Fo4...graphics..

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:27 pm

Soooo what you really want to play is Wasteland 2?

User avatar
LijLuva
 
Posts: 3347
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:59 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:56 pm

What if an open world exploration action shooter RPG is exactly what some people want? I suspect there are a few.

User avatar
IM NOT EASY
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:48 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:29 pm

I like the art style of the charcters in Skyrim unmodded. Now are some them super models no I just like the art style I guess. Even the mer they remind me of the Morrowind design and I like that as well.
User avatar
Andres Lechuga
 
Posts: 3406
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:47 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:41 pm

Wasteland 2 is a poor Wasteland sequel; but it's the closest thing to a proper Fallout 3, that ever released [AFAIK], and InXile knows it (and surely intended it so). :shrug:

They certainly didn't need the Fallout IP for that.
User avatar
Sista Sila
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:25 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:59 pm


But none of those games are on the same scale as what fallout intends to be, look at gta 5 its a big beautiful game with a completely hollow empty map filled with nothing but npcs that have ps2 level AI that only knows how to walk, run drive and die.
Next the witcher 3 a incredibly pretty game that's environments have no variety between them it has a flat world with only one city and at least half of skellige is water so again not as big.
I'm ignoring batman since the pc port was completely broken for most people (also locked at 30fps apparently).
Inquisition once again had pretty visuals and a big map but was generally empty aside from mobs and everything was hammered down plus loading times.
I cant really think of any other games that are on a large scale, but yeah Beth games do tend to lack in alot of ways but I personally think they go for gameplay and enjoyment over all else.
User avatar
jessica breen
 
Posts: 3524
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:04 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:33 am

I think you do GTA V a disservice. No BGS title is nearly as dense or concentrated in terms of their large worlds either. Name the largest city in Skyrim. Solitude? It's dwarfed by the size of Los Santos, Novigrad, and Gotham as just a few examples. Radiant AI in its current manifestation is nothing to be impressed with. 90% of the NPCs play no role and have the most menial of schedules merely being at certain places during certain times of the day. Most of the NPCs play no vital role in the game nor would you ever need to talk to most of them, like most games.

As for The Witcher 3 having "environments [that] have no variety between them," I have to disagree with this vehemently. That is certainly largely the case with GTA V reusing textures, but not the case at all with TW3. It is by far one of the most diverse and unique worlds I have seen in a game. If you actually take the time to explore and not just quick travel, you will see these areas aren't just randomly generated like Cyrodiil was in Oblivion. All of TW2's environments were handcrafted just like Skyrim was in Skyrim. You can definitely tell if something is authentic or a program merely generated an environment.

Batman Arkham Knight has the most densely poplulated city I've seen in a game to date. Not only is there horizontal exploration, which is standard for open world games, but there is verticality as well. The latter is very uncommon in most open world games and Arkham Knight excels at both. Yes, the PC version is currently broken, but that does not disregard what a technological marvel Arkham Knight actually is. No city BGS has ever built even comes class as the last BGS game to ironically have any sort of verticality was Morrowind due to having levitation as a skill. Ever since, every BGS game has been almost entirely flat (Skyrim had some mountains to give the illusion of verticality).

I will agree Dragon Age Inquisition's pseudo open world was not handled well. BioWare in its modern incarnation has not made an open world game (disregarding SWTOR). Thus, outside of the story and some lingering quests, collectibles, or dailies, there wasn't much to do in the world. Frostbite 3 also seems to suffer from overly cumbersome load times. Regardless, certain areas such as Skyhold were used quite proficiently and harbored a dense amount of activities.

BGS is definitely all about making a great game beyond anything else. Story. Combat. Even progression all is secondary to just living in this other world they create. That being said, that is not an excuse for not trying to make immersive cities, amazing combat, and progression that truly makes one feel unique and having achieved something. It's a balancing test, but one that BGS must constantly tweak and always take seriously.

User avatar
Alexandra Ryan
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:01 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:34 am

The graphics look amazing. Much improved. Not sure what everyone's crying about...
User avatar
x a million...
 
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:59 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:48 pm

But then they wouldn't be able to place it in the Fallout world, and use things from Fallout. Which they clearly must want to do or they wouldn't have bothered to spend money buying it if they weren't going to use the Fallout IP as a mine for resources to throw into their own style of game and use the history from Fallout.

User avatar
Mandi Norton
 
Posts: 3451
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:43 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:28 pm


I meant the series, of course. Not individual experiences.


I do think it would've been better if they weren't (made). Not because they affect the experience of the originals (they don't), but because of consistent series continuity and something to look forward to not with the set of mind that "how is it going to get worse this time around" but the opposite.

