Gametrailers.com videos

[AskWazzup]

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.

I played Fallout and Fallout 2 after oblivion. They immediately became my favorite games of all time. I have not seen many aspects that were in Fallout in any other newer game. Even though the graphics scared me off at first, but when i got past that part, the game felt so fresh and innovative for a 9 year old RPG.

Fallout IS a pristine gem, at least with the newest patches.

 

[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.

Because I don't know where to get my fix from comes. Because playing FO2 or 1 for the 20th time doesnt make it for me. Because Mass Effect did not make it for me.

I ask you, what do you do to get your game fix. Replay Bioshock? Tell me as much as you hate what is being offered by Bethesda, can you please tell me where you are getting your fix in regards to gaming?

What you doing? Playing the Witcher and enjoying it?

 

[Ixyroth]

I think there's little doubt that Van Buren would have stepped up the tactical options given that Tactics made use of cover and crouch/prone.

So far I have seen ZERO use of tactics in FO3. Is it even possible to crouch, go prone, or use cover in this game? Even Mass Effect allowed for that, though it did it quite poorly. The AI in this game looks like it's straight from Castle Wolfenstein. Compare the action in these clips to R6egas, and you'll see the difference between a developer who knows how to make shooters and one who doesn't have a clue.

So much for genre-blending... crappy shooter + lightweight 'RPG' = FO3.

 

[moyogo]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet, the Fat Man has like a 1sec reload time. Too short, imo. In TF2, the soldier has to take time to reload his rocket launcher because it can 1/2 shot people. This thing one shots the toughest thing in the game (hopefully not on higher difficulties...) and reloads like *snap*.

EDIT: Okay more like 2sec, point stands

 

[Outlander]

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".

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.

Here are your facts: Deus Ex: IW, Max Payne 2, Hitman: Codename 47, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, Half-Life 2...

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?

This is ridiculous, Fallout has changed into a FPS with RPG elements, so the FPS aspects of the game should be compared to other FPS games. This is obvious! You can't compare the animations of a 2008 FPS game with the animations of a 1997 isometric turn-based RPG!

 

[Matt K]

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.

I would suggest looking at e-bay to see if anyone puts the lunch box up for auction. It might cost a decent amount, but if you don't want BS to get your money then that might be the way to go.

 

[Stoveburner]

This is ridiculous, Fallout has changed into a FPS with RPG elements, so the FPS aspects of the game should be compared to other FPS games. This is obvious! You can't compare the animations of a 2008 FPS game with the animations of a 1997 isometric turn-based RPG!

That's all a matter of perspective. And while I certainly understand what the perspective of most of the NMA community is, you also have to understand that it isn't universal or fact.

My view is that FO3 is an RPG with FPS elements and in that regard I compare it to RPGs first and FPS second.

In regards to AI or death animations I do not see how FO3 is worse than any other RPGs, new or old. Yes, as an RPG the AI is fine. It's not an FPS, and while you do need to aim a crosshair at times you also have character skills that factor in. If Fallout 3 had the best FPS AI (and compared to other FPSes it is admittedly average) then people would certainly be up in arms that all RPG elements have been lost. It's really a no-win situation... but of course that was going to be the case regardless when the IP was sold to Bethesda.

And yes, I know you were talking about animtions and not AI.. and in that regard alone I don't see how it's much worse than anything else. The Witcher had pretty meh animations. Mass Effect was a lot better. No, Fallout 3 is not going to have the best in every aspect and it's ridiculous to think it should.

 

[AskWazzup]

No, Fallout 3 is not going to have the best in every aspect and it's ridiculous to think it should.

It isn't best in any aspect, it doesn't have anything to cover the shameless animations, stupid A.I, ugly characters etc.

 

[Stoveburner]

No, Fallout 3 is not going to have the best in every aspect and it's ridiculous to think it should.

It isn't best in any aspect, it doesn't have anything to cover the shameless animations, stupid A.I, ugly characters etc.

