THESURVIVOR2299.com likely isn't a Fallout 4 teaser website

fo3 is only one which was made by beth.
the other? no. and fo3 show something good? no.
we are fan of Fallout but not 3.
that's all.

think about Thief 4.
I don't think fans of Thief series want thief 4.
same for fo4.
 
Thats a lot of hate for a game that hasnt even been announced yet. Even if you are completely sure you will hate it, i think something that causes such hate still merits discussion.
 
kyojinmaru said:
I mean, what the hell, id Tech can't render open worlds of that size.

Linear shooter?, hub based like first 2 games?
Click to expand...
My guess is a linear shooter. Wasn't the same concept used in Rage, based on id-Tech 5 engine? Which was a serious clusterfuck btw. Haven't played it myself, but there's a lot of problems with textures reported.
 
kyojinmaru said:
I've found something: http://www.gameskinny.com/bntfa/zenimax-files-for-trademark-on-void-engine

Void Engine powered by Id Tech.

I mean, what the hell, id Tech can't render open worlds of that size.

Linear shooter?, hub based like first 2 games?
Click to expand...
So you already had access to the engine? You know what the Void Engine is? Cool, tell us more. Did they base it off idTech5? Are they going to use the godawful MegaTexture-thingy?
 
tumblr_mwe1wxSZcE1sitr94o1_1280.png


Found this one on the Internet. Should be checked though.
 
Lexx said:
Looks valid to me. It has all Bethesdian elements: Eastcoast, the year 2299 which is after all other events (remember, Bethesda always advances into the future), the possible time of the announcement, the commented out stuff on the website itself (yeah, if you are going to make a fake website, you might forget about such details), even the website name (The Vault Dweller, The Lone Wander, The Courier and du-dum... The Survivor)...
Click to expand...
Despite all the info in the OP, I tend to agree with you. It just too much for just a hoax or small studio production.

Additionally, considering FO3/NV plot and settings, the year 2299 is perfect for Beth purpose. It is long enough for things to have changed and short enough to offer a lot of narrative reasons for their fans to care.

Lexx said:
But don't worry. This being true or not doesn't matter much, as a Fallout 4 from Bethesda will be shit anyway. :lol:
Click to expand...
Unless it hasten the moment that FO4 New Vegas verity is around the corner ;)
 
valcik said:
kyojinmaru said:
I mean, what the hell, id Tech can't render open worlds of that size.

Linear shooter?, hub based like first 2 games?
Click to expand...
My guess is a linear shooter. Wasn't the same concept used in Rage, based on id-Tech 5 engine? Which was a serious clusterfuck btw. Haven't played it myself, but there's a lot of problems with textures reported.
Click to expand...
Those problems were solved long ago. If you like id shooters, you would like RAGE, is a very underrated game. This doesn't mean that I want a fucking linear shooter experience for Fallout, god please, no.
 
I think rage took a lot of criticism because it really was somewhat buggy on release and they "patched" the graphic menue in latter. It felt like a very bad console port. I mean seriously, the minimum you should offer on the PC are options, like to change the graphics or the controlls. I absolutely hate it when a game doesnt offer you at least that.
 
Crni Vuk said:
I think rage took a lot of criticism because it really was somewhat buggy on release and they "patched" the graphic menue in latter. It felt like a very bad console port. I mean seriously, the minimum you should offer on the PC are options, like to change the graphics or the controlls. I absolutely hate it when a game doesnt offer you at least that.
Click to expand...
Well, the engine is very well optimized, maybe they thought the game didn't needed many graphic options because of that, but i'm agree, the 1.0 version was ported very poorly, in fact, the game mandatorily needed new GPU drivers to run smoothly.
 
Rage is pretty good, if you ignore the ending. Which was bad. Like, totally really extremely bad. But beside this, it's one of the better modern shooter games, imo.
 
Feigenbaum said:
BonusWaffle said:
Taskeen said:
what's all the hoopla?
Click to expand...

nma is a fansite for what series again? I forget
Click to expand...
I think it's Wasteland.
Click to expand...
Oblivion dude. :roll:

kyojinmaru said:
Crni Vuk said:
I think rage took a lot of criticism because it really was somewhat buggy on release and they "patched" the graphic menue in latter. It felt like a very bad console port. I mean seriously, the minimum you should offer on the PC are options, like to change the graphics or the controlls. I absolutely hate it when a game doesnt offer you at least that.
Click to expand...
Well, the engine is very well optimized, maybe they thought the game didn't needed many graphic options because of that, but i'm agree, the 1.0 version was ported very poorly, in fact, the game mandatorily needed new GPU drivers to run smoothly.
Click to expand...
then the game didnt showed it properly. No clue. People had all sorts of weird issues because of the way how Rage managed textures. As far as I remember ID had this idea to make the landscape one huge texture or something like that. Issue with that was that people had, despite of good hardware, enormous issues like stuttering or micro-lags or what ever you want to call it. That's what I have read at least about it. Maybe those have been just rather rare cases, no clue, but it seems there have been problems with it.
 
BonusWaffle said:
Thats a lot of hate for a game that hasnt even been announced yet. Even if you are completely sure you will hate it, i think something that causes such hate still merits discussion.
Click to expand...

Because it won't have any tactical view like Dragon Age was applauded for adding? You know choices. I despise Bethesda - "its gotta be first person only, no other options, just because... oh and we don't know how, sorry guyz." Yeah no thanx.
 
Lexx said:
Rage is pretty good, if you ignore the ending. Which was bad. Like, totally really extremely bad. But beside this, it's one of the better modern shooter games, imo.
Click to expand...
Agree.

Crni Vuk said:
then the game didnt showed it properly. No clue. People had all sorts of weird issues because of the way how Rage managed textures. As far as I remember ID had this idea to make the landscape one huge texture or something like that. Issue with that was that people had, despite of good hardware, enormous issues like stuttering or micro-lags or what ever you want to call it. That's what I have read at least about it. Maybe those have been just rather rare cases, no clue, but it seems there have been problems with it.
Click to expand...
The game works well on old PCs. The main problem at launch was the megatexture streaming, the performance issues were fixed quickly with new GPU drivers.
 
Taskeen said:
Because it won't have any tactical view like Dragon Age was applauded for adding? You know choices. I despise Bethesda - "its gotta be first person only, no other options, just because... oh and we don't know how, sorry guyz." Yeah no thanx.
Click to expand...

No one is asking you to like it, i just dont see the point in trying to shut down discussion because "bethesda sucks"
 
Lexx said:
Rage is pretty good, if you ignore the ending. Which was bad. Like, totally really extremely bad. But beside this, it's one of the better modern shooter games, imo.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I found the game becoming boring quite quickly.
Imagine if you were able to explore all the places in that game in detail such as the dam and the metropolis ruins.
 
and what point would that have? Exploration for the sake of exploration can be just as boring, but you have to spend a ton of time create it, just for a 5 min. enjoyment that wears down quickly. Its a problem that many games have that try to jump on that open-world train. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind open world games. But I dont think that you have to force it on the gameplay come hell or high water.
 
I get what you are at, I do of course also mean that there would actually be a reason to go to those places; quests, NPCs such things.

Not just additional rooms and chambers that do not serve any purpose other than containing just some random crap.

I just felt that some places could have been far better used in Rage.
For example a whole community living in that dam, or some kind of massive salvage operation taking place in that dead metropolis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top