Gametrailers.com videos

[Outbreak]

I was relatively happy with the vids until the ice skating (WTF!?)

I noticed that too. I caught it during the 3rd person perspective in one of the previous videos, but hoped it was limited to the player. Obviously not. At this point though, it's become painfully apparent that whoever makes up Beth's animation/movement department (for the most part) doesn't know what the hell they're doing.

The lack of damage reaction was the other item I agree is very poor. The only thing that saves that bit for me is that I think they always react when hit with a VATS shot. I've seen quite a few animations that pop up solely when VATS is used, both by the player and how the enemy reacts. I'll be using that as much as possible anyway since I prefer turn-based.

I still enjoyed the team aspect with the BOS though, and quite enjoyed the atmosphere in the underground as well. Even though the game as a whole might look behind the times, I still like the design, artwork and general feel. Voices are doing well for me too, but we'll see how repetitive some of them become on the field.

 

[raunchy]

fallout 3 should have been the game to push and break boundaries like the first two (esp. 1) did, maybe we can get this modded properly.

 

[Grimhound]

The no recoil on the SMG makes my head hurt. Lazy lazy lazy.

 

[Mr Maigo]

It looks like Bioshock! Aren't there like 2 more games coming out that kind of styling? Just playing Bioshock made me tired of retro. Fallout was never THAT retro. Not everything was the Chrysler Building. Kinda want to cancel my preorder now

what they're telling us about the game in interviews etc is that it's a deep rpg with choices and consequences, moral dilemmas, nonlinear storylines and stat-dependant combat.

but all they ever show us is pure action. every single video and the majority of screenshots they released are all about the action and the violence. they seem to have put a lot of effort into making the game look like another Gears of War or futuristic Call of Duty.

Yes but how do you SHOW it's an deep RPG in screen shots? Just show dialog boxes? Just saying.

 

[Outbreak]

Yes but how do you SHOW it's an deep RPG in screen shots? Just show dialog boxes? Just saying.

I think it might have been interesting to have a trailer that simply follows one minor quest, including dialog, all the way to the end with small notes on differing choices that could have been made. I know more mainstream folks might find this boring, but since there ARE so many combat related trailers, having one more focused on the intelligence aspect seems reasonable. They don't have to choose anything that would spoil anything important.

 

[Dionysus]

I think your totally right Aenemic about BS not knowing what type of game to make, and I think this damaged both the FPS and the RPG aspects of the game. FO3 seems like a mediocre FPS and a horrible RPG to me.

Well, comparing apples to apples, if you've played Vampire: Bloodlines or System Shock 2, how would you compare Fallout 3 to those (obviously we haven't played it yet, but from the parts you can compare)?

I haven't played it yet, but the combat looks like it stacks up very well against other action/RPGs. The area-specific damage alone puts it over Bloodlines or SS2. If it tops Deus Ex, then it will have better combat than any ARPG that I've played.

 

[Leon]

The area-specific damage alone puts it over Bloodlines or SS2.

You're entitled to your opinion, as much as I wish you weren't.

 

[rcorporon]

Bleh... as far as shooters go, it seems pretty mediocre. In terms of an RPG, who knows since Beth only shows us combat.

Looks like it'll be fun to blow shit up for a few hours, and the get some trade in at EB.

 

[Dionysus]

The area-specific damage alone puts it over Bloodlines or SS2.

You're entitled to your opinion, as much as I wish you weren't.

I don't see a big debate here. Bloodlines and SS2 are fine games, but the combat in FO3 looks better to me. In terms of combat, what are the advantages of Bloodlines and SS2?

 

[Leon]

In terms of combat, what are the advantages of Bloodlines and SS2?

They require skill and a modicum of strategy.

 

[Moving Target]

Let's lay off the noob, 'kay everyone? Not like the hivemind that is NMA (*giggle*) needs any more bad rep. And this isn't constructive. I mean, we've got a good number of posters here who began as *ardent* Fallout 3 defenders, and are now, if not fully convinced that the game's going to be bad, are at least much closer to middle of the road than they were when they got here. Flaming and trolling gets us nowhere.

That said: Dionysus, I REALLY disagree with your assessment that area-specific damage makes Fallout 3's combat better than SS2 or Bloodines. It looks to be implemented very poorly- I mean, come on, "Crippled torso?" "Crippled head?" These things don't make any sense, and it would have made more sense if Bethsoft hadn't included them at all.

