But HUGE improvements over Daggerfall (TES2) that couldn't be finished due to bugs in it's release state

Who cares about Melee anyways? Isn't it MEANT TO BE crap, just like it is in real life (compared to guns)?

"dey is evils" is a legit concern?

Do you guys really want a new engine? I mean...are you sure you want a new engine? Lord knows the gamebryo engine is far from perfect. But its gotten better everytime (though, its also gotten sloppier and makes modding harder everytime). The gamebryo engine can do animations just fine, the game is not built for animations. I can assure you if they switch to a new engine its a fresh start full of bugs and other problems we can't forsee and it will take years and tons of games to get it to the same level the gamebryo engine is now. Its built for open world. They could animate the crap out of that dog but they'd rather animate more creatures so when you're exploring the waste you see all sorts of new things. Not to mention...the dog animations were fine, especially compared to the person animations which looked like it was ripped directly from fallout 3...This isn't call of duty or far cry where they animate the scenes you only see one time to make them beautiful. This is open world. Animations simply aren't that important.

People like to complain about the problems they see but switching to an animation-intensive engine means a lot of the funding goes towards developing a new engine that quite frankly won't preform as well as the old in some regards. We might miss out on character customization (because more animations means more facial animation which means less faical differences if you want your game to be stable). Heck, if they fix the stupid neck seams I'd go so far as to say the gamebryo engine is perfect.....Hmm...neck seams....We might need a thread just for those annoying little punks....

Pretty positive you're being sarcastic, you know what I mean, it looks like they just took everything from Fallout 3, models, textures animations, ect..
Legitimately trying to have a discussion here. I'm telling everyone what I personally have seen. I don't want to it look like space [censored]. It should looks like Fallout, but the reveal trailer LOOKED like they're using the same tech they used to make previous titles.. It looks like they're using the same engine, they keep renaming the gamebryo engine, with not very significant upgrades. So I'm not sure what they renamed it for Skyrim. I'm just sick of companies rebranding the same tech and charging money like its a brand new product.
I still have faith, I love fallout like I've stated before, it just seems basically every game coming out these days is a mess. And I don't want to see that happening to Fallout.

Are you all so negative about stuff in real life too?

You're entitled to your opinion, but it amazes me how people think graphics are all that matters, and don't care about content. I guess that's why people will pay $60 for 10 - 20 hours of gameplay as long as it looks pretty.

I'm really not impressed by how it looks, especially the lighting and textures, but I'll be happy if the content is there.

What shocks me is that it doesn't even look remotly like Fallout 3 in terms of graphics and color....it's like you guys look at the art style and say it's the same.

IT could be for a reason. Maybe that big junker city in the middle is a huge connected sprawling city with the actual correct amount of NPC's and buildings you'd expect from a City.

That would be amazing.

I'm more concerned in the writing and gameplay department. Looking back at Skyrim and most of their games post Morrowind, Bethesda have become deathly afraid of allowing the player to lock themselves out of factions/quests, fail, go against the "canon storyline" of quests, and have an over-reliance on scaling everything to match the player so that they can never be overwhelmed.

What is "doing it right" in the context of a game with the size and scope of Bethesda games?
Who is doing these games better? I mean, I hear as far as open world games, Witcher 3 is pretty good and all, but that is one game and I think all in all, BGS games are kind of in their own class, and therefore set their own benchmarks.

I would like to quote this post from a user on another forum because It baffles me how anyone could say the graphics are bad given the content and nature of this game.

Actually, I somewhat enjoy the negatives some people are posting. The reason being is that I disagree with most of them. So the more certain people complain, the more convinced I am that this will be a wonderful experience.

Do I want bethesda to create a new engine from scratch? Yes. Gamebryo is beyond a joke now. They need stop trying to keep updating and patching that rotting carcass and realize it is time to take it to the pasture and put it out of its misery. The video was pretty underwhelming, as mentioned it looked like a F3 expansion and not a new game. The large city is an improvement (need to actually run around it before final say), however everything else looked about the same. The animation was wince inducing and the graphics were only a minor improvement.

