Gametrailers.com videos

[ookami]

Ghouls move really damn fast.

No kidding. Where the hell did the DC ghouls come from? Were they all on the Olympic sprinters team before the war?

Well, I guess that's what comes of a stupid concept like feral ghouls. As far as hostiles go, they should have just stuck to the shambling ghouls (as in Necropolis in FO) about which you're never sure when walking too close, and the crazies (areas mostly around Gecko in FO2) who weren't mindless/feral but were hostile and some did have guns. These quick, agile ghouls just don't fit their established physiology and it just looks stupid. Turned something interesting into just another brainless monster.

Looks like another case of Bethesda taking things too far to the opposite end.

 

[jonnymstgt]

Just watched the first gameplay video. Oh man, it looks like that minigun acts as a hitpoints decreaser beam instead of a minigun with bullets, that`s just boring to watch. Even if i watch it without the Fallout background it`s not the kind of FPS which i would like to play. It`s really funny to read those comments "looks awesome", i just don`t get it. I never liked ragdoll physics, i mean the name already says they are for "physics" not for animations, maybe after you have applied real death animations then you should think about using "physics".

I think there is little to say other than that it is Oblivion with guns. But I still don't know about how bad that evolution is. Specially because I don't know how Fallout would have "evolved" in 2008.

As far as the ragdoll physics for example. I need to remit to the fact that who out there is giving you great "physics" in regards to death scenes for example. Not to mention the fact that in FO1 or FO2 or even an FO3 this would not even be up to discussion.

My take has always been over and over that I see a lot of complaining on FO3 based on what Bethesda has done but not on what the series would have evolved to.

To complain about death scenes or for example, some complaining about the minigun cartridges not falling to the ground, I mean I am always quick to wit to think wait a moment, did we have that in FO1 or 2?

The series evolved. Interplay droped the ball when it went arcade (console) instead of PC.

For all the trash that one can lair on FO3, the fact of the matter still remains that first person perspective was the way to go in the future and there are a lot of kinks to fix. But RPG's going first person is a normal progression of gaming.

Look I grew up with MOOS playing them in a UNIX terminal. Back then doing e,e,w,s was an example of progressing by going East, East, West, South. Then you came into a room with the ice giant and you just hit h to hit. I saw games develop and change. I also understand the nostalgia of such games much as I understand the nostalgia of FO2, X-UFO and Ultima VII Serpent Isle. But those games are gone as well as that style of play.

The new offerings have us do RPG in first person perspective. I would be the first one to sign up to play, specially Ultima VII Serpent Isle, in first person perspective.

But I do realize this is gone and I do realize that when I still fire up FO2 there are speed runs that finish the game in half an hour and even FO1 there are speed runs that finish the game in less than 10 mins.

So the games are not perfect. They were never meant to be perfect, they were meant to give you some sort of atmosphere and thrill of experiencing such a world.

I will give FO3 world a chance. For the simple reason that I don't see anyone out there offering a chance to experience something like this.

In a world that is now all about MMO's with a bunch of kids running around or having to spend 20 hours a day in order to join a "guild" to experience anything.

I am one who bails out and am glad that there are companies who still give a damn about those who want to go at it alone. At their own pace.

For all of you who hate this game I have no idea what you will be playing. Defintely not FO2, not for the 20th time. The witcher? Or maybe waiting for Fable 2?

I choose to play this game because it is what it has always been. A failed attempt at reality that nevertheless is the best thing we got out there.

That is my take.


As an edit, if you happen to notice the moderator Wooz has decided to give me a Strike 2, he already gave me a Strike 1. I will like to say that I do not understand why we have moderators here who are obviously so partisan that they hate and want to remove those who have a different opinion to what they believe. I will bear my second strike with pride having it given by Wooz and I will problaby soon receive the 3rd one. But it is good that you all ask yourselves, what good is a moderator that uses censure to halt people from expressing their thoughts and uses that power to ban them? Ask yourselves that and of course, god forbid, don't fall into the trap on ever saying anything that a partisan moderator might think is not correct. Or else you will be banned.

My last question remains. Why Wooz did you decide to give me a second or maybe third strike based on anything I have posted. If you give me an example of where I have offended either you or this forum, I would appreciate it.