Besides, the only reason that stuff is there in the first place is for VATS- which itself was only there as an attempted bone-throw to the old fans "Look, it's turn-based. It stops and you can aim and it's got percentages and everything!" Nope. Real-time with Pause.

 

[Plissken]

Looks like a fun FPS. I'm going to miss turn-based combat and everything about the classic Fallout's but I'm ready for some FPS roXorz action, just wishing they didn't use the Fallout world. I'm getting the collectors. Want that lunch-box.

 

[Casual Gamer]

In terms of combat, what are the advantages of Bloodlines and SS2?

They require skill and a modicum of strategy.

How many more strategic considerations did Fallout have than Fallout 3? I'm thinking back and all I can remember are:

Get good equipment.
Make sure your party members don't burst you in the back.
Target shots at specific body parts.

What am I missing, and which of these does F3 lack?

As much as it's touted here, Fallout's combat (while fun) wasn't really Kasparov vs. Deep Blue. The most "strategic" fight I ever had in any of the Fallout's was killing Metzger without an NPC, and that felt less like strategy than quick-save/re-load grind.

 

[Leon]

In terms of combat, what are the advantages of Bloodlines and SS2?

They require skill and a modicum of strategy.

How many more strategic considerations did Fallout...

Whoopsie-daisy! A simple mistake, but Bloodlines and System Shock 2 were the topic of that little tangent. If you were trying to introduce the classic Fallouts into this, then I concede to your point save for the fact that you had to plan out the use of your action points to ensure that you (or others) don't get plastered, which made some situations very tense. Fallout 2 was much more forgiving than its predecessor, though.

Fallout 3 doesn't have this element, and VATS is a poor replacement.



Anyways, I agree with everything Moving Target said.

Except for that giggle.

 

[Dionysus]

In terms of combat, what are the advantages of Bloodlines and SS2?

They require skill and a modicum of strategy.

Are you just talking about difficulty? Bloodlines was incredibly simple in my experience. SS2 was harder, but FO3 should have a difficulty slider that you can adjust to your preference.

Dionysus, I REALLY disagree with your assessment that area-specific damage makes Fallout 3's combat better than SS2 or Bloodines. It looks to be implemented very poorly- I mean, come on, "Crippled torso?" "Crippled head?" These things don't make any sense, and it would have made more sense if Bethsoft hadn't included them at all.

I don't think any of these games are particularly helped by an appeal to realism. If they have some sort of interesting status effect tied to a torso or head injury, then that makes for solid gameplay IMO. It's not like we are talking about a huge abstraction anyway. Your head could get crippled, right?

Besides, the only reason that stuff is there in the first place is for VATS- which itself was only there as an attempted bone-throw to the old fans "Look, it's turn-based. It stops and you can aim and it's got percentages and everything!" Nope. Real-time with Pause.

Well, you can do area-specific damage without VATS. But even so, I don't think that VATS detracts from the strategy in FO3. In fact, the ability to pause time and select a specific body part from a specific target seems to enhance the strategic nature of combat.

 

[Goral]

(...)
As much as it's touted here, Fallout's combat (while fun) wasn't really Kasparov vs. Deep Blue. The most "strategic" fight I ever had in any of the Fallout's was killing Metzger without an NPC, and that felt less like strategy than quick-save/re-load grind.

Firstly - Fallout wasn't FPS, secondly Fallout was out 11 years ago. Don't you think it's pathetic defending this game using argument "b...but, previous Fallouts had totally unrealistic combat as well". Obviously not.

As for the videos, since I don't want to repeat already mentioned idiocies I'll make only one remark. Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've seen only once player had to fight (alone) more than 1 enemy at the same time (two ghouls).

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Didn't hear any comentary on the videos linked nor their HD counter parts.

Also, I can take screencaps, just need to know where to post/upload them. Should I just upload them to a seperate image host and let you guys take them from there?

Trench Warfare:
I like the look of the rocket launcher and it's explosion, though I still don't like enemies not gibbing and don't know why they changed what the rocket launcher looks like.

Combat music isn't the right tempo for the combat and certainly not Fallout.

Saw the first super mutant that looked like an orc (never saw the resemblance before), one in full armor with a helmet.

I think the trenches are supposed to be the sewer but I don't see it, it really looks like combat trenches.

Underground:
VATS shows that it lasts too long when he shotguns the ghoul in the face and has the second one reach him as the animation finishes up (lasts longer than the interval between shots).

Ghouls move really damn fast.

