Fallout 3 reviews round-up #4

[SuAside]

"almost turn based" might have worked in his reasoning, but "semi-turnbased" means that there is some turnbased activity (even if little).

that isn't the case, it's a RTwP/bullettime hybrid.

 

[GarfunkeL]

They also contradict each other nicely, see this:

Cheat Code Central:

however, the unrealistic ragdoll physics during the V.A.T.S. animations, flat and generic textures, repetitive environments, and poor, emotionless facial expressions combine to make the visual experience decidedly less than stellar.

Then GamePlasma:

The only way to describe Fallout 3’s graphics is “jaw-dropping.”

So yes, people can have different opinions but those two are preeeetty far from each other. Like saying "meh, it's mediocre" about a movie while your friend is sprouting an erection and still drooling about it.

 

[Sander]

So yes, people can have different opinions but those two are preeeetty far from each other. Like saying "meh, it's mediocre" about a movie while your friend is sprouting an erection and still drooling about it.

This is what is most confusing to me, really. I expected them to get at least the graphics right.
But several games this year do better in every respect, and even still reviewers are going apeshit over the 'great' graphics.

 

[ArmorB]

In my opinion if you 'play' the game the graphics are nice. If you stand there and start looking for issues, then you will find them. Everyone is upset about the shadows but I don't notice them missing while I'm playing. It's just not something that is overly important to me.

There are plenty of things that are stupid, but they are so much more stupid if you are trying to find them. I accept that like most every other game this one will have strong and weak points. And until the weak points become so overwhelming that I can't stand to play, I'm going to happily play the game at my leisure until I've had enough.

 

[Sander]

In my opinion if you 'play' the game the graphics are nice. If you stand there and start looking for issues, then you will find them. Everyone is upset about the shadows but I don't notice them missing while I'm playing. It's just not something that is overly important to me.

I didn't even notice that. I'm talking about what the graphics and animations look like when you're playing the game. It's noticeable that they are significantly worse than many other contemporary games.

Of course graphics aren't that important. But when they get hyped like that, you expect them to at least be as good as other games released this year (Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed) and they simply aren't. Noticeably.

 

[ArmorB]

...

Of course graphics aren't that important. But when they get hyped like that, you expect them to at least be as good as other games released this year (Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed) and they simply aren't. Noticeably.

So why did you believe the hype, no one else did?

 

[Brother None]

So why did you believe the hype, no one else did?

That's not relevant. The question is: why are reviewers praising the graphics of a game that - graphically - falls severely short of its contemporaries?

 

[ArmorB]

Well that goes back to my original ponderings of whether or not FO3 was getting special treatment ot just the 'standard' treatment. Is FO3 getting fluffed because it's FO3 or just because it's a AAA title?

And does it really fall 'severly short'? I honesly don't feel it's 'that bad'. I've not played the contemporaries, but I like what I see in FO3...

How many of those in the forum that are hyper critical have actually played it?

 

[Brother None]

Well that goes back to my original ponderings of whether or not FO3 was getting special treatment ot just the 'standard' treatment. Is FO3 getting fluffed because it's FO3 or just because it's a AAA title?

Eh? All these games get a 'special' treatment. GTA IV - for example - used exactly the same "review in a hotel" trick Bethesda did. BioShock got an impressive amount of community-stoked hype for a fairly average game. Fallout 3 is just another one of the guys.

And does it really fall 'severly short'? I honesly don't feel it's 'that bad'. I've not played the contemporaries, but I like what I see in FO3...

I haven't played it, but I've seen hours and hours of gameplay footage. I've also recently been playing FarCry 2, and Fallout 3 falls short of that mark, as well as of more comparable titles (BioShock, Mass Effect). It's just not up to snuff, graphically.

 

[Sander]

So why did you believe the hype, no one else did?

That's the only bit of the hype I was believing, considering the emphasis on graphics most magazines have.

Well that goes back to my original ponderings of whether or not FO3 was getting special treatment ot just the 'standard' treatment. Is FO3 getting fluffed because it's FO3 or just because it's a AAA title?

And does it really fall 'severly short'? I honesly don't feel it's 'that bad'. I've not played the contemporaries, but I like what I see in FO3...