 

[Sander]

To complain about death scenes or for example, some complaining about the minigun cartridges not falling to the ground, I mean I am always quick to wit to think wait a moment, did we have that in FO1 or 2?

No, because there were no cartridges at all.
The point is that cartridges appearing, and then suddenly disappearing is jarring. If there had been no cartridges at all, no one would've complained.

The series evolved. Interplay droped the ball when it went arcade (console) instead of PC.

No, Interplay never went console with the series, only with a spin-off. That's a very fundamental difference.

For all the trash that one can lair on FO3, the fact of the matter still remains that first person perspective was the way to go in the future and there are a lot of kinks to fix. But RPG's going first person is a normal progression of gaming.

Ehm, no it isn't.
In fact, there were first-person RPGs a long time before Fallout. Moreover, the isometric perspective was invented much, much later than a first-person perspective.
This isn't 'evolution' in the slightest. It's simply change.

There's also no reason to assume that this is somehow necessary change. Yes, it's necessary change if you want to turn the game into an action RPG/Shooter. But it isn't if you want to keep the game true to its roots as a P&P style RPG.
There's also no evidence that an isometric game won't sell. Hell, CIV IV is still one of the most popular games out there. That's certainly isometric.
THere's nothing wrong with the viewpoint that automatically disqualifies it, no matter how often you repeat it.

 

[aenemic]

I just cancelled my pre-order. I'm till going to play this game on release date, but I'm not giving Bethesda $99.00 for something that looks like that.

I hope that means that you are going to be renting it and not that you are going to pirate it. If you dislike what you have seen of the game then don't buy it but to say that you dislike the game but will still play it because you don't want to give your money to Bethesda is a pretty lame excuse.

It's like saying that I hate how horrible the slushies taste at my local store so I am not going to pay for it when I steal one to drink it.

I haven't decided what to do yet, but I can assure you that I don't like downloading. all I know is I'm not going to spend $99.00 to play the game. I live in Sweden and had the CE on pre-order from the states (it wasn't available for pre-order here at that time). I still want that lunch box though. I might just end up getting the CE from here instead, but not before I've played the game and made sure I don't completely hate it.

 

[Wooz]

I don't get this lunchbox frenzy.

Maybe I should start making leet custom lunchboxes and selling them over the 'net.

 

[aenemic]

To complain about death scenes or for example, some complaining about the minigun cartridges not falling to the ground, I mean I am always quick to wit to think wait a moment, did we have that in FO1 or 2?

No, because there were no cartridges at all.
The point is that cartridges appearing, and then suddenly disappearing is jarring. If there had been no cartridges at all, no one would've complained.

actually, there's a reload animation when your a character is holding an SMG with a cartridge that disappears in mid-air.

I don't get this lunchbox frenzy.

Maybe I should start making leet custom lunchboxes and selling them over the 'net.

yeah, why not? it's not about it being the Fallout 3 by Bethesda lunchbox. I simply like the design of it. and being a huge Fallout fan, it bothers me that I have no Fallout-related collectibles whatsoever.

it's more like I'm unsure if I want to get the lunchbox by buying the CE because the money goes straight to Bethesda. if I can get it another way, I'd prefer that.

 

[Pope Viper]

Thing is Wooz, yours would be worthwhile.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

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?

I don't think SS2 or Bloodlines let you stand out in the open and slowly walk directly towards your enemy until he was shredded.

What, are tactics another thing that was too annoying Todd?

 

[jonnymstgt]

No. But they did and that is what I am trying to tell you. You must realize that animation was not even an issue in FO2 or even its derivative which was Van Buren. Play it again, play it again, play it again, play FO2 again and tell me how the minigun perspective from an ISO perspective is somehow richer than what you see now.

Interplay did go console with the series BOS and went bankrupt. They had a share of resources and decided that a lewd Fallout game for adults would make money for a console. They were wrong and lost.

First person is the way to go only for the reason that computers got stronger and could deal with more. That is it. In a few years from now you will be putting on helmets and experience 3d but you have to understand that back then a 3 disk floppy or one CD was way way incredible. I know, because I remember it.