Plasma pistol looks very steampunk and the green beam with lumps looks odd. The death animation would make much more sense if the plasma stuck to enemies before they died (or at least just turned the spot hit to goo when it kills them), as is it looks incredibly unnatural.

Museum:
Liked the recording in the starroom (know it has a name but I can't think of it) but it was way too quiet so I'm not sure how good it was.

Plasma rifle is super steampunk looking.

Glad to see an enemy get a crippled limb without dying.

Plasma death for the supermutant with the green goo looked really bad in VATS, again because it looks entirely unnatural (like the gun had a super shot).

BoS:
First I heard Lyon's voice, thought it was alright, not so sure it sounds like a military leader.

Rollerskates is right, that's just terrible. It's like they only have walking strafing animations and use it for every speed

BoS AI looks terrible.

We already know that the Laser Rifle looks steampunk but I thought I'd mention it again (though it's not nearly as bad as the Plasma weapons).

Suprised the Laser doesn't have a more dramatic killing animation (like making a hole/going through the enemy).

The "On my mark. Go!" was alright except that there was no pause.

The pathfinding makes the movement animations look even worse (noticed when the BoS ran around the corner and out the door).

The "To arms brothers! To arms!" was terrible. Whoever said it only belongs in fantasy was dead on but at the very least, it only makes sense when they are getting ambushed or actually need to get their weapons (attack on a base). In the middle of combat it just sounds bad, I'd argue in any context.

The voice acting was pretty bad throughout.

Mid air explosion for the Fat Man looks terrible.

Wow, I've been talking to people over at Gametrailers, and we all pretty much think this is a contender for Game of the Year. It's a pretty stark contrast from what is being said here.

What about it excels? What about it falls short? Added together, where does this land in comparison to other games (make comparisons)?

- enemies standing in exposed spaces or charging forward
- ancient 'barrel' cars that don't provide cover but explode

I don't think it would be possible to have a highly advanced shooter-like AI and RPG gamesystem rules rolled into a single, satisfiable experience. If the enemy was "too smart" you would never get the chance to employ your character's skills, but would instead have to resort to your own skills at FPS combat.

I think the way to do it is have skill requirements to use certain weapons (kind of like stat requirements in a lot of rougelike [Diablo] RPGs) but otherwise have standard combat. I still like the idea of VATS only combat though (make it turnbased or RTwP).

And the environment, it seems as if it was bombed to bits yesterday. Berlin 1945 comes to mind.

Yep and it's been a noted problem in many of the prerelease screenshots and videos.

oh, lookie there, is this an interplay logo? i'm impressed!

In-universe, it's also Galaxy News logo.

I like it! Nice nod to Fallout.

I really dislike the tick marks on the interface...solid bars or numbers would be easier to read.

Indeed. Personally I prefer numbers but the ticks really aren't the best for health, especially when they are the same colour as the rest of the interface.

"Im concered about the gameplay ive never seen the vat system in the game miss and if its so effective that playing normaly is wasteful it may make the game boring and slow paced"

I've also noticed that VATS never seems to miss but I really need to watch more of the unedited footage to be sure.

In terms of combat, what are the advantages of Bloodlines and SS2?

They require skill and a modicum of strategy.

Too be fair, it looks like it has better combat than VtM:B but that's like saying that someone can move better than Steven Hawkings.

In terms of combat, what are the advantages of Bloodlines and SS2?

They require skill and a modicum of strategy.

How many more strategic considerations did Fallout have than Fallout 3? I'm thinking back and all I can remember are:

Get good equipment.
Make sure your party members don't burst you in the back.
Target shots at specific body parts.

What am I missing, and which of these does F3 lack?

As much as it's touted here, Fallout's combat (while fun) wasn't really Kasparov vs. Deep Blue. The most "strategic" fight I ever had in any of the Fallout's was killing Metzger without an NPC, and that felt less like strategy than quick-save/re-load grind.

Fallout's combat left a lot of room for strategic improvement (Tactics did decently improving in this areas) but I'd add in that cover was significantly more useful (step out, shoot, step back).

Dionysus, I REALLY disagree with your assessment that area-specific damage makes Fallout 3's combat better than SS2 or Bloodines. It looks to be implemented very poorly- I mean, come on, "Crippled torso?" "Crippled head?" These things don't make any sense, and it would have made more sense if Bethsoft hadn't included them at all.

