Cool, someone responded. Here we go:
Garful said:
Moving Target said:
-Copy/pasted damage on buildings (this was covered months ago).
Valid complaint, but this didn't seem to stop us from loving Fallout 1 and 2. I'm almost excited when I see this nowadays. I'm tired of the eye-candy and want some substance from a game again. Hopefully their dev time was better spent elsewhere (storyline, non-linear game design)
Right, but here's the difference: Budget and (supposedly) graphics engine superiority. When a BIG part of Beth's defense of the game, after it's been shown that, no, they're not keeping to the lore, is "It looks great." Well..no. That's why copy/pasted *damage* on buildings that look *exactly the same* is not a good thing.
Sure you can. Switch to FPS. No slo-mo. You're complaining about a slow-mo cinematic added to a turn-base "optional" combat style. From what I remember from playing Fallout 1 and 2, I hit that spacebar a lot when things were messy, but when I just needed to mow through mobs, I played in real time. I expect this will be the exact same thing.
I should've been more clear. All right: First of all, there shouldn't have *been* the option either way. If you're going to go full RT, go full RT. And *definitely* don't make the RtWP system add more damage (not confirmed, but seems to be that way.)
Second of all: I don't know what Fallout 1 or 2 you were playing, but there was no RT combat. Ever. And the TB speed could be turned way, way up.
Ghouls look like ghouls. They are synomous with zombies. Feral ghouls (the fast animal-like ghouls) are probably what you are referring to in Fallout3. It's a new addition. Did you just want Fallout 2 with a new graphics engine? Cause Fallout 2 added things Fallout 1 didnt have.
No, these ghouls do *not* look like
FO1/2 ghouls. No flaky skin, no green skin... they look like jerky now. And they move fast. THEY ARE NOT GHOULS. They're zombies. Which is not what FO1/2 ghouls were at all.
Nice try on the troll there, BTW.
I agree completely. They went too cartoonish on the SMs. Hopefully some of them actually look like mutants and not Half-Orcs.
Good to see some agreement. It's been explained *why* they look different. And damn, does that explanation take a huge whiz all over the canon, too.
The E3 demo was on a resolution set to display on a very large screen. If you play on a smaller monitor, use a different resolution. Not valid until you see the options menu and how you can customize the UI and graphics.
I still think that black on green is a very bad choice. And that making the world map look like it's on a low-res monitor is a *very* bad choice. It'll still probably look terrible, just not as horrendously bad, on a bigger monitor. Though I may be speaking too soon- my monitor has a hard time showing decent detail on old XBrick games.
Right, because everyone in a post-apocolyptic world with mutants, ghouls, and radiated animals running around will have their priorities in-check. Even in Vietnam-hell, American soldiers still had access to good ol' Rock 'n Roll.
Wha? HOW DO THEY GET THE POWER?!?! And why aren't they using it to, oh, I don't know, run lights at night? Electrify the town's wall? Heat water/homes?
LOL. Oh, come on. This is traditional Fallout rediculousness. You're condemning Bethesda here for the same liberties Bioware used to take.
No, seriously, it's stupid. Now you've gone and made me have to explain something that's so obvious... ahhhh...
Okay, the big problem with the Fatman? It takes the earlier Fallouts' attitude toward nuclear weapons and nuclear war, and utterly disregards it. Nuclear power and weapons were seen as *very* dangerous, and handled at a distance. Remember the Glow? What about when you heard that the Followers of the Apocalypse had a nuke under their cathedral? Scary stuff, right?
So what's Bethsoft do? Canon OUT the window. This is yet another area where their "reimagining" has failed.
And that's not even discussing how ridiculous it is to have a shoulder-mounted NUCLEAR CATAPULT. No, do not bring in the Davy Crocket to this argument. It wasn't shoulder-mounted, didn't have a very large pay-load, and was a failure anyway.
-Various arms skills now influence damage, not accuracy.
Understandable to accomidate the FPS mode. If it works with the gameplay, then I don't really understand the complaint here. Is it just that everything about 1 and 2 is sacred?
It's not understandable, it's design laziness. Becoming a better shot doesn't make you do more damage. It makes you more accurate. Which should have brought up the percentages in TB, if Beth had bothered to implement it. Which they didn't.