Well that's a matter of opinion. I don't see much wrong with the AI from these videos. Feral ghouls and armored mutants wouldn't exhibit much AI, especially when out in an open environment. In the BoS vid you can clearly see people ducking behind structures for cover which shows at least some AI.

You have to remember that this isn't a linear FPS with levels and scripts that rely on a player coming from a single direction with a limited array of weaponry deploying a small variable of tactics.

This game will have to account for many varied builds, weapons, directions and tactics.. from big guns to stealth to speech.

Animations could be better, yes.. but they aren't the worst I've seen.

And character models look quite good to me. Faces are 1000% better than Oblivion.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

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.

Er, what? Don't judge it on what it is, but against what it could have been, had it been a really bad game made by somebody else?

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.

This makes no sense. First- and third- person perspectives each have their own qualities, advantages and disadvantages, and neither is inherently superior. You may as well argue that all RTS games should be first person because, you know, that is the normal progression of gaming.

The third-person isometric perspective of Fallout was specifically adopted in order to allow tactical combat. As we can see from the videos, in the absence of turn-based isometric combat, [iBethesda[/i] have instead resorted to pretty poor looking FPS-combat (it seems to play like Unreal Tournament - the original, I mean), or else VATS. It would seem that the only tactical element to using VATS is in deciding when to press the button to be able to see most of the enemy. Then, deciding which body part to target, i.e. the one with the biggest number next to it.

I'm a big fan of FPS and cRPG, but this offering seems to very neatly and comprehensively fall directly between the two genres, by failing to be particularly proficient at either. I can see advantages to making a good roleplaying game with a first-person perspective, but not a Fallout game. A Deus Ex or System Shock sequel with proper roleplaying, for instance. And it should be good at what it does, too. Not this.

At this point in the development of gaming, there is no excuse for backwards-skating whack-a-moles in lieu of intelligent enemies.

 

[AskWazzup]

Well that's a matter of opinion. I don't see much wrong with the AI from these videos. Feral ghouls and armored mutants wouldn't exhibit much AI, especially when out in an open environment. In the BoS vid you can clearly see people ducking behind structures for cover which shows at least some AI.

They are ducking alright and quite often in open spaces

You have to remember that this isn't a linear FPS with levels and scripts that rely on a player coming from a single direction with a limited array of weaponry deploying a small variable of tactics.

This game will have to account for many varied builds, weapons, directions and tactics.. from big guns to stealth to speech.

Stalker has unscripted events with big open spaces and the A.I often kicks my ass. It's also not a pure shooter so you could compare it to F3.

Animations could be better, yes.. but they aren't the worst I've seen.

For such a huge title, they are very bad.

And character models look quite good to me. Faces are 1000% better than Oblivion.

I have seen a few decent faces, but most of them are pretty poor and even though better than oblivion faces, that doesn't really say much about the quality.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

...the A.I often kicks my ass.

Which reminds me, I meant to ask; did anybody watching the YouTube stuff ever actually see a player die? (I've seen a lot of easy looking combat...)

 

[Stoveburner]

They are ducking alright and quite often in open spaces

And if they stood straight up in open spaces you would comment on that too. When there is no cover in range ducking low is actually a good idea. Complaining about NPCs not ducking for cover when there is no cover is a bit silly, no?

Stalker has unscripted events with big open spaces and the A.I often kicks my ass. It's also not a pure shooter so you could compare it to F3.

I found STALKERS AI to be adequate, but it certainly wasn't leaps beyond what FO3 looks to offer. I encountered many bandits in the open who just ran back and forth between shooting. Yeah, when you come up on some taking cover they tend to use it, similar to what was shown in the early raider videos of FO3.

For such a huge title, they are very bad.

Size of the title is irrelevant. Bad is also an opinion. Most games to me look like people are skating around. I've yet to find a game that made me think 'wow that guy looks like he is really walking on the ground'. Maybe I am just used to it and don't expect that to change so I don't nitpick it. I take it as par for the course and until someone comes out with something that makes me think 'wow that walking looks like it has weight' then I accept them all for what they are.

