Reviews will start rolling in on Monday. My guess is that ma

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:12 pm

Spot on CCNA

I would love to see a "cyber punk" Shadowrun (I loved the SNES version) game put on this engine as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun_(SNES)

Sooo, there's still work for the mods department then.., thank gawd fer thats




hi ya bCW :wave: :)
User avatar
Marlo Stanfield
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:00 pm

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:30 pm

Back at you Old Andy :wavey: always good to see you.

There will always be work for the mod department.........if I remember correctly a buddy O'mine was working on an AWESOME mod with a ship city
User avatar
David John Hunter
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 8:24 am

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:45 am

Reveiws are not really needed if you love fallout 1-3 I can see NV will be a great game mostly on hardcoe as it will be quite relistic and challegeing judgeing from what I hear.
User avatar
maya papps
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:44 pm

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:51 pm

......if I remember correctly a buddy O'mine was working on an AWESOME mod with a ship city

Hey, I heard that rumor as well, so it must be true. ;)
User avatar
Ridhwan Hemsome
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 2:13 pm

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:22 pm

You're probably right, but if they look deep enough in the game they will see the new gameplay additions such as:

Companion wheel
Companion perks
Weapon mods
hardcoe mode
More quests
New factions
Gambling
Traits
Binoculars
Night/Thermal vision
Nightkins
Snow
More Freindly Super-Mutants
2x guns
More joinable factions
Reputation
New drugs
Repair kits
Doctors bags
Unique speach options for low intellegence characters.
Crafting
Poison/Medicine making
Ammo crafting
Disguises
180 quests
Ability to Play-Through as a pacifist
Ability to kill every person in-game except for one.
Iron Sights
Non-Lethal ammo types
Ammo Type Switching
Faction Ranking

I imagine must reviews won't look that deeply I mean hell they probably only play the game for a few days then have to formulate an opinion on it, most of the changes are deeper then just physical changes and I fear a lot of reviewers are going to play for a few days and have the notion that "Its just like Fallout 3 they didn't change a thing!" *presses bad score button*

Incompetent game journalists/reviewers abound, I wouldn't trust their opinions as far as I could throw them. :facepalm:
User avatar
Camden Unglesbee
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:30 am

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:51 pm

Title is very misleading, as most reviews are supposed to appear on Tuesday rather than Monday.
User avatar
Latisha Fry
 
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:42 am

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:33 am

I think most reviews will be good but have lower scores than what F3 got, even if the review itself will claim that the game is better than F3 was.

It's a bit of an odd situation because, like others have pointed out, Vice City, San Andreas, and the like never really got "targetted" for being just expansions or using the same engine as far as I can recall. But it seems to be a thorn in the side when it comes to New Vegas, it's constantly being pointed out despite the fact that PR have IMO made it pretty clear just what the game is about and what it is.
Perhaps it's just a sign of the times that people want even more pretty graphics nowadays than before. There was never a problem with the infinity engine games or Fallout 2 as I recall. Ah well.


I think it has little to do with New Vegas using the same engine as Fallout 3. I think it has to do with the Fallout 3 engine being, well, not very good in comparison with just about any other engine out there, as far as graphics, animations, etc., etc are concerned. Also, the graphics were getting dated when Oblivion was released and Fallout 3 didn't really improve on them much. Vice City, San Andreas, and GTA4, etc might have all been on the same engine, but the graphics were updated between the games and the graphics were pretty damned decent to begin with and there were no big technical problems with the engine, which there are for Bethesda's version of Gamebyro for certain definitions of 'big'. I don't remember anyone getting upset that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were on the same engine, or that Fallout 1 and 2 were on the same engine, or the multitude of Quake/Unreal engine games - the whole 'FNV is on the F3 engine and thus is bad' meme is a new one for me, and I just can't imagine that it's actually because they think producing a game on an already-existing engine is a truly bad thing unless the engine itself is what's suspect.
User avatar
Flutterby
 
Posts: 3379
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:28 am

Post » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:20 am

in my opinion all the reviewers should have been given a copy last weekend . instead of a few days before. that way they really had a chance to do more then just the main quest, and only of side quests
User avatar
Andrew Perry
 
Posts: 3505
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:40 am

Post » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:06 am

I don't expect to see as good reviews as FO3 got. It doesn't mean that FONV is not as good (or better) as FO3, but every year standards gets higher.
E.g. because graphic will be pretty much the same - it will draw some negative comments like: "Graphic seems a little outdated" etc.etc... FO3 was a superior game 2008 - but in two years critics expect to see some technical evolution. So they can't give so praising reviews.

I'm not sure how people can expect huge leaps in the graphics department, to be honest. Console hardware doesn't change or get (significantly) more powerful between console releases. There's only so much optimization that can be done to squeeze more eye candy out of an engine before you need better hardware. If the expectation of reviewers truly is to see significantly improved graphics out of the same hardware with every new game release, then those reviewers have really unrealistic (bordering on foolish) expectations of the technology. You're not going to get a hugely different-looking game without switching to a new engine, and it would be ridiculous to expect that from a follow-up game with a <2-year development cycle. That's like buying a Toyota Camry and then giving it a bad review because it's not a Ferrari. It doesn't make any sense.

