FeelTheRads said:
Doesn't this immersion you speak of breaks when you see someone screaming at you with a blank look on their face?
It's diminished, but still greater than when playing an isometric game (speaking personally, of course).
Don't get me wrong, I was able to immerse myself in many iso titles released in the past and have a deep fondness for companies like Black Isle Studios, Bioware and Troika (I even beta tested Arcanum). However, I was able to reach such levels of immersion through ignoring the limitations and filling in blanks with my imagination. You could argue I was excusing the failings, but I'd argue right back I was focusing more on the fun than nitpicking.
Fast forward to today and I can still find enjoyment in video games that lack a certain amount of polish. I find it disgustingly hypocritical that you guys lash the hell out of what these videos bring to bare but still pour adoration on games that offer less than 0.05% of the immersive charm.
I'm comparing FO3 to its predecessors alone. Not half life 2, not Mass Effect (which, incidentally, Fallout 3 already looks 30x better than ME in my eyes when it comes to non-linearity, statistical depth and character model alterations).
ps: I should mention that I haven't watched all of the videos due to spoiler issues, but did watch the intro sequence with the birth and special book + loaded half of the birthday party scene (I turned it off after the Overseer said a few lines and I could see you were all blowing it out of proportion).
It's fun to hate, I get it. I loved Fallout 1 and 2 also. However, it really doesn't look that bad, especially compared to what else is on the market.
Are video games dying in quality? Yes.. but this is a natural function of increased budgets and emphasis on graphics at the expense of game play depth. I take it as read and move on (enjoying whatever comes my way for what it is, not what I hope it to be).
Brother None said:
Anarchosyn said:
It's better than what we had in Fallout 1 and 2 for immersion and better than Morrowind or Oblivion too.
You're comparing the graphic level to games that are several years old? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm saying that it didn't bother me then so why should it bother me now? I still play FO2 in spite of having encountered games with better graphics and I imagine you are too. Why is this such a foreign notion for you?
none said:
Anarchosyn said:
The real test is whether my non-combat character will be fun to play and the jury is still out on that one.
Uh, sure, but nobody is really talking about that.
I added this as if to say "You're all complaining about graphics, but if you're going to slag the game off let us wait and see about the game play." In other words, it was an aside.
none said:
Anarchosyn said:
When did RPG fans become whores for graphics?
We didn't, but I think most of us - unlike you - don't have high hopes for this game being very good as an RPG. It's possible, sure, but based on Oblivion and what we've seen so far, I wouldn't count on it.
I disagree. Oblivion was a crap RPG by the standards of the past, yes. However, it allowed one to immerse themselves in a living and somewhat breathing world moreso than any cRPG in the past and still offered more statistical depth than most games being released these days (well, big budget games). The bit to emphasis in what I just said, incidentally, is this: Oblivion wasn't the greatest RPG known to man but it certainly was the best released that year, and possibly in the years surrounding its release.
I was never bothered by the "sucky" animations in Oblivion nor was I in Morrowind before it. I enjoyed the games for what they were. 'Course, I had my issues with them and fear those issues will translate to Fallout 3 but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt till I play.
Even then, if I get at least 30 hours of enjoyment out of the game then mission accomplished.