I have seen a few decent faces, but most of them are pretty poor and even though better than oblivion faces, that doesn't really say much about the quality.

I'd say the ones I have seen in FO3 are fairly comparable to ME and The Witcher, two games I played recently that I thought had good faces. So yeah, the quality in that regard is fine imo.

 

[moyogo]

Size of the title is irrelevant. Bad is also an opinion. Most games to me look like people are skating around. I've yet to find a game that made me think 'wow that guy looks like he is really walking on the ground'. Maybe I am just used to it and don't expect that to change so I don't nitpick it. I take it as par for the course and until someone comes out with something that makes me think 'wow that walking looks like it has weight' then I accept them all for what they are.

Team Fortress 2 characters don't look like they're skating so that could be a goal to shoot for. And of course that's easier to do when you have a relatively tiny game world / no explicit story / valve developing it.

 

[AskWazzup]

And if they stood straight up in open spaces you would comment on that too. When there is no cover in range ducking low is actually a good idea. Complaining about NPCs not ducking for cover when there is no cover is a bit silly, no?

There is cover, if they would just run a few meters to the side, but it seems that's pretty rare since they just run towards the pc when they see him. I haven't seen any kind of flaking also.

I found STALKERS AI to be adequate, but it certainly wasn't leaps beyond what FO3 looks to offer. I encountered many bandits in the open who just ran back and forth between shooting. Yeah, when you come up on some taking cover they tend to use it, similar to what was shown in the early raider videos of FO3.

They are constantly trying to flank you, i had many moments when they would just show up behind me unexpectedly and if flanking is impossible, they try to keep distance instead of running forward like some idiotic monkeys.

Size of the title is irrelevant. Bad is also an opinion. Most games to me look like people are skating around. I've yet to find a game that made me think 'wow that guy looks like he is really walking on the ground'. Maybe I am just used to it and don't expect that to change so I don't nitpick it. I take it as par for the course and until someone comes out with something that makes me think 'wow that walking looks like it has weight' then I accept them all for what they are.

Don't know what games you are talking about, the only game where i've seen similar skating skills possessed by npcs is NWN 2, but it wasn't as bad as in F3.

I'd say the ones I have seen in FO3 are fairly comparable to ME and The Witcher, two games I played recently that I thought had good faces. So yeah, the quality in that regard is fine imo.

Either i'm in denial, either you are in denial. I think we need two sceenshots comparing Mass Effect and F3 faces.

 

[Stoveburner]

And if they stood straight up in open spaces you would comment on that too. When there is no cover in range ducking low is actually a good idea. Complaining about NPCs not ducking for cover when there is no cover is a bit silly, no?

There is cover, if they would just run a few meters to the side, but it seems that's pretty rare since they just run towards the pc when they see him. I haven't seen any kind of flaking also.

So when you are under fire and taking hits, do you stop attacking to run a 'few meters' (say 15-20 feet) to try and take cover or do you lay into them with your own weapon and hope to win?

Someone brought up the old west style of gunfights and I think that is applicable.

I found STALKERS AI to be adequate, but it certainly wasn't leaps beyond what FO3 looks to offer. I encountered many bandits in the open who just ran back and forth between shooting. Yeah, when you come up on some taking cover they tend to use it, similar to what was shown in the early raider videos of FO3.

They are constantly trying to flank you, i had many moments when they would just show up behind me unexpectedly and if flanking is impossible, they try to keep distance instead of running forward like some idiotic monkeys.

And have we seen enough of Fallout 3 to know 100% for sure this doesn't happen? I can count the number of instances I encountered this in STALKER on my fingers.

And again, if you had to play this like Brothers in Arms people would scream even louder about ALL FPS NO RPG. No-win situation really in the eyes of people looking for "flaws".

I'd say the ones I have seen in FO3 are fairly comparable to ME and The Witcher, two games I played recently that I thought had good faces. So yeah, the quality in that regard is fine imo.