I don't think any of these games are particularly helped by an appeal to realism. If they have some sort of interesting status effect tied to a torso or head injury, then that makes for solid gameplay IMO. It's not like we are talking about a huge abstraction anyway. Your head could get crippled, right?

It's a bit rediculous and the previous games handled it better with different areas having different effects and only certain areas being cripplable.

Besides, the only reason that stuff is there in the first place is for VATS- which itself was only there as an attempted bone-throw to the old fans "Look, it's turn-based. It stops and you can aim and it's got percentages and everything!" Nope. Real-time with Pause.

Well, you can do area-specific damage without VATS. But even so, I don't think that VATS detracts from the strategy in FO3. In fact, the ability to pause time and select a specific body part from a specific target seems to enhance the strategic nature of combat.

The point was simply that the only reason that area specific damage is in is because they felt it was a needed bone to throw to old fans (which I'd agree with). That said, he seems to be going off topic to ramble about it being RTwP and not TB (to be fair, it's constantly refered to wrong). I'd agree that it's better than not having area specific damage but the first two games had better and more strategic area specific damage.

 

[hakunin]

Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I repeat someone. (However I will call you lame for repeating stuff that I said. Hypocrisy is my middle name.)

It seems that the biggest problem with Fallout 3 is not in dialogs, combat system, perspective, not even in voice acting, or any other detail like that. The problem is becoming apparent if you recall the recent top of most mature games, where Fallout 2 took the 8th place. Maturity. Maturity causes atmosphere, immersion; maturity causes things to make sense.

It looks as if the devs at Bethesda never actually tried to imagine what would happen in this kind of world. Why would they infest the game with interchangeable mutant enemies dressed like knights, yelling "there you are" and "i see you" kinda stuff? Wouldn't everyone be trying to survive in this world, wouldn't it be unreasonable for every creature out there to jump under a gun? There was something about original Fallout that suggested creators' intimate understanding of how things would be.

In essence, in original Fallout there was no eagerness to fight. It had a laid back feeling, nobody was an "evil monster chasing you". Developers understood that in any kind of reality people would be caring for their lives, adopting philosophies that get them through, etc. Everybody had to have a good reason to fight. In Fallout 1/2 if something or someone is attacking you, there better be a good story to back up their actions. Nobody was specifically positioned there to wait for you as you wonder through the desert. You're just a traveler, nobody cares. Sometimes you encounter other travelers. Sometimes they happen to be robbers. That's all. Unless they're a wild animal of course - then they'll just fight immediately. In Fallout 3 on the other hand, creatures fight because they're in the game, and because it's fun for the player. They're kinda scattered throughout the map awaiting for you to approach. That ruins everything.

And consider what they yell during fights in originals. Their captions are more humorous and selfless than bethesda's. Only an evil hero in comics would be yelling "there you are!" , making roars and shooting. Most real intelligent humanoids would be concentrating on not dying next second.

In fallout it's not killing countless interchangeable ghouls and mutants in repetitive locations that makes you a hero. In fact fallout doesn't even try to make a hero out of you. You're just a person on their way, doing their thing. Your main achievement is survival, not whacking countless enemies. Fallout didn't try to impress teenagers.

Meh.

Edit:
One more thing I wanted to bring up. The fact that Fallout 3 is taking place on the east coast changes a lot too. The deserts of the west in original Fallouts carried a strong unavoidable feeling of solitude, contributed to by elements like canyons, empty spaces, desert winds, the sense of condemnation in the middle of radioactive nowhere. If anyone here have ever hiked places like Utah, Arizona, Oregon and Washington states, you guys would know what I mean.

 

[Dionysus]

It's a bit rediculous and the previous games handled it better with different areas having different effects and only certain areas being cripplable.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. If you are familiar with contact sports, then you are probably familiar with cracked ribs and concussions. You can get debilitating torso and head injuries that don't kill you.

The point was simply that the only reason that area specific damage is in is because they felt it was a needed bone to throw to old fans (which I'd agree with). That said, he seems to be going off topic to ramble about it being RTwP and not TB (to be fair, it's constantly refered to wrong). I'd agree that it's better than not having area specific damage but the first two games had better and more strategic area specific damage.

It's obviously a reference to the old games, but it's also a way to add some depth to the combat. I'm not going to compare it to the first two because they are so different, but it does look better than most ARPGs that I've played.

 

[harmless_pickpocket]

I'm gonna make the Disco-Stu mod. Everybody wears a white suit, has violet shades an afro haircut and rollerskates. And the radiostations will be playing Bee Gees.