[Genocidal Cry]

thread 1: http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1520460-evidence-of-pre-war-protagonist-and-tutorial

Fallout 4 tutorial theory: http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1520864-fallout-4-tutorial-theory

[Jade Muggeridge]

I think it's pretty obvious that the character in the fo4 reveal is the PC stand in, and will likely by white male face 1, but I don't think I've ever thought of the fo3 trailer having a PC stand in. I always thought it was just a generic BOS Paladin.

[David John Hunter]

Yep it is obvious. First time that has happened since BGS got the IP. In the Fallout NV reveal trailer I would have bet on what we later learned was an NCR ranger as being the protagonist.

[Add Me]

The Fo3 and NV reveal trailers were CGI teasers.

This is not CGI, nor is it a teaser.

[Rachel Tyson]

Could we call it a titillater then?

Wait, better not.

[Agnieszka Bak]

The first FO3 reveal trailer only shows a generic BOS armoured dude, but the E3 gameplay trailer showed plenty of shots of default white dude #1 in a vault suit engaging in combat and having adventures. Same with the NV gameplay trailer, default male PC running around.

The only difference here is that BGS went straight to a gameplay trailer instead of first doing a simple reveal.

In the game, I'm sure they'll get character customization out of the way before we see a clear view of the protagonist/father or mother of the protagonist/other relation of the protagonist. They won't force a "generic white guy" if it doesn't make sense with the player's choice of race and gender.

[Samantha hulme]

I never said it was a CGI teaser, I said it was a reveal trailer.

Yes, it does appear to use in game assets, and yes it is longer than what has gone on before. But what has that got to do with my answer to your question of when was the last time BGS had a trailer where human character that had focus wasn't the protagonist in the game.

[Kevin Jay]

because its wasnt an aswer

a teaser =/= a trailer

[Bad News Rogers]

I agree. If I had to guess, the 'fiction' of character creation will take place in a system that mimics the cryostasis pod's systems recovering from a near system failure. I.E. Subject name, history, image on file, etc. Then as the player wakes up, we'll get a flashback to how they got there, and go through the pre-war tutorial events. Flash forward again as the pod opens and the game begins proper. After all, the leaked documents specifically say the game begins with the player waking up in a cryostasis pod.

This also prevents us from seeing the family until our character is created, so they will be based around the options we chose, like how James changed appearance based on the player's in FO3.

[TWITTER.COM]

Oh God, I hope this wasn't a gameplay trailer. It started with a 24 hour long loading screen.

[Dan Wright]

I think the pre-war angle is a solid one. I wonder if the twist (I am sure someone suggested this) is that we are actually an android implanted with these memories, so we can decide if they really are ours or not and once we discover this we can become the cold calculating killing machine we were always destined to be, or a sensitive and tragic robo-weenie.

Just kidding. I would totally be the robo-weenie.

[Siidney]

Fallout 3's trailer was in-engine (quite patently).

[Alex Blacke]

It was an engine render, but not something the engine can achieve in-game.

[Alan Cutler]

So you're saying it wasn't a CGI?

Also what specifically in the trailer could only be rendered in-engine but not achieved in-game?

It's at this moment I'd advise you to look at the untenable fidelity of the bus seat...

[Tom Flanagan]

Fallout 3 you couldn't travel to the place in the trailer, it was removed. I would have to say though they make games for you to create your own characters, not to play as a brotherhood of steel or new California republic. I remember in fallout new vegas, the ncr rangers i never got to see them for awhile till i found a whole camp of them at camp golf. Fallout 3 you meet them on your way through the main quest or run into on your way just roaming the waste. I hope the next game has a lot more unique stuff in it.

[Rachie Stout]

CGI means computer generated imagery, of which, it was.

The term CGI is commonly used to refer to in-engine renders which don't represent the graphics of the final product. I honestly don't know why you constantly try to nitpick everything I say, you get beaten down, not only be me, every time you try it.

The lighting for one, also the power armor is far above what it normally is in-game. Not everything in an in-engine render is great, trying to cherrypick one bad texture does nothing but prove your lack of a case.

[M!KkI]

Even if the theory is true, I will bet that the prewar segment is not the entire tutorial or even most of it. Most if not all of the tutorial would either be a simulation IN the pod while you are still under or take place in the vault. The game "proper" would probably start when you leave the vault.

[Rob Davidson]

The power armor looks exactly as it does in game, as does the teddy bear, as does the bottle of whisky next to it.

Also what lighting?

CGI is almost always synonymous with a cutscene (type CGI into youtube and see what you get), something that is generated by the computer not the engine.Also you do realize the FONV teaser trailer WAS CGI?

