FO3 engine, new art

Macaco said:
So Phil, what would make a game look impressive to you? doom 3 sure isn't, it's all just bump-mapping and shaders, nothing new...
I never said Doom 3 impressed me :wink:
When they first started releasing beta screens of Doom 3 a few years ago I was impressed, but now its just old news.

Big_T_UK said:
That's really something of a moot point given how long Bethesda have taken to make past games. If I'm not mistaken, Morrowind took something like six years.
Then again, they've already produced some "in game" style artwork for it, so it may end up being quicker than that.
At any rate, it'll be a while yet, so you may well have upgraded by then. It will also not be ground breaking by then.
Same thing with Doom 3, when they first released screens it was "OMG awesome!", but by the time it got released it was "meh, thats OK". Except these graphics are pretty much standard now, so what are people going to say if its released even 3 years later? And just because they released screens doesnt mean they are close to finishing, look at HL2 for example, they had screens out 3 years ago and it still hasnt "gone gold" yet.
 
So, Phil, what you're getting to is that you're only impressed by particularly fancy pre-release screenshots? I usually like much better to look at a game (and judge its looks) while playing, but that could just be me.
 
Macaco said:
So, Phil, what you're getting to is that you're only impressed by particularly fancy pre-release screenshots? I usually like much better to look at a game (and judge its looks) while playing, but that could just be me.
How did you come by this conclusion? If you read my post you would have seen the part where i said "When they first started releasing beta screens of Doom 3 a few years ago I was impressed, but now its just old news". To spell it out for you: when they first showed screens i liked it because it had high quality lighting, seemed scary, and looked realistic, but now all that is pretty much standard.
 
Okay here it is:

Don't mess with the recipes of Fallout 2 and 1. (BOS might be a stretch) but don't ever endorse 3D. Because half the time the company will spend it's dollars on looks and not where it counts, the story and the detail.

I don't want another Morrowind, I don't want a post apocalyptic GTA I don't want 3D period. Nowadays everyone is hyped on the look and not on the detail and the story and the freedom that came from Fallout 1 and 2 (possibly BOS).

I repeat, do not back 3D for fallout, it'll only turn around and give you a swift kick in the crotch while wisking 40 (game buying) dollars away from your wallet.
 
Just my tought, but i think this mt739402 guy should be moderated, he just went through some unrelated threads saying some random filler and then jumping to the whole tired down 2D-3D thing, no matter how irrelevant it was on the present topic.
 
mt739402: For Fallout to get good sales numbers there has to be something new and innovative. If there isnt somehing new that attracts new fans the game will flop.

For example what homeworld did for the RTS Genre.

This can be both a good and a bad thing, i guess time will tell.
 
I guess, when the finished product comes we can all pass judgment... But so far, doesn't look too shabby.
 
I also have silent storm, but compared to fallout it is still lightyears away from it's quality. Plus I think 2D is the only way Bethesda can actually create anything close to Fallout 2's detail.

And for homeworld, well yes I have homeworld and homeworld cataclysm and I've played them to the bone, but I felt each successive "innovative installments" seemed to get worse.

For example, you can not have an unlimited unit setting for the random missions in cataclysm (while you could in the first homeworld) then they simplified homeworld 2 and now it bites. I heard reviews that because of homeworld 2 tried to be innovative (graphics wise, i mean I can't deny that the graphics were gorgeous but they sacrificed the complexity for graphics) it probably had to sacrifice the whole setting of "moving in a 3D space" which was the selling point of the first homeworld.
 
You do realise the same level of detail was obtained by the engine beeing used to make Van Buren? Check those pics, and the pics from Troikas new engine, you`ll see plenty of detail there. Homeworld was pretty and 3d, but from day one they placed the paths one could use in a less freeform way for gameplay reasons, not technology limitations.
 
I wasnt talking about Homeworld2 or graphics!
I was talking about adding something new to the genre "like homeworlds 3 dimensional combat did for the RTS genre".
 
Well, Oblivion looks really impressive - considerably more impressive than Van Buren, if I may say so. The presence of horses and armored knights in the pictures pleases me much - the weird creatures and landscapes of Morrowind were one of the main reasons why I never particularly loved the game. Yes, I can already tell I will spend many happy hours with The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

I think it is safe to say that graphical side of Fallout 3 will be near perfect if they use this engine. Any ignorant twit that thinks 3D graphics equates lack of detail will get his reality check with these gorgeous pictures. This is not 1997, people. We have come a long way from P5 166 MMX and Matrox Mystique, and Fallout will finally get visual representation it deserves.

Gameplay and setting are another thing, of course, and I would prefer not to delve into those issues yet. Bethesda's plans in that respect will be revealed soon enough, and one does not need to be a priestess of Delphi to know that we will be more or less disappointed.
 