Back then it was not a question of whether CD's would work, it was a question of is that CD Drive working, have you connected that CD drive.

You see, a lot of the perspective of this game has a lot to do with those that forget what it was to enjoy such a game years ago. Not even years ago to be honest, we can actually say decades.

It's not as easy as you think.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

WordZ!

So you know the game will be a piece of shit and you are alright with purchasing it because every game is a piece of shit.

Why spend money on things that are bad? I'm guessing you also only watch bad movies and hate that you force yourself to.

Being a masochist is not a good reason to support shitty game companies and their crappy products.

 

[FeelTheRads]

First person is the way to go only for the reason that computers got stronger and could deal with more.

Right, and of course first-person is really so innovative and a technological improvement. Are you one of those who thinks Blizzards didn't use new technology only because Diablo 3 isn't first-person?
3D (which is not equal to first-person) could be seen as a technological advancement over 2D, although not from every angle and I have nothing against using it to its full potential. But that's exactly what incompetent developers like Bethesda aren't doing. They're doing 3D just for the sake of 3D and they're doing first-person based only on the stupid idea that first-person view is inherently more immersive than any other.

Back then it was not a question of whether CD's would work, it was a question of is that CD Drive working, have you connected that CD drive.

What? You make no sense.

 

[Sander]

No. But they did and that is what I am trying to tell you. You must realize that animation was not even an issue in FO2 or even its derivative which was Van Buren. Play it again, play it again, play it again, play FO2 again and tell me how the minigun perspective from an ISO perspective is somehow richer than what you see now.

'Richer'?
What I can tell you is that the graphics are artistically better and more cohesive.

First person is the way to go only for the reason that computers got stronger and could deal with more. That is it. In a few years from now you will be putting on helmets and experience 3d but you have to understand that back then a 3 disk floppy or one CD was way way incredible. I know, because I remember it.

Gee, I do too.
I also remember that first-person games existed long before Fallout did. Hell, I remember that Ultima Underworld series. RPG. First-person. Several years older than Fallout.

The choice for an isometric perspective back then had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with technology. It was an artistic and gameplay choice.

Likewise, the choice for a first-person perspective now isn't obligatory due to an evolution in technology.
It is perhaps obligatory because it's the only thing that retarded publishers who are flooding the market with clones of the same game will touch, but that's a whole different story.

You are acting as if technology disqualifies an isometric perspective. Civilization 4 proves you wrong.

 

[jonnymstgt]

WordZ!

So you know the game will be a piece of shit and you are alright with purchasing it because every game is a piece of shit.

Why spend money on things that are bad? I'm guessing you also only watch bad movies and hate that you force yourself to.

Being a masochist is not a good reason to support shitty game companies and their crappy products.

I take it that you have summarized the entire comments I have made with the word "Wordz!".

I think I understand your comment so far.

The other comments you have made are in regards to believing that this game is a POS and that some how I am ok with it.

I personally have no problem repeating myself and being courteous about it, unlike some moderators.

Anyways, yes I will be buying this game not because I believe that Bethesda has achieved the end all of RPG gaming but simply for the reason that there is not a single game company out there and there is not a single enterprise out there that is fulfilling your needs or my needs in regards to the ultimate experience that I would like.

So bottom line. I can stick to playing deficient games like Mass Effect or The Witcher or Fable 2. Or else I can embrace a new attempt to create an RPG environment in a post-modern world.

I am way over to be the one who decides about perfection. If that was the case, when I played King Quest (before it became female oriented) or when I played Roger Wilco on his Space Quest, I would have given up a long time ago.

I embrace non perfection because for whatever reason, so many years of experience have always told me that, doing that is worthless.

I am a veteran who is not welcomed here on this board because a moderator considers me a newbie. But I can tell you this much, I am a veteran who realizes that FO2 is not this whole pristine gem that many believe that it is. It is only a pristine gem in regards to gaming when you where there. When you where there.

When you where there 10 years ago, when you realized what was possible in your computers 10 years ago, then you can appreciate what FO2 was.

FO3 is oblivion with guns. That is what we must understand how it evolved. FO1 and FO2 are games that we will always be proud of as we get older and tell younger generations, so where the games in such a time.