By your non sequitur FO3 was an in-engine CGI, while FONV was just CGI?If that's the case all games would be CGI, because all games are predicated on computer-generated-imagery... rendering the term "CGI" vacuous and redundant.

Poor argument... especially considering YOU used the redundant term CGI initially.

[Dalley hussain]

Not really, it looks twice as detailed, but that's likely because they threw the entire engine's power into rending a highly detailed model of it, and that smaller then a breadbox area in the teaser.

Almost being the key word there, and yes, I do know NV's teaser WAS CGI. Don't know why you would think i didn't.

All games ARE CGI, but that's not how people normally use the term, so it doesn't matter. What it means, by dictionary definition, and how its used, are two different things. Its kinda the origin of slang in general.

[Jesus Lopez]

That's my point, I impugned your claim that both FO3 and FONV had CGI teaser trailers (challenging your slang usage of the term, as FO3 doesn't in this context).

Which then eventuated in you saying that FO3 was an in-engine CGI (the complete opposite usage of the slang and rendering your initial remark redundant).

I would be surprised if that's the full capabilities of the engine, the whisky bottle looks poor as does the teddy bear and the bus seat looks awful.

[djimi]

Except it does. Most people called, and considered, Fallout 3 teaser a CGI one, regardless of the fact that it was in-engine.

Again, you are aware then what doing a render you dont have to make every item crisis level graphics? Why are you so caught up on this fallacious line of debate?

Also

>gamebryo

>looking bad

News at 11

[Justin Hankins]

You really must upgrade your Hercules Graphic card. I have an old graphics card and the armor I see in game is actually better than what is shown in the FO3 reveal.

[Suzy Santana]

1 That's just fallacious, if anything it's the opposite, people considered this to be in-engine and an accurate depiction of what they might be playing.The gametrailers video about the most anticipated 360 and ps3 games attests to this.

2 A low detail CGI? Is that an oxymoron?

The whole point of a CGI trailer (in the gaming industry) is to offer a specious/deceptively attractive vision of the game to engender hype.

If anything every CGI should be above the graphical quality of crisis (i'd be interested to see one made since crisis that isn't), but certain objects such as the teddy, whisky and the bus seat look awful, especially for a CGI which is why the trailer isn't and shouldn't be referred to as such.

[Code Affinity]

I just wanted to share an idea I had regarding possible character creation. Please bear in mind that I have tried to keep this within the context of the trailer, with our protagonist being married with a child:

1. We start the game as a young advlt attending MIT for an interview (before it became the institute), and are asked to introduce ourselves. We are given an opportunity to select our name and our gender, and to design our physical appearance.

2. We are then brought forward a few years, and are training at a military facility. We are given a medical examination, through which we select our primary statistics, as well as combat training where we are taught how to use basic weapons (non-vats). This component could imply a more fleshed out combat system similar to that of a full FPS.

3. Next we are attending a social event where one of our friends/associates from either MIT or the military is also present. They introduce us to the person who will become our spouse. We engage in conversation, and he/she asks us what do we for a living. We then select our specialist/tagged skills and our traits. The physical appearance of our spouse could perhaps be randomised or based on some algorithm.

4. After this we are shown a brief composite of significant events, possibly including getting married, the photo being taken that we see in the player house, and the birth of our child. The child's features would be based on both of the parents. It is likely that we would also see evidence of tension between nations and the possibility of conflict, perhaps through news clippings, in order to correctly frame the next part of the tutorial.

5. Finally, we are at home with our family, and are awoken by a radio broadcast. We hear reports of impending war, and of an increased military presence across the nation. The announcer also talks about vault-tec, and it becomes apparent that our family has secured a place in one of their vaults. The radio broadcasts become increasingly more alarming, until the horrifying news of actual nuclear strikes and then the wailing of air raid sirens. We leave our home behind us, and make our way towards the vault...

Note: the pipboy and associated gameplay mechanics, such as vats, would have to be introduced in some way once we are inside the vault. How this would take place is unclear, but I am certain that we will be given a brief introduction to vats combat shortly after leaving the vault, possibly to be assisted by the dog in the trailer.

[Mariaa EM.]

1. I can't recall anyone who actually thought that teaser was going to be how the game looked/played, at least not anyone who thought that and didn't get slammed by everyone for being guillable. That Gametrailers got hyped for the game doesn't mean they thought the game would look like that, only that they got hyped for it because of LE EPIC SHOWCASE! Which is the whole point of those kinds of trailers.

2 The point of a CGI trailer is to look generally better then the actual game, to make the game seem better then it actually is. Despite being as low rez as they are, the Fallout 3 teaser managed this by miles.