how about the graphics?

D

doro_69

First time out of the vault
first: sorry for my english...
second: what kind of graphics do we want to see in f3? i`m asking this because i like the old graphics from f1, f2 who has the pos-nuclear feeling..
 
Perspective is a part of the overal feel of the game almost more than the actual animations are. When the Flagship crew decided to make their upcoming game first person they did so with a clear reason; the "feel" was different in isometric. Not what they were looking for.

Equally, Fallout doesn't need anything other than isometric, it disturbs the feel.

A 3D engine is fine by me, nobody uses 2D anymore, sadly
 
f1 and f2 graphics are very good - and it would be great to have f3 with this kind of graphics... for me 3d will spoil the game
 
Thats one of the\ major things im worried about with Bethesda.

Are they going to make it an "Elder scrolls: Fallout" aka first person/ 3rd behind.

Or will they do the right thing and stick to isometric.

(that and im woried they may do their rpg set up the same way as elder scrolls etc, and not SPECIAL)
 
I think it's likely to expect a first person/3d behind with maybe the option to move the camera to isometric postion, and probably with the camera locked on your character... :(
But all this is just speculation untill Bethesda decides to say somethng...
 
I don't know what you think but I don't like isometric 3d games in which the camera is rotatable... fo1 and fo2's isometric 2d system makes me feel like I'm playing the character... When player is given the control of camera it's more like playing the game as the cameraman... Since the graphics engines began to improve the quality of the games are in decline... I think a game's atmosphere doesn't mean better graphics..
 
Although I'd prefer a 2D engine for F3, I also realize that it will never happen. In terms of control over detail, 2D is head and shoulders above 3D - atleast for now. An engine similar to the one used by Silent Storm would be fine by me. Anything remotely close to FPS is out of the question.

Endless Void said:
I don't know what you think but I don't like isometric 3d games in which the camera is rotatable... fo1 and fo2's isometric 2d system makes me feel like I'm playing the character... When player is given the control of camera it's more like playing the game as the cameraman
Click to expand...
Well, I have to disagree. I don't think changes anything for the game if you're able to rotate the camera or not - Troikas post-apoc game would probably have been a prime example of this.


Since the graphics engines began to improve the quality of the games are in decline... I think a game's atmosphere doesn't mean better graphics.
Click to expand...
This is not true. If it has to do with anything, it's about an industry that largely fail to grasp the simple notion that games need good design and writing. The concept mass-market games is derived from the idea that you need to sell as man units as possible, which leads to games being produced lowest common denominator in mind. Usually those would be "shoot stuff" and "phat loot" (well, it can be argued that shiny graphics are such a denominator). And I agree that a games atmosphere has very little to do with graphics, perhaps some developers should study up on art direction?
 
I like the idea of a 3d Isometric view, but not an adjustable camera. That would, in my opinion, ruin a lot of the atmosphere and the Fallouty-feel.
 
I would actually be content with 3D characters on a prerendered or hand-drawn background. 3D characters animate better, appear more realistic and don't require countless redraws for each possible appearance, which means all equipment changes can be instantly visible. In addition to this, with 3D characters you can have ragdoll physics.

2D environments, on the other hand, are superior to 3D environments from artistic and aesthetic perspective. Of course, they don't allow as much interactivity and freedom of movement as 3D environments, but those qualities are more or less irrelevant in an isometric turn-based RPG.
 
Ratty said:
I would actually be content with 3D characters on a prerendered or hand-drawn background. 3D characters animate better, appear more realistic and don't require countless redraws for each possible appearance, which means all equipment changes can be instantly visible. In addition to this, with 3D characters you can have ragdoll physics.

2D environments, on the other hand, are superior to 3D environments from artistic and aesthetic perspective. Of course, they don't allow as much interactivity and freedom of movement as 3D environments, but those qualities are more or less irrelevant in an isometric turn-based RPG.
Click to expand...

I think it would be best to create 3d elements (walls, doors, pots, vehicles...) That are 3d but are heavily detailed and improved by 2d skins... This would allow for better detail (which would be acceptable becuase the isometric view is so far away from that actual 3d model) and it would also allow for realtime lighting against all the objects
 
Maybe destructable enviroments? You fire a rocket at someone and miss, but it keeps going and blows up a brick wall?
 
what i want for is better resolution, i mean, if you want to see a 10mm pistol, it needs to be aparent that it has a cylinder. other than that, keep it in the same format as the other games
 
Keep the isometric and just add zoom.

3D is okay by me. You get all the fun stuff with it. Millions of movement animatinons and such. Destroyable enviroments and perhaps reacting enviroments also (physics).

Same feel with all the nice little thingies the industry has come up with these years.

I want to see the chainsaw saw and pour black some from it!
________
M5 (E28)
 
Well, i would like them to be NICE graphics at least. How it's done, I don't care as long as the feeling of the seeting is fairly accurate and the gameplay is fun.
 
I'll be fine with a 3rd person perspective from above the character, much like the original games.

While I love Gothic and wouldn't mind playing lots more great games like it (using it's controls, etc), having a 3rd person or 1st person perspective would have the likely disadvantage that it might add a certain "luxury" - always being able to look anywhere - zoom and turn. Then it'll remove the kind of mouse control you are used to in Fallout 1 and 2. You'd already need the mouse for your perspective control.

Maybe they'd do it the way it was done in Ultima 9, where you'd hold a key down so a mousecursor would appear, ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top