I've never actually made an argument that the original two games would somehow feel worse because of what came next (that doesn't sound like a sensical argument to begin with).
User avatar
laila hassan
 
Posts: 3476
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:53 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:14 pm

No matter what the thread subject is about, a comparison between Fo1/2 and Fo3/NV/4 will be made and derail the main thread. Can we come up with a phrase for this phenomena? Kinda like Godwin's law but for Fallout.

With respect to the original topic, I think the game's graphics look fine - especially with some of the new additions to the engine. Aesthetically, it's extremely consistent and looks true to an era.

User avatar
Mashystar
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:35 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:29 pm

I just can't agree that it would've been better that they weren't made. Many pieces of media go through stages of dislike whether moved to different people or just changing how they do things. In music it happens all the time: when Linkin Park released Minutes to Midnight there were many of us discontented with the album, but Linkin Park went on and continued deviating from their Hybrid Theory/Meteora style. For many fans, both new and old, those newer albums were their favourites despite a high proportion of original fans not liking the sound shift. Should those people who did enjoy them lose out because many people think the newer albums shouldn't have been made?

That's just one band (anology of studio) doing what they want. Now lets take in staff changes. When Killswitch Engage lost Jesse and hired Howard there was very mixed reactions. Some hated him, some loved him, some just didn't mind. But there were claims that Killswitch should have just broken up when Jesse left. If they'd have done that there would be many people who loved Howard's albums who would've missed out on great experiences.

A closer anology for the Fallout situation: covers. Should bands just not cover stuff? No, of course not. In my opinion Leona Lewis should never have touched a Snow Patrol track, but it doesn't stop thousands of people out there preferring her version of Run. What right have I to deny them that?

So Fallout is not as continuous as you'd like. It's a fair opinion and I'll never tell you otherwise, but the fact is Fallout 3 has provided thousands of hours of fun for many, many people; fans of the originals and fans who have never played the originals alike. Would it really have been better if those people never had that experience? Wanting a different experience, or being disappointed with the provided experience is one thing (and I stand by your right to have that opinion), but outright wishing away thousands of other players enjoyment over it I'll never understand.

User avatar
Adam Baumgartner
 
Posts: 3344
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:12 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:00 pm

  • Highlander
  • Highlander 2
  • Highlander 3

________

One can make your same point with Metallica.
What's interesting to me is that while I seem to prefer their later albums, there is no denying the change of format, or that if they changed their name to a new band, it wouldn't have mattered to me, as I didn't know who they were ~or really care. When a name invokes a reputation, I think it's disingenuous to use it and not deliver on that reputation; worse still to try to overwrite that reputation with something unrelated.

As for the graphics of Fo4, I do think they are very good; and better than FO3's; though I don't at all consider graphics to be an experience incentive. I consider it icing on the cake ~not the cake itself.

If the graphics of FO4 were identical to FO3's in every single way ~but the gameplay and story had improved, it would lose no points for me for its recycled visuals. FO3 & 4 lose their points for [the wrong] gameplay and lowered expectations [of the player].

User avatar
Lisa
 
Posts: 3473
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:57 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:35 pm

Your point? I know people who enjoy one or more of those films. Personally I've only ever watched the first, so I can't comment. Fact is people have enjoyed 2 and 3, so at what point does anyone have the right to say they shouldn't have been made? You CAN argue they should have been done better, but that's a highly subjective opinion.

User avatar
Brian LeHury
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 6:54 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:20 am


Why would they have ever cared? :shrug:

They would've been none the wiser had they instead gotten "Todd Howard's Twilight Zone 2050; or, how I learned that violence is [censored] funny" or what ever else.
User avatar
tegan fiamengo
 
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:53 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:03 am

The only thing I can say that should have never been made ishttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810913/.

[censored] this movie was terrible.

User avatar
Shannon Marie Jones
 
Posts: 3391
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:19 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:40 pm

I envy that. My heart felt suggestion is ~do not watch Highlander 2 or 3 if you enjoyed Highlander.*

Some things (like the upside down Dodge Viper logo), cannot be unseen.

*[But you will have to watch them if you want to understand the point of mentioning them].

User avatar
TRIsha FEnnesse
 
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:59 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:51 pm

This line of thinking can go as far as you like. You wouldn't care if Black Isle had never made Fallout in the first place, right? If they never made it you wouldn't know any better and you'd be playing Wasteland. Of course it was made, and you have played it, and you enjoyed it, which is great. But if I said that Black Isle shouldn't have made it in the first place because you could just go and play Wasteland, or whatever other personally subjective opinion I may or may not have, I dare say you'd likely disagree because given the option in hindsight you'd rather have the game experience than not.

User avatar
AnDres MeZa
 
Posts: 3349
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:39 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:45 pm

Do you understand that Interplay [later Black Isle] wanted make Wasteland 2, and were denied the option; so they made their own: Fallout.

