Fallout 3 reviews round-up #4

[Per]

Turn based and real time are ways of modelling time in a combat simulation. It would be hard to do manual aiming in a turn-based model, but that doesn't mean the absence of manual aiming makes a game turn-based. So it's hard to see where you're going with the whole aiming deal.

 

[sonicmerlin]

The absence of aiming implies it's not real-time. Since it also doesn't imply it's turn-based, you come up with something inbetween.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

Here's a few slides of what resulted from me capping the sniper above megaton in the head.

Great physics.

http://img136.imageshack.us/slideshow/player.php?id=img136/2438/1225250686waw.smil

 

[Sander]

The absence of aiming implies it's not real-time.

No. No it doesn't.

You need to seperate several gameplay elements here:
Time allocation
Target selection interface

Let's try another group of real-time games for you that have no aiming: real-time strategy games, or more specifically the tower defense flash games. No aiming there, yet real-time.

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).

First of all, most of these things have been modelled succesfully in 2D environments (see Jagged Alliance 2).
Second, what the fuck does this have to do with whether or not the game is real-time? Nothing. Why do you keep trying to divert the subject?

Also, I am very confused as to how you managed to try to twist the argument around from you claiming that VATS is simply turn-based combat to me claiming VATS is fully real-time, which I have never claimed.

Again: your original claim was that VATS was turn-based or very close to it. Yet again: it isn't. It obviously isn't fully real-time, since real-time things run in real-time and not with pauses in between. The pauses mean it's a real-time with pause game. It functions almost exactly like the old Infinity Engine games, that are the staple RTwP games.

 

[sonicmerlin]

Alright alright, you win. I concede after looking up more info on real time with pause games.

 

[GamingTrend]

Interesting how you avoided criticizing the simplification by making it sound like it was necessary for balance.

I find it more interesting that you have interpreted it that way. I miss being able to disable folks with a well placed pellet.

Many have expressed concern with the open world of Fallout 3. The game is a completely open sandbox title, but unlike Oblivion, it is content-rich. You can’t take 10 steps without discovering something, and that trend continues throughout the game.

In the ruins of DC there is a *lot* to discover under the rubble. Out in the wastes there is quite a bit less.

You don't think the words "turn based" in the term "semi turn based" should be expected to hold some meaning?

You expect it to hold extraordinary meaning to the point where it magically turns it into an isometric completely 'you go, then they go' 2D game. It isn't going to happen, and arguing the meaning of 'is' isn't going to suddenly make it so. Semi-turn based, exactly as I described it. The world pauses, you select stuff, then the world unpauses. Semi. Not completely. It's not confusing, you just want it to be something it'll never be.

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.

Exactly. I've been writing and playing games for quite a while, I know what goes into a game of this scope, and I know what technology is required to make things look this good. Perfect? No. Best it probably could be with the tech we have right now? Probably closer to that mark. Rookie journalists judge a game based on its faults by trying to find everything that is wrong. I try to judge based on whether there is enough right to bother with.

It's noticeable that they are significantly worse than many other contemporary games.

I'll ask you to quantify. This game is in no way significantly worse than other contemporary games. Sure, there are problems, but we aren't talking Wolfenstein here by any stretch.

Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed

Neither of these games had to deal with a horizon that was significantly further than the eye could see. Both titles put you in a small box and loaded other small boxes as you moved between areas. Mass Effect had framerate and mipmapping issues throughout. Assassin's Creed had plenty of issues with distance fogging to boot. I'd take Fallout 3's "inferior" graphics to the absolutely mind-numbingly stupid lack of an ending in AC though.

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

I pose this question on top. If you have played it, did you stop rubbing preconceived hate on it long enough to enjoy it? All the hate in the world won't make that rocket ship spinning the world logo appear on the box.

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.

We got no such treatment. F3 arrived in a plain envelope like any of the other titles I get. It wasn't the CE or the Survivor Edition either. Just the normal game in a bag. No special instructions beyond the embargo date of Tuesday at Midnight.

The graphics are shit.

Ok hot shot. In what way would you improve them?

Is it like a laser sword or something?

What weapon is that? I've not seen that yet.

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.

Couldn't have said it better.

There's no weight to your actions.