Stop trying to compare them. Stop trying to ask that a 10 year old game is somehow relevant in our day and age. Just remember what these games were and apreaciate them for what they where. To ask a new generation to appreciate them is stupid.

Some wíll, some wont. But along the line one has to accept that these memories belong to us and they have moved one. Just like life should. They have moved one.

 

[PlanHex]

The planetarium looks a lot like the orrery from oblivion...

 

[FeelTheRads]

FO3 is oblivion with guns. That is what we must understand how it evolved.

It's NOT evolution. It's change... for the worse. For the worse. Can you get that? Get that?

 

[Sander]

Stop strawmanning.
No one is claiming Fallout 2(sic) is perfect, no one is claiming that Fallout 3 has to be perfect for them to like it, no one is expecting a perfect game.

All anyone wants is a Fallout 3 that follows in the footsteps of the previous 2 games. Which is quite logical when you realise that you're posting on a board filled with people who loved the original 2 games.

Also, no moderator dislikes you because you're a noob. They dislike you because you failed to read the rules that are posted in every subforum before posting. So quit your posturing as a victim and simply follow the rules.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Moar Wordz!

Ok go look up the game Doom and the Mechwarrior series. Next compare quake 3 arena to fallout 3. Next look at neverwinter nights 2. Then look at the witcher(same engine as NWN2). Finally look at Company of Heroes.

But none of this matters since you know the game sucks already. However you somehow think this is the evolution of gaming. If that is evolution than the humans of today must be the same humans a million years ago.

 

[Mane]

Fallout evolved from the GURPS game and ideas from guys who probably played on graph paper at one time or another as their introduction to gaming.

Cover wasn't something that amounted to much outside of war games and for many gamers who didn't even map out locations or have figurines it was all in your head while playing anyway.

Plus Fallout was always kind of a wild west shoot out in style till Fallout Tactics tossed in some actual military team based manuevering and tricks like coordinating fire.

But you never really played a military person until Tactics, you were like the lone gunman wandering the wastes and like a lot of shootouts in the wild west a few shots were exchanged at relatively close range and things were over. It wasn't often a situation involving prolonged firefights among long distance shooters with the ability to drop and cover. The few longer fights were often in Vaults and buildings which you were on the offensive partaking in and their's just not much to take cover behind in a hallway.

Melee was mainly important because it was important to show scarcity of ammunition and alternatives some would be forced to take in a post apocalyptic wasteland. Yeah, the Brotherhood never really had to pay attention to melee and had high tech weapons available, but your average everyday citizen was lucky to have a scavenged passed down weapon and what was he gonna do once he ran out of precious ammunition?

Tribals grew up without much technology at all and spears and such were the norm, this was far more apparent in FO2 as it took you quite awhile to get any firearm at all and the first one you typically came across was a crappy makeshift pipe gun.

There just wasn't the PRODUCTION to make firearms all that viable in FO anymore. Even the Brotherhood kept weapons as 'artifact' largely and their was a very real sense that in a 100 years time ammunition and such would be harder and harder to find anymore.

From a play sense though, your character kept going to military bases and fighting gangs and such and putting himself up against a lot of people who probably spent a lot of their off time scrounging up ammunition for the Vault Dweller or Chosen One to conveniently load in his own weapon.

Additionally a lot of people just plain had FUN as all melee or unarmed characters and stuck with it, allthough logically and realistically it would be most peoples last choice and used only in the beginning out of a lack of alternative.

I don't see the same grasp of the world with Bethesda, and that's a problem for me, but I'd still be perfectly happy to play it as a shooter on it's own merits.

Problem is it has few other merits, and largely looks like overhyped crap on all points, and defending those points are hollow sycophants with crap arguments.

 

[Jebus]

I don't get this lunchbox frenzy.

Maybe I should start making leet custom lunchboxes and selling them over the 'net.

Mebbe you could put actual food in it too - that'd be a shoe-in for the Polish market.

 

[taag]

Tribals grew up without much technology at all and spears and such were the norm, this was far more apparent in FO2...

Far more apparent than what? FO1 didn't have tribals at all so I don't see with what the comparison's being made at here.

You're writing about absence of the "lone gunman" role in FO3. Have you played the game?