Either i'm in denial, either you are in denial. I think we need two sceenshots comparing Mass Effect and F3 faces.

Here is a ME player character: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i79/Corth_of_Coronach/MassEffect/face2.jpg

Here is a Fallout 3 NPC: http://ve3dmedia.ign.com/ve3d/image...w-fallout-3-screenshots-20070713092117431.jpg

Are you going to tell me there is a huge disparity in the two?

Team Fortress 2 characters don't look like they're skating so that could be a goal to shoot for. And of course that's easier to do when you have a relatively tiny game world / no explicit story / valve developing it.

Heh, just finishing up some playing of TF2 I would disagree. I mean, it's not terrible but they do skate around, especially with the style that most people play.

I do amend my previous statment though, 2 games that really stand out in the running animations are the PoP series and Assassin's Creed. That's some of the best you will find anywhere. But those games are built around the animations and freeform combat and offer little else.

Yeah, I'd love to be able to climb and jump and swing and all that stuff in Fallout 3, but adding FPS elements is enough. No platforming please!

 

[moyogo]

Okay, yeah you're right I was just assuming if people were making standard advance, retreat, find cover movements etc. TF2 looks good. But there's a lot of dicking around, running in circles etc.

There's definitely a tradeoff and for a game like TF2 freedom of movement is more important than animations, imo, since it's basically a sport game. Of course if everybody had animation restrictions on their movement it would be balanced, but it would be kind of a departure from the genre.

I think it would be good to restrict movement for the sake of animation in games like F3, but that probably wouldn't sit well with most players - they'd be like hey I just ran forward now it takes me a second or two to start running backward and feels broken.

 

[raunchy]

look, all of you naysayers and bethesda humpers can pile up over here and try your hardest to win us over with your 'highly advanced reasoning' become the hero and bang lots of chicks, the matter of fact is, it's not going to happen. so go ahead and play your fallout 3

 

[Stoveburner]

look, all of you naysayers and bethesda humpers can pile up over here and try your hardest to win us over with your 'highly advanced reasoning' become the hero and bang lots of chicks, the matter of fact is, it's not going to happen. so go ahead and play your fallout 3

Is this what represents the NMA community?

I thought this was a Fallout fan site, not a anti-Fallout 3 site.

If this place only has room for one line of thinking then please, let me know. You can even PM me.

Until then, if people want to look forward to a game then they should be free to discuss without fear of trolls and flames from the likes of you.

 

[AskWazzup]

So when you are under fire and taking hits, do you stop attacking to run a 'few meters' (say 15-20 feet) to try and take cover or do you lay into them with your own weapon and hope to win?

Someone brought up the old west style of gunfights and I think that is applicable.

20 feet is 4 meters and actually yes, i would run to the side while shooting back, this is actually what the A.I in Stalker and FEAR do.

Of course there are even dumber things going on in F3 when in a few instances the enemy would duck and face the wrong direction for a second or two. You could see that in some of the live gameplay videos which were narrated by Todd himself.[/quote]

And have we seen enough of Fallout 3 to know 100% for sure this doesn't happen? I can count the number of instances I encountered this in STALKER on my fingers.

While i witnessed this many times, and yes we have only seen combat videos of Fallout so far and they are a good indication of the final game i think.

And again, if you had to play this like Brothers in Arms people would scream even louder about ALL FPS NO RPG. No-win situation really in the eyes of people looking for "flaws".

Oh sure, tactical fps combat would be much worse than the brainless fps combat that we see now.

Here is a ME player character: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i79/Corth_of_Coronach/MassEffect/face2.jpg

Here is a Fallout 3 NPC: http://ve3dmedia.ign.com/ve3d/image...w-fallout-3-screenshots-20070713092117431.jpg

Are you going to tell me there is a huge disparity in the two?

Ah yes, and here is the unphotoshoped version of the sheriff -

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=3126

and a Mass Effect screenshot

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/787/787403/mass-effect-20070510035257583.jpg

Quite a difference hugh?[/quote]