This reminds me of an argument about Source vs. Unreal Engine 3.

By the time Bethesda's Fallout 3 is released, we may already see screenshots of Unreal3.

It will be a completely new generation, I shall wait for the actual games to decide if I am impressed. The graphics were nice, but I find it hard to be impressed by a few screenshots these days. That said, the Unreal Engine 3 screens were mind-blowing. :D
 
The Unreal 3 engine is not all that impressive. The character models have about 10 times the number of polygons then would EVER be allowed in an actual game. Everything in the Unreal 3 engine pictures are things that look good, but are not even possible to do in a game if you want it to run at higher then 10 FPS on the greatest of PC's. Until I see an INGAME screenshot using the Unreal 3 engine, im not convinced.
 
Yeah, it would be hard playing Fallout any other way other then Isometric view and of course, SPECIAL.....
 
I think that 3D may do a lot of good to Fallout, let's just look at the screens from Van Buren or think that all sprites from Fallout 1 & 2 were pre-rendered. That only opens new, great possibilities.
I also understand those who think Fallout will lose on 3D. An example: people. On F1&F2 most of them we could call "a person", maybe also tell if he's poor or armed. It goes into imagination, like reading books, where some things are not exact. I can't imagine that Bethesda will createthousands of faces telling their own story by scars, skin, etc.
That's my opinion, I may think slightly different than others ;)
 
3D wont be bad, but the camera should be fixed to an iso viewpoint.

Actualy, VB was 3D and some of the test screencaps (especily the vault) give me an erection just thinking of them.
 
the vault? to be entirely honest, the vault screenshot disapointed me :?

It didn't have the right feel to it, I can't really put my finger on it, maybe because it was all just textured...? I dunno... also, the layout of the vault was completely wrong, but for all I know maybe it wasn't a standard vault tech vault :wink:
 
According to the interview with the FO3 project manager, the above linked picture is an ingame screenshot, IOW, that's what it looks like IN the game as you are playing. Nice.
 
Ok, to be honest I never played anything that Bethesda made. I have heard reviews on the net. My point is that I want to say straight out that I am basing some of my opinion here on limited info.

That said.....

If it really took Bethesda 6 years to make Morrowind then that shows me that they have commitment, even if they would spend half that time making Fallout it would be more than I have hoped for. (and so much more than we were ever even promised)
Also, given the generally good reviews I have heard about Morrowind, here and elswhere, shows me that they have the skill to create a good game.
Thirdly, most importantly I have heard that Morrowind maintains the tradition of the elder scrolls serries very well (no first hand experience but rather what I have read on the net, I have always been meaning play them to but never got around to it), which shows me that these people are able to tap into the legacy of an old game serries and create a good successor. This last point is probably most important since we have been so disappointed before by games which had no apparent clue, other that sticking a few burnt vehicles in odd places, and generally introducing ideas not congruent with the previous games (hairy deathclaws anyone?).

Anyways, my overall conclusion is that this may be our break.

To get back to the screen shots, I think they look good. I do wish that the game will live up to that potential. I would like to point out, however, that as important as graphics seem to be today, Fallout was never really about the slick graphics. The graphics of Fallout were always about the atmosphere they created in conjunction with the music. I think we were all enamoured, and to a large extent we still are, with how great the game looked not because the graphics were so cutting edge, but rather because of the care, and thought, and artistic talent it took to create such an original setting with the tools they had. My point is that I could not care less if in three years, or however long, FO3 comes out and the engine used to create it will no longer be top of the line. I will care how that engine is used in acuratelly conveying experience of being in the FO universe.

I would also like to say that if you had talked to me three, four years ago I would have ripped you a new one for suggesting that FO3 should be made in 3D. Unfortunately FO3 never materialized and it is now what.... 6 years later? Well, technology has advanced, ad as much as I liked the 2D in the previous FO games, I must admit that it now seems perfectly plausible to reproduce the dusty, nasty atmosphere of nuclear decay and war that is so necessary to FO, in 3D. Even the HL engine, which is about six years old too, seems capable of conveying that "feel" of Fallout.(as so many people here seem to vehemently believe given the ever-present wasteland project)

Lastly I hope that they do not lock the view. I like being able to set the view to my own preference. I am well aware of the isometric view that was such a trademark of the FO series, I played FO when it was just a month old and the patches were still being updated, but I would like to be able to zoom in.

I think that there is a real danger that if too many things are kept exactly the same then it will not feel like a new game but rather a half-assed expansion, or mod to FO2, and we will all be here again complaining how somebody has tried to rape a good game world for some easy cash.
 
Back
Top