Of course that is only part of the issues I have with what bethesda has done with the license.

• Maturity - Bethesda has removed mature content except for rare token moments. Such a downgrade from F2, might as well have the game rated T. Missed the whole point why the fallout series was well remembered. FNV was an improvement, but stil a long way from the awesomeness of F2.
• Story - Bethesda is horrible at writing interesting stories
• Action game - I miss being able to avoid combat because my character was not an idiot looking for trouble, now its all PEW-PEW-PEW
• Dumbed Down dialog, no point in an intelligent character. Rember when you were inteligent and it showed in the previous fallout games? Like when you gave the farmer this long explanation about crop rotations and how it would benefit farming? Yea, now they have been replaced with short one liners that usually does not add much.
• Screwed up the lore, seriously. The setting takes place in a retro future that was envisioned by the 1960's, but did not take place in the 1960, and the apocalypse is more like 70's/80's vision and NOT the 60's vision. People should NOT be still be dressed up in 1960's clothing, nor have buildings that look like it came from the 60's.

I am sad to see what has been done with such an amazing IP.

the gun combat svcks too if you dont use VAT.....just saying

what amazes me is people like you who say all we care about are graphics - thats fine that youre so content with the lack of progress - but when most of us buy new consoles and PC's , we want to be able to experience the actual upgrade from the hardware improvements. Basically, just worry about yourself and dont get involved in discussions like this- then you will stop being so amazed

also - if you read anything, you would realize that many are still getting the game even though its underwhelming on a few fronts. You need to either change your mentality or deal with it - because this wont stop. People want progress and have a right to ask for it. Espicially in the new gen of gaming

Completely agree.

Completely disagree. Stop hyping F2 for nostalgic reasons. F1 and F2 are inferior to F3/NV in most ways. I mean just look at the stupid combat system, wow. Probably the worst I have ever seen in a video game. Then all the small maps (F1 had like twelve different locations in total?) and many quests that are not even worth being called so ('talk to XYZ about ABC')

And there's no sense in having an intelligent character? You mean aside from all the additional skill points and all the unique speech options you'll get? And how is Fallout 3's story 'weak' ? It's way more complex than 1/2's and just bigger like the rest of the game.

Fallout 1 and 2 were great games back in the 90's, but come on, stop dreaming. There's no way they hold up to 3/NV. It's like saying 'GTA V suxx so bad, GTA II was so much better'. But I bet there ARE people claiming this [censored]

That isn't true.

Fallout is how the people of the 50's envisioned the future to be like. Well, the science fiction pulp media anyway.

I think Bethesda did a good job on delivering that, although Fallout 3 had many present-day connections to the 50's, which wasn't needed, but also didn't exactly break the series. It just should be a thing of the past in the future.

So is it a pissing contest by how long or how far they can piss, or just the amount of piss they can put on the initial trailer?

I agree, Skyrim was pretty solid compared to the last few, and the animations we're much better. But the OP is right, their animations are usually terrible lol, so much I have to play in the first-person and pretend there is no third-person option except to look at my character.

Man... I wish I could see the future like some people on the forum can... Sheesh, a 3 minute trailer containing little gameplay and we can discern how terrible the entirety of the game is going to be?

Absolute nonsense. Go back and play the originals if you honestly think that. There's more to them then graphics and cinematic story-telling. GTA is in a much different category than Fallout. Fallout is an RPG, and RPGs have a certain set of standards that most people agree should be met. Fallout and Fallout 2 exceeded these standards. Many RPGs since then have not.

Why would you talk about the game like its a final product when this is the first thing of the game we've seen???
Its obviously "still in development".

Don't get your nickers in a knot until the devs announce "We've decided to replace all guns in the game with Wiffle bats"

haha, love this post.