How many of those in the forum that are hyper critical have actually played it?

I have. I've also very recently played Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed, all on the highest settings. Fallout 3 doesn't come close.

Of course, it isn't crippling or a real problem or something that'll prevent me from playing the game, but I really don't see how this game can get a 9 or 10 for graphics every single time.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

The graphics are shit.



Yes, I've got a flaming sword. In Fallout.

*sigh*

 

[TheRatKing]

Hmm can't really see all that much detail. Is it like a laser sword or something? MAYBE Beth will come up with something as cool as the Deus Ex dragon sword, but I doubt it.

 

[sonicmerlin]

About the graphics, there are different aspects of graphics one can look at. A game like Zelda: Twilight Princess looks great despite having a much smaller polygon count and lower resolution textures than new-gen console games. Its impressiveness can be attributed to art direction and style. Fallout 3's environment really is beautiful. The sense of style and atmosphere it conveys is amazing. You have to walk through the game world for yourself to understand. On the other hand the animations are embarrassing to the point of being unintentionally funny. I don't know how game engines are made, but I was hoping Bethesda would be able to do something to fix this.

As for the person who said the battle system is RTwP/bullettime, real time with pause is something more akin to KOTOR. Bullettime is pure real time, just made a lot slower. That doesn't describe FO3's system. VATS provides elements of turn-based action (you queue up acttions, then it's the enemy's turn), while also allowing for real-time fighting. That's "semi-turn based".

 

[Sander]

About the graphics, there are different aspects of graphics one can look at. A game like Zelda: Twilight Princess looks great despite having a much smaller polygon count and lower resolution textures than new-gen console games. Its impressiveness can be attributed to art direction and style. Fallout 3's environment really is beautiful. The sense of style and atmosphere it conveys is amazing. You have to walk through the game world for yourself to understand.

Must be me, but I feel that the atmosphere is very much lacking. Again, take Assassin's Creed or Mass Effect - they had a better and more coherent atmosphere.

As for the person who said the battle system is RTwP/bullettime, real time with pause is something more akin to KOTOR. Bullettime is pure real time, just made a lot slower. That doesn't describe FO3's system. VATS provides elements of turn-based action (you queue up acttions, then it's the enemy's turn), while also allowing for real-time fighting. That's "semi-turn based".

No, it isn't.
First of all, there is no seperation between 'your turn' and the enemy's turn. The enemy acts while you are in VATS, similarly you act while you are not in VATS. VATS is simply a tool to allow you to aim easier and better.

This is very much so real-time with pause. In fact, here's what happens: you pause the game, you queue up shots, you unpause the game and your character fires said shots in real-time, except that the action is slowed down for an annoying cinematic effect.
Whoops, did I just describe exactly how RTwP works?

 

[sonicmerlin]

If it was 'real time' with pause you would have to aim. You choose your targets in VATS and it aims for you.

I never played AC, but I played Mass Effect. Its "side quests" were *extremely* generic and had no real effect on your character or the storyline except to up your stats. The environments were incredibly repetitive. The main quest environments and story line were a totally different story, and are what endeared me so much to the game.

I don't know what you find to be so unappealing about FO3's environments. The Wasteland can be a bit generic at times, but otherwise everything is really detailed. It puts Oblivion to shame. I love the Pip-boy and the music too.

So...what exactly don't you like about FO3's atmosphere?

 

[Sander]

If it was 'real time' with pause you would have to aim. You choose your targets in VATS and it aims for you.

Ah yes, so obviously Diablo is a turn-based game then?
Having to manually aim has nothing to do with it being real-time or not. The fact that you get to pause the game and then aim would indicate that it is real-time with pause.

Regardless of whether or not you wish to call this real-time, it is nothing like a turn-based game.

I never played AC, but I played Mass Effect. Its "side quests" were *extremely* generic and had no real effect on your character or the storyline except to up your stats. The environments were incredibly repetitive. The main quest environments and story line were a totally different story, and are what endeared me so much to the game.

Er...yes, obviously the quality of the quests have a great influence on its graphical quality and atmosphere.
What?