Fallout was made, and had a following. Later on due to absurd management of the parent company, Fallout was sold for slaughter; actually, it was more like lending the cow out for work, then the they made arrangements to buy the cow outright, then slaughter it for parts they could use to decorations something with.
User avatar
Amy Cooper
 
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:38 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:49 am


Very true. But there also wouldn't have been any precursory expectations towards it by me or anyone else.


Fallout almost was Wasteland 2 (EA had the rights to Wasteland, so Fallout came) and it shows; it wasn't all that big a departure. I would've been happy with that.
User avatar
Emily abigail Villarreal
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:38 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:13 pm

Well Bethesda wanted to make Fallout 3, and weren't denied the option. I get that you prefer the Black Isle way of doing things when it comes to Fallout. Quite frankly I can't objectively tell you that you're wrong, because it's a subjective opinion. Thing is Bethesda did buy Fallout, like it or not. They did make a game that many times more people accessed than Black Isle's renditions. It became a financial success and millions of people have enjoyed them. Now you, YOU, sat on the other side of the monitor, you have an opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. An opinion you are entitled to no matter how many people disagree. But what UnDeCafIndeed was suggesting is that those millions of people should have that experience stripped from them because of your unpopular (not wrong) opinion that you share.

Trust me, I've seen beloved franchises change too; become disinterested in modern offerings over older titles. It's not a great feeling when you've become so heavily invested in a series. But capitalism is what it is. At no point have I ever thought "it shouldn't have been made". That's just disrespectful in the highest order not only to the developer but to the fans that do actually enjoy the newer titles. I've often thought "I wish they'd done this differently", and when that thought crops up too many times I stop buying the new games and keep replaying the old.

User avatar
Nathan Barker
 
Posts: 3554
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:55 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:32 pm

No, that's not it. I would hold the same opinion were I pro FO3 and even anti-turn based; I would like that game and still see it as an affront to the series origins and intended premise and precepts. They bought it, but didn't use it for anything but as a coat of paint.
____
Think of the flipside: TES6 forcibly done in the style of Pillars of Eternity. The loss of the 'player-on-site' experience. The player would always be an observer of the PC; from on high, and face to face conversations. Characters would be restricted to class, and limited only to what is available to those classes and attributes.
Basically PoE painted with TES lore.

Do you think they would have cared about the name and franchise ~before they knew of it? I do think that most FO3 players look at the name as they do the name District 9. The experience they got was so far removed from the Fallout series, that it really ~truly did not have to be of the Fallout series. Bethesda would have succeeded with whatever setting they chose apply to their game; and the game wouldn't have been any different.
User avatar
Alessandra Botham
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:27 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:29 pm


Can't change the past, there's no "should". Just saying that it wouldn't be much different for Beth fans if things had taken a different course; but it would likely be better for fans of Fallout.
User avatar
Yama Pi
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:51 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:35 pm

How would it have been better for Fallout fans? You would have got no new games instead of actually having new games, albeit in a different format to the originals. Like I said, FO1/2 haven't gone anywhere. The existence of Fallout 3 doesn't change that, regardless of your opinion on it. Surely it's better for everyone involved that you at least had a chance of a Fallout 3, but didn't like it, and millions of other people did get a good experience out of it, than simply nobody getting anything.

As for Gizmo, apologies for misunderstanding you general intent. Given your explanation I can't disagree that it must be annoying to see a series change so much, but it's hardly the first time it's happened. Again, as I've responded to UnDeCafIndeed it's better for everyone to have at least tried the reboot than have no new games at all. You know, I'd actually like to see a mobile Fallout game in the same ideology and style as the first two games. I believe it could work really well. While I respect that both of you as older fans don't like the new direction of Fallout it doesn't change the fact that there are millions out there who do. They aren't wrong either.

User avatar
Lyd
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:56 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:27 pm


There would've likely been at least one game (that Troika had in the making; the devs whom Bethesda outbid for Fallout). And no doubt a kickstarter later on (likely by either Fargo and InXile, or Obsidian).

The thing is that there will never be a sequel in the original form again. That chance went away.


Had this been any other series, I'd agree. But there just isn't a substitute for Fallout out there. No game has been made since Fallout 2 that would offer quite what it and its predecessor did.
User avatar
Prisca Lacour
 
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:25 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:32 am

Thing is that every series has that game. Sure there is a very minimal chance that another will ever be made in the same vein, but that's just life. Fact is Fallout 1/2 didn't get that much attention. The reasons for that can be arguably varied but the long and short is that Black Isle couldn't afford to keep going. So while you found your perfect niche it wasn't financially viable for the company making it to continue. Sad, but that's just the way it is. I dare say had Bethesda carried on the same style and made a "true" sequel to Fallout 2 then it wouldn't have been as successful as the current offering. Like I said, I'd actually really like to see a spin-off mobile game in that original style. I think in the modern market that would be a far better fit for it.

User avatar
Ladymorphine
 
Posts: 3441
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Fallout 4