I also attribute the "samey" nature of a lot of games to pressure on developers to produce better visuals...at least a little bit. Engine tech is expensive and can be time-consuming for developers to work with (making it more expensive). The expectation to up the ante in the graphics department with every game is going to make the game more expensive and take longer to produce. Once a developer and/or publisher dump that much time and money into graphics what's left for good content and innovative gameplay? Will the publisher even be interested in innovative gameplay at that point, or will they feel better about their investment in the graphics tech if the developer uses a safer, proven formula? IMO our obsession with better and better graphics has perhaps gone a little too far to the point that it might be hurting the quality of other aspects of games.

Spot on CCNA

I would love to see a "cyber punk" Shadowrun (I loved the SNES version) game put on this engine as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun_(SNES)

If you thought the SNES game was good then you should look into the PnP RPG that it was based on...the SNES game was just the tiniest of tastes of what's there. I'm really surprised that nobody has tapped into that vast reservoir of coolness to make a really good RPG or MMO yet. Again, though, I'm not sure I think Bethesda is the right fit to make a Shadowrun RPG, but I suppose I'd be happy if anyone was able to pull it off well.

Vice City, San Andreas, and GTA4, etc might have all been on the same engine, but the graphics were updated between the games and the graphics were pretty damned decent to begin with and there were no big technical problems with the engine, which there are for Bethesda's version of Gamebyro for certain definitions of 'big'.

I agree with most of your post except this part. GTA III looked nice at the time it was released, but Vice City and San Andreas didn't get graphical enhancements much beyond what's been done between FO3 and F:NV. By the time San Andreas came out the engine was looking pretty darn old and tired. I remember being pretty underwhelmed by San Andreas at first because it was so exactly like Vice City outside of some minor gameplay tweaks. I appreciated the new content, for sure, but from my perspective there was little to no change in the game engine or graphical fidelity.
User avatar
ijohnnny
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:15 am

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:26 am

Someone with malicious intent could argue that those viewpoints are like that because the Fallout 3 gameplay and general design just doesn't deliver the way older GTA games did, or the original 2 Fallouts back then.


Someone that actually believes that GTA games deliver anything better than FO3 deserves to be laughed at...the only Rockstar/GTA game I spent more than a hour on after beating the Main storyline was San Andreas, and that was only because I wanted to make those buster Ballas pay for what they did to my(CJ's) family. On the other hand I've clocked over a 1000 hours on FO3 over multiple playthroughs and am still playing it two years after it hit the stores.
User avatar
SexyPimpAss
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:24 am

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:54 am

Someone that actually believes that GTA games deliver anything better than FO3 deserves to be laughed at...the only Rockstar/GTA game I spent more than a hour on after beating the Main storyline was San Andreas, and that was only because I wanted to make those buster Ballas pay for what they did to my(CJ's) family. On the other hand I've clocked over a 1000 hours on FO3 over multiple playthroughs and am still playing it two years after it hit the stores.


I kinda agree (although I haven't spent over 20 minutes after the MQ in any game). The point was that for some people the style of gameplay and other design aspects were enough to warrant a lack of a bigger general change or uplift. The package as a whole was the thing that kept people going. If, however, those aspects would've been seen as average or only slightly above, I believe they would've gotten the same treatment as F:NV now gets from some people. That those some people consider F:NV a mere expansion pack and are disappointmented because of it is (imo) a signaling that the current design is starting get old - some people had enough of that in Fallout 3 and Oblivion before it; so much that the initial glow is starting to fade.

Now, this is not my personal view on the subject. Just a thought I had when this issue popped up again.
User avatar
Steven Nicholson
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:24 pm

Post » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:02 am

Please order this by significancy:
- New game
- Expansion
- Downloadable content
- Mod
- X game with Y (copy)
- Sequel
User avatar
Harry Leon
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:53 am

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:44 pm

Someone that actually believes that GTA games deliver anything better than FO3 deserves to be laughed at...the only Rockstar/GTA game I spent more than a hour on after beating the Main storyline was San Andreas, and that was only because I wanted to make those buster Ballas pay for what they did to my(CJ's) family. On the other hand I've clocked over a 1000 hours on FO3 over multiple playthroughs and am still playing it two years after it hit the stores.

In my opinion, San Andreas & Vice City are better than Fallout 3 as open world games, and Fallout 2 is better than Fallout 3 as an RPG. But I believe that New Vegas (for many reasons) could be better than all games I have mentioned. We'll see in a few days...
User avatar
jessica breen
 
Posts: 3524
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:04 am

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:55 am

I might glance at the reviews a while after I've beaten the game. Seems a little tricky reviewing the game when it can be played in either normal or HC mode anyways.
User avatar
Liv Brown
 
Posts: 3358
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:44 pm

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:48 am

I preordered and will love the game regardless of reviews. I think the main point of the reviews though will be "lolfail thr r 0utd4ted grafix and crud s0 dun buy kthxbai"
User avatar
sam
 
Posts: 3386
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Previous

Return to Fallout: New Vegas