickly. But the difference is at least Oblivion tried to be interesting with sidequests and varying gameplay with developed RPG mechanics. I never understood all the hype and love for Bethesda games beyond worldbuilding. As far as I've played they are fairly mediocre games carried by lore and bringing open world design to the forefront in RPGs which can be seen as good or bad. I hate to judge games before they are released but the Fo4 trailer was dull and I don't expect Bethesda to make some huge changes in their game formula when they've been selling very well and grabbing 90%+ in reviews even if they are alienating their core RPG fanbase.
|
On June 04 2015 05:31 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 03:47 TheYango wrote:On June 03 2015 23:48 PhoenixVoid wrote:On June 03 2015 23:41 jeeeeohn wrote:
I don't know why people are being so negative. I played FO3 at release, and this trailer made me shed an actual tear.
Then again, it's probably the dog's fault. Quite frankly lot of old fans of Fallout as well as RPG enthusiasts felt very let-down from Fo3 and Skyrim so they expect the same from Fo4. We don't know about the actual game other than a three minute trailer but graphically things aren't even that impressive so that doesn't help when people are nitpicking every detail to criticize the game. If it took you until FO3/Skyrim to be disappointed in a Bethesda game, you either didn't play Oblivion, or were exceptionally forgiving for it. Skyrim relatively speaking is a significant step up from Oblivion/FO3. On June 03 2015 23:38 Plansix wrote:
So, yes, I am excited because Fallout and Elder Scrolls have never disappointed me. A trailer won't change that. If TES has "never disappointed you", then this game is going to be marketed precisely to you. Of course, if TES has "never disappointed you", I'm going to come right out and say I think you have shit taste in video games, because even diehard TES fans accept how much of a low point Oblivion was for the series, lol. Funny you mention Oblivion because I never finished it and frankly got bored of it quickly. But the difference is at least Oblivion tried to be interesting with sidequests and varying gameplay with developed RPG mechanics. I never understood all the hype and love for Bethesda games beyond worldbuilding. As far as I've played they are fairly mediocre games carried by lore and bringing open world design to the forefront in RPGs which can be seen as good or bad. I hate to judge games before they are released but the Fo4 trailer was dull and I don't expect Bethesda to make some huge changes in their game formula when they've been selling very well and grabbing 90%+ in reviews even if they are alienating their core RPG fanbase.
What I would like to see is a way to use the difficulty level to dramatically change gameplay. So that on (very) easy it's basically a slightly interactive story/movie to very hard where it becomes a more traditional RPG maybe kind of like EQ.
So if I enjoy games and the stories they tell but I don't have time to play 2-3 hours at a time several times a week I can play for 30mins and it becomes like an interactive TV series. But essentially the same game could entertain people who have that kind of play time.
|
On June 03 2015 23:07 PhoenixVoid wrote:
Don't like to talk too much about graphics but good Lord they look outdated. Is it still fucking Gamebryo with a new name?
Graphics look fine. I'm just annoyed the art direction is exactly like the last two fallout games.
|
Complaining about graphics when all we have seen is a CGI trailier, ok.
|
On June 04 2015 06:32 Reaps wrote:
Complaining about graphics when all we have seen is a CGI trailier, ok.
That wasn't CGI it was in-game engine.
|
On June 04 2015 06:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 06:32 Reaps wrote:
Complaining about graphics when all we have seen is a CGI trailier, ok. That wasn't CGI it was in-game engine.
That dog looked pretty good too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
