Van Buren screenies

ScottE, the outdoor scene looks best of all the tech demo scenes :).

To all, what did the tech demo consist of? I know it was a tutorial but was it just those two maps? What was the idea behind it? Just a sort of this is punching, this is moving?

And how was it made optional? Was it just a choice on the main menu or from ingame, was it a matter of if you wanted to go there or not?
 
sunny jim said:
i totally disagree... it's still a friggin game! it must have all the elements the first 2 fallouts had, but good graphics should accompany it. i'm not saying FPS, i want an isometric view with rotating and zoomable camera, and i believe you can make breathtaking graphics with it. it's still a game, and the more realistic it feels, the better it will be. in conclusion: a great story and ALL other important elements+great graphics... i'll feel pretty dissapointed if a game will come out in 2006/2007 with a character which walks upwards in zigzags...
Click to expand...

Problem is that in this day and age there is far to much emphasisem(sp?) on graphics which often costs resources on the gameplay/story department. I don't care how good a game looks, but all these CRPG lites we see which require the intelletucal capacity of a wet blanket to slash their way through only hurts the genre and following games by giving the "console-kids" the idea that RPG is about assigning skill points to a character.
What made Fallout good and especially what made it keeps its following was and still is the gameplay in the game - not because the game was pretty.

Sure - great graphics is nice and all if the gameplay is nice, however with limited resources to develop games with, resources added to one area often subtracts from other areas.

I say focus on gameplay first and foremost, and then worry about graphics when the gameplay and story is solid.
 
As said, games don?t HAVE to have good graphics to be a good game, but... you still need some level of graphical quality. Everything becomes harder and harder now and in the future, because people demand more.

The more people demand, the more time it will take to create...which is a bad thing due to everything going forward with a enormous speed. What was amazing last year, is crap today.

Plus I don?t think good graphics are automatically a fps-game. If you want to make a game that will rock the world and open the wallets it needs to be something special, or something very good. No one can deny that Fallout isn?t special, but take for example tactics and Bortherhood of steel. They were riding the name of Fallout and it only took them that far. To make Fallout 3 a major thing all the areas have to be good, or top notch.

And no, they shouldn?t only concentrate on graphics, but they shouldn?t concentrate only on gameplay either. They need to FOCUS ON EVERYTHING!

Which one do you think makes the best game?

1. Perfect gameplay, shitty graphics
2. Shitty gameplay, perfect graphics
3. Perfect gameplay, perfect graphics

It?s not enough to be good at something, when you really need to be good in everything. People demand more, otherwise everything would stand still. Not to mention that new technology makes it possible to see in detail when the testicles get crunched from a groing hit!
________
FREE MAGENTO THEMES
 
SimpleMinded said:
ScottE, the outdoor scene looks best of all the tech demo scenes :).

To all, what did the tech demo consist of? I know it was a tutorial but was it just those two maps? What was the idea behind it? Just a sort of this is punching, this is moving?
And how was it made optional? Was it just a choice on the main menu or from ingame, was it a matter of if you wanted to go there or not?
Click to expand...

IIRC, here's how it went.
You were a person in the FO universe interacting with a holovid that would teach you what you should do in the case of an attack. You had to make your way to your assigned Vault, which required you to pass through an old part of the city. You could look around in buildings, pick up a weapon and some simple gear (such as a first-aid kit). Some bad guys (Communist terrorists, I believe) were staked out in some of the buildings (which you could avoid) and in front of the Vault (which you couldn't) so you'd be able to do some fighting.
Once inside the Vault, you noticed the air was bad and people were coughing. In the sense of "we're all in this together, we have to learn how to take care of ourselves without help from outside the Vault," you look around in the Vault, figure out the problems (something with the generator, I think, it needed to be repaired as there wasn't enough power going to the life support system). There was also a malfunctioning defense robot, which you could repair and tell it to go back to patrolling the Vault."

As for how you got to it, I'm not sure. You either selected it from the main menu (same place where you'd select New Game or Load Saved Game) OR it was going to be an option once you had created your character. Either way, not a requirement before actual gameplay.
 
Kharn said:
"Communist terrorists"?

Is that a joke?
Click to expand...