And: don't bring up the "primacy of fun" argument. That's helped to ruin Fallout 3.
-No animations for when the targets get shot.
This is a complaint for the official videos and may or may not relate to the retail game release. Time will tell.
Uhhh... official videos. As in, what the company wants to show as their *best* examples of character animations. So, if they've got better ones, why haven't they shown them? And if these are the best they've got- that's just sad, really.
Valid complaint, but I think this ties into my response to the first complaint as well. If gameplay and story are good, I won't mind that the graphics are a couple years behind.
Yeah.... read through the thread about the leaked videos until you get to pages with Spoiler tags. Then read.
.... See why I'm a bit concerned?
AI can't really be judged until full release. Almost all gameplay videos are of the first few minutes out of the vault. I would hope that difficulty and AI scales a bit so you can acclimate to gameplay and the end of the game is more difficult than the beginning.
The leaked videos are not. The AI still sucks- even the morons who are playing and commenting on it doesn't have a problem with the AI. Which really says something about its quality.
Different location, different feel. But saying that the "sense of space" is gone, can't really be claimed until you've gone through the game. Are you saying that the sense of "empty space" is gone? Well, this is deffinitely a damned if you do, and damned if you don't moment then because gamers seem to always complain that a game either has too much useless space or is too cluttered. Regardless, this judgement would need to be help off till later. It may end up feeling "just right".
Mm hm. It seems like Bethsoft overdid it. From the reviews that have come in so far, it seems like a case of "Oops, raiders *kills raiders* Uh oh, radscorpions...." etc, ad nauseum. They certainly overdid it on the rubble.
Agreed. Makes no sense, but if this and the mutants are the worst they've done in F3, I'll live with it.
It isn't.
You can go wander. They just don't FORCE you to do so. The big thing about the first two games was that it was up to you. Leave your house. Abandon the quest for your father, just as you choice not to help your village in the previous game. Your choice.
The problem is that you have ALL these little do-dads and such in the house. Robot butler; hair styles; decorating *themes* for freakin'.... it's ridiculous.
You'd complain if they didn't have them...
No, I wouldn't. This re-using of canon names, with absolutely no context, is worse than moronic. Bethsoft basically just saw the Brotherhood and Supermutants and Enclave as *branding.* Like they were the main focus of Fallout or something. They weren't even close to that.
They were an integral part of the story *as it was told on the West Coast.* Tactics tried, and failed, to transplant the factions to the Midwest, with comparatively little disregard to canon. Fallout 3, like Tactics, should have come up with new factions. Period.
Your final question is what do we see that we like? Well, I like the fact that a company resurrected my favorite game title and provided me with another look at this unique world.
Personally, after this treatment, I would've prefered it to have stayed dead.
Being in both the game and film industry, I understand that unless you can some mind-meld with another team, you're not going to duplicate their work. You can try, but they did it they way they did it for a reason.... it's what they were good at. So, you need to do it your way and hopefully you do justice to the title and respect the most important qualities.
But one question: why didn't they even bring any of the orginal team on board as consultants? They had the money, and at least one original developer expressed interest, but.. nothing.
I identify those qualities as the qwerky sense of humor. The "lost in time" atmosphere of a post-apocolpytic world being somehow both futuristic and lof a 1930s morality and culture.
1950's, but yes, true. I honestly don't see that in FO3.
I nice mixture of turn-based and real-time gameplay to fulfill various moods I might be in.
I... think you're thinking of Tactics. 1/2 never had RT.
I never thought Fallout 1 and 2 were a success because of the graphics, character models, world design, there being miles and miles of open desert, or any of the aforementioned complaints. I tend to look at what was missing in Fallout Tactics, and realize thats what made 1 and 2 so great. Non-linear, strong storyline, humor, and post-apocolyptic environment.
It was a collection of about a zillion things that came together to make the games great. And yes, there were lots of negatives- like the entire New Reno set-up, some other silliness in 2, the Enclave (in general)....
Without some of the positives, it's just not a Fallout game. Tactics failed to realize that the Fallout universe was more than just bits and pieces. Bethsoft's waaaay off the mark.