I don't know what you find to be so unappealing about FO3's environments. The Wasteland can be a bit generic at times, but otherwise everything is really detailed. It puts Oblivion to shame. I love the Pip-boy and the music too.

So...what exactly don't you like about FO3's atmosphere?

Dunno. It doesn't grip me. It doesn't draw me in like many other games, really. The same problem I had with Morrowind and Oblivion.

EDIT: Wait, I just remembered one of the reasons. There's no weight to your actions. Instead of feeling like a person walking around the world, I feel like a camera floating over some terrain. Also, the fact that they have dungeons in the middle of nowhere doesn't really help.

 

[sonicmerlin]

Hmm...how does one quote multiple times in a post?

Diablo is a 2D game. Besides, you still had to 'aim' in the sense of clicking on enemies on a 2 dimensional plane. A missed click would target the wrong enemy or target no one at all.

You couldn't pause and queue up actions (right? Diablo's a bit fuzzy for me since I only played through it once).

I don't wish to call FO3 "real-time". I wish to call this "semi real-time".

As for the storyline, it does in fact affect the 'atmosphere'. If your first quest out of the Vault was to track down a clown and bop him on the nose, you might have trouble taking the game seriously. Imagine...Fallout 3: The Birthday Chronicles. As soon as you realize the vast majority of Mass Effect's side quests have no effect on anything, it destroys the sense of 'Wow I'm exploring a galaxy full of solar systems.'

If the first time you stepped out into Oblivion's outdoor world you were not gripped by the massive beauty and open-endedness of the world, then all I can do is feel sad for you. Before I realized there was a lack of variation in environments (and that took hours), Oblivion made me feel like I had stepped into the fantasy land that I had spent my childhood dreaming about. That experience ranks up there with the likes of booting up Mario 64 for the first time or riding Epona across Ocarina of Time's wide open field with a shield on my back and a bow in my hand.

 

[Sander]

Hmm...how does one quote multiple times in a post?

Diablo is a 2D game. Besides, you still had to 'aim' in the sense of clicking on enemies on a 2 dimensional plane. A missed click would target the wrong enemy or target no one at all.

Untrue. Once an enemy was selected, just click anywhere in that general direction and you hit.

Also, in Fallout 3 you still have to select your target in VATS. That's just as much aiming.

You couldn't pause and queue up actions (right? Diablo's a bit fuzzy for me since I only played through it once).

Fine, better example: Baldur's Gate (including KoTOR to counter your nonsencial 'OMG 2d' argument) and all those games. The very definition of real-time with pause.

I don't wish to call FO3 "real-time". I wish to call this "semi real-time".

It was semi-turn-based just a few posts ago.

As for the storyline, it does in fact affect the 'atmosphere'. If your first quest out of the Vault was to track down a clown and bop him on the nose, you might have trouble taking the game seriously. Imagine...Fallout 3: The Birthday Chronicles. As soon as you realize the vast majority of Mass Effect's side quests have no effect on anything, it destroys the sense of 'Wow I'm exploring a galaxy full of solar systems.'

I was talking about graphical atmosphere ya tard.

 

[Per]

Hmm...how does one quote multiple times in a post?

Open multiple windows/tabs with replies, cut'n'paste and trim, basically.

I wish to call this "semi real-time".

It's much more accurate than "semi-turn based" at any rate.

 

[sonicmerlin]

You have to select the enemy first before you can click in that general direction. They're moving and attack you in real-time. Clicking on them requires some twitch skills. See Starcraft for another example of this.

Selecting a target in VATS is *not* aiming in 3D. I am an avid online FPS gamer (a good one at that if I may so brag), and aiming in real time at a moving opponent is absolutely *nothing* like VATS. Even comparing them is just illogical.

My 2D *sensical* argument revolves around the idea that the way real-time affects gameplay changes when you're in a fully 3D world. There is *much* more strategy involved when aiming at a 3D target than there is in clicking on a 2D sprite ala Diablo. You have to be aware of where cover is, where and how to dodge, and decide whether to attempt a block (if we're talking about fighting or shields).

I'm done arguing over "semi real-time". Seeing as how there's no real definition of the word, it's up to you to interpret it how you feel.