I think Sean wa meaning something along the lines of "agents", I kind of catch the drift, but don't quite know how to translate the expression I have on mind... "Diversionaries"?
 
Silencer said:
I think Sean wa meaning something along the lines of "agents", I kind of catch the drift, but don't quite know how to translate the expression I have on mind... "Diversionaries"?
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, communist infiltrators, agents, whatever.

Terrorists might be a modern-day term applied to them. I hope we'll never see it used in a Fallout-game, though

Also, frissy; I actually agree with you for a large bit. But for me it's always been more important that the graphics are capable of grabbing and expressing the *atmosphere* of the game, which is a key elements to me.

It could be argued that by modern-day standards the old Fallout game is dated, but it is less so if you look at how well it expresses the (gritty) atmosphere. This goes for a number of old 2D games, like Fallout and Planescape, though not Baldur's Gate and Wasteland.

Personally, I dream of seeing Fallout 3 on a (timeless) high-pixel-quality 2D isometric engine. I know that won't happen, though, despite the fact that it could easily be made to look beautiful and less flawed and easy-to-date than 3D
 
I?m all for 2D isometric view with a 3D engine. Before we could barely see it was a pistol in his hands, now I want to see how many fingers my glowe has.

So much more is possible nowdays. Destructible enviroments etc.
________
Website Host
 
Yes, but realise full-well the difference between 3D graphics and its in-game rendering and 2D graphics, with its controlled, pre-game rendered models.

Realise also the difference between viewing angels and 2D or 3D engines
 
Kharn said:
Terrorists might be a modern-day term applied to them. I hope we'll never see it used in a Fallout-game, though
Click to expand...

You said it!

However, the diversionaries (not terrorists, but rather saboteurs and troublemakers) was a big theme on our side of the curtain in the 50's , I always kind of imagined it must have been a wee bit similar on the other. So I myself applaud of the idea to have a Vault besieged by those Russki agents in the training scenario - sounds likely that the designers would program something like that for the holo-training.
 
Silencer said:
However, the diversionaries (not terrorists, but rather saboteurs and troublemakers) was a big theme on our side of the curtain in the 50's , I always kind of imagined it must have been a wee bit similar on the other. So I myself applaud of the idea to have a Vault besieged by those Russki agents in the training scenario - sounds likely that the designers would program something like that for the holo-training.
Click to expand...

Oh, it definitely was.

McCarthyism is the most well-remembered example of this. And running from 1950 to 1954, it is well to be remembered for Fallout purposes. The so-called 1920s "Red Scare" is also a viable piece of anti-communist history and I think the Van Buren Trait of that name referred to just that

Anti-communist massacres like the 228 Incident would be interesting to mirror in the Fallout universe, too

But terrorists? No.
 
Terrorist is the wrong term. A terrorist is one who tries to create terror with his acts.

A saboteur on the other hand tries to sabotage something, usually to pursue military or political goals.

On the other hand, terrorism is a form of sabotage too, as it sabotages the populace by altering their state of mind -- but if one would expand the term "sabotage" to cover all that as well, it would become yet another instance of bullshit, because it would become so ambiguous it loses all meaning.

Apart from that, terrorist has obviously become an instance of bullshit (anybody else read the book by Frankfurt? You should) in modern mainstream media as it has been turned into an umbrella term for any person acting against "us" through armed intervention.

My 2 cents. Mind the rambling.
 
seankreynolds said:
Yeah, not terrorists. They were armed bad guys who were acting against the government. Call 'em what you want.
Click to expand...

I only knew them as commies, they appear to look like 50`s bikers and gangmembers, but what i`v been told is that the commies things rose from the fact that they mostly talked in slogans, it would be like encountering a few badass guys that talked like Ratty and Comissar :)

They did have some nice particle effects to show though :D

And Scott Everts the first map with the lights and shadows does look good, although unfinished, as one can see in this female char. I mean she wouldn´t be wearing that on the final version, right? :D


Briosafreak wrote:
And BEAM ME UP SCOTTE!!!! Smile


Not again.
Click to expand...

Dude do you have any idea on how many Star Treck games ScottE worked? I mean he has to be hearing this joke for over a decade now, someone has to say it, or the universe will be unbalanced :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top