Are you playing the same game as the rest of us? You don't feel like:
[spoiler:783be3c177] nuking an entire town of people has a lasting effect? You don't think selling a kid into slavery has an effect? You don't think brokering a deal between the blood cult and the humans in Arefu rather than just slaughtering them wholesale has an effect? [/spoiler:783be3c177]

Here's a few slides of what resulted from me capping the sniper above megaton in the head.

Great physics.

That'd be a bug. Unfortunately common with the Havok engine. I've seen it in many games over the years.


I guess my point with the graphics and the gameplay in general is this - if you haven't played the game it is really hard to judge the graphics adequately. There are many areas that are pretty fantastic and there are some that are not so fantastic. I'm not going to convince any of you that this game is as great as I claim that it is if you've already made up your mind, and that wasn't my goal anyway. I guess my objective is to tell you that it isn't as bad as many of you had concluded it was over a year ago.

 

[Per]

You don't think the words "turn based" in the term "semi turn based" should be expected to hold some meaning?

You expect it to hold extraordinary meaning to the point where it magically turns it into an isometric completely 'you go, then they go' 2D game.

I do? Interesting.

Semi-turn based, exactly as I described it. The world pauses, you select stuff, then the world unpauses.

Congratulations, you just described real time with pause. Exactly.

 

[Brother None]

You expect it to hold extraordinary meaning to the point where it magically turns it into an isometric completely 'you go, then they go' 2D game. It isn't going to happen, and arguing the meaning of 'is' isn't going to suddenly make it so. Semi-turn based, exactly as I described it. The world pauses, you select stuff, then the world unpauses. Semi. Not completely. It's not confusing, you just want it to be something it'll never be.

Actually, the choice of words is confusing, if you ask me.

Turn-based is defined primarily by the fact that the world is split into sides (individual NPCs in Fallout) and no one side can move simultaneously. That's the very clear, uncut definition of turn-based.

I don't really see how you can semi that. The only thing that comes conceptually close is phase based, where the sides turn from individual marks to group marks.

Pseudo might be a better term, but the odd thing here is that we already have a term for this kind of combat: Real-Time with Pause. RTwP has been the agreed-upon, used term for this since Baldur's Gate and it clicks with gamers as they immediately recognize it for what it is (the big advantage of agreed-upon, long-used terms). Why not use it?

Best it probably could be with the tech we have right now? Probably closer to that mark.

If it's the best possible, why does it look worse than - say - BioShock or FarCry 2. Based on videos, note, not playthrough.

If you have played it, did you stop rubbing preconceived hate on it long enough to enjoy it?

Dunno. Who cares? This is just a bunch of guys on a forum, our opinion is our own prerogative.

How many journalists do you think went into this game as unbiased as they could? How many even cared about having a clear, even judgement?

 

[GamingTrend]

Pseudo might be a better term, but the odd thing here is that we already have a term for this kind of combat: Real-Time with Pause. RTwP has been the agreed-upon, used term for this since Baldur's Gate and it clicks with gamers as they immediately recognize it for what it is (the big advantage of agreed-upon, long-used terms). Why not use it?

Never heard that term before right this very moment. I could have compared it with KOTOR or Baldur's Gate, but neither came to mind when I was writing.

If it's the best possible, why does it look worse than - say - BioShock or FarCry 2. Based on videos, note, not playthrough.

This one is pretty easy. Unreal Tournament III and Crysis sold poorly despite looking absolutely phenomenal. Many folks I talked to simply couldn't run the game smoothly. UT3 was fairly hollow and backwards to boot (no real innovation in the last decade) but many folks just didn't have the rig to run the Unreal 3 engine. Same with the Crytek engine, but even worse. You have to strike a balance. I do think the comparison to Bioshock is similar to previous examples though as it is compartmentalized and horizon-limited. FarCry 2 is far closer as you can go as far as the eye can see.

Dunno. Who cares? This is just a bunch of guys on a forum, our opinion is our own prerogative.

True. Just having a lively discussion.

How many journalists do you think went into this game as unbiased as they could? How many even cared about having a clear, even judgement?

Not many. I purposely avoided everything but what I wrote about at E3. I knew nothing going in. One thing I have to commend my writing team for is that they all adhere to the standards we've built - you can say something is the best game ever made, but you damned well better be able to quantify why. You can say something is absolutely horrible, but you better be able to back it with more than "cuz I said so". I can think of a lot of games over the years that I've reviewed that were fantastic and would have been AAA massive sellers, if it weren't for the bugs that plagued them. Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura immediately comes to mind.