I strongly disagree in this one. Immersion was part of Fallout 3s schtick and it just about had the graphics to do it. It won't hold up now. Just looking at that trailer puts me off immediately- I'm seeing the old, tired textures and jagged lines. I'm not interested in that visual design.
And if you don't mind that moment being a visually identical and imaginatively bankrupt repetition, then fine. But such re-treads represent a lot of what I despise about gaming. It's just going around in circles, not pushing on.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Oddly enough I replayed Fallout NV and 3 a few months ago and I had no issues getting immersed in them. Graphics only need to be so good as to be capable of immersion and then it doesn't really matter beyond giving nerds boners and letting reviews and PR devs gush about "nEX GEN". It's not like the threshold for immersion climes along with the graphics. If you personally can't get into a new release that doesn't shine like a hollywood dime then that's your mental barriers, imo. Besides, I don't think the trailer looked any worse than some big budget titles released recently like Bloodborne or Inquisition. Both gorgeous.
50% of Fallout is nostalgia and call-backs. Like, the entire Fallout series is built on that stuff.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Jun 4th, 2015 at 03:25 PM
Blimey, this is nothing to do with mental barriers- just a very reasonable expectation that people make an artistic effort to reach the bar (which other people are doing and Bethesda did once). We can't keep being satisfied with the limited achievements of the past (and limited they were- they worked in context), and if you are talking about nostalgia, I reckon that this is indeed the force working on your mental misreading of the value of those things- there's certainly no other way I can square that with the idea that it didn't look worse than Bloodborne. It looks relatively awful.
They can be a lot more immersive than they are, and graphics are a part of that. If you choose to do first person open world, getting that right is important. If it looks old and tired, it will feel that way as well.
I hope this isn't going tio get a pass from some just because it is Fallout.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Immersion pretty much is a mental barrier, is what I meant. A game needs to be capable of tricking your brain into getting immersed in a situation and reacting naturally without noticing the artifice. I feel that's achievable with serviceable graphics in this day and age. I think it's the expectation that "it's 2015 so games should have amazing graphics" is the issue with people failing to be immersed by things they would have been 5 years ago.
I don't think what we saw in the trailer (not the final product) fails to reach the bar. I think whether or not something looks old and tired is more about presentation and visual design than straight up graphics. What I saw looked promising to me.
I think it does get something of a pass, even if for no other reason than that we're all probably going to just mod it to look better a month after launch anyway like with Skyrim. But also, Fallout isn't a big setpiece action title that's banking on wowing the audience. It's meant to immerse through worldbuilding and narrative, not graphics.
I do however, agree that Bethesda should retire the Gamebryo engine. They've been using it since Morrowind, it's pretty ridiculous by this point.
I loved that particular aspect of the stat system: Intelligence giving more. It has been ages since I've messed with that system but doesn't the "skill point boosting" effect have a cap? Meaning, you can't just keep adding more and more to intelligence to bust out more and more skill points when you level up.
And the level caps (both the player and how many skill points you can invest) make the system meted, as well.
Also, I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to fighting. I have never played a Fallout game for PvP. You want a different system for PvP, it sounds like.
As far as being able to earn lots of skill points, yeah, that's kind of the point. Impatient players are rewarded with lots of damage/power and other things if they don't want the long-haul in skill points. Patient players who like to play tactically, like I do, are willing to have a tough beginning to the game to have a delicious mid to end game with lots of skills.
Some of most immersive experiences have been with games that look like crap. Half Life being the prime example. I played that game on a absolute shit computer and I don't even remember what happened that weekend....
Hell, going back to Fallout 3 five years after the game was released still was more immersive than most games I played that year.
Graphics definitly help (especially with weather effects) but it's not everything. Even though I would be happy with a new engine (and you are right, it should be a new engine), I still will play the **** out of it.
Check Kotaku regarding that post. They label is a fake.
Prime reasons is that most of that information was taking from something Kotaku published previous to that post. Also, the poster mentions that the information she leaked by accident was to Kotaku and they basically, "who the **** is this person"
The setting sounds very interesting. I think Bioshock: Infinite is the only retro-futuristic game I've played.
I prefer single player RPG's to MMOs as well.
Skyrim with guns? Awesome.
What do you mean by fake open world?
Do you decisions in-game affect the state of the world?
Since this is an rpg, is it class-based like typical RPG's, or is there more freedom to specialize, like in Skyrim?
Is there an absurb amount of grinding to carry out, or is it reasonable?
Damn, thanks, yes I appreciate the effort. I wuv you too.
So if I decide to play Fallout 4, is there any need to have played 3 and NV?
I'm not a graphics expert or anything, but from the videos I've seen of 3, those screenshots look a good deal better.
They don't look current gen though.
__________________
"To all visitors from Transylvania looking for the head of Voivode Dracula: Yes, we have it. Yes, he's dead. No, you cannot see it. No, he will not return and invade you again. It has been over thirty years, please stop pestering us."
Yes, Bioshock is the closest "art style" analog I can think of. Very apt comparison. Obviously, the art styles are different but it has the same theme.
That's because you're not dirty filthy pleb.
Hmm.
Like Witcher 2. Semi-open world but you're locked down to specific areas each chapter. Similar for Dragon Age: Inquisition. Not quite open world but has open world elements/areas.
Absolutely. Doing a quest in one way may clear out deathclaws (enemies that will utterly destroy you at low levels no matter how good you are) in an area. Doing it in another may cause a human settlement to be destroyed but you get nice loot. Main quest decisions are probably the most world-changing.
Yes and yes. You can choose to be more scavenger, charismatic, pugilistic, hand gunny, rifley, bladey, and combinations thereof. I'm over simplifying it as there are more options and ways you can build your class as you level.
Almost no grind whatsoever. If you just play the side quests and main missions, you will level and find excellent equipment. And here's what is great about the equipment: NO RANDOM NUMBER GENERATION. If you want to play again and found that awesome sniper rifle in the camp at the end of the game, start a new game from the beginning, get that awesome sniper rifle, and have fund sniping throughout your whole play through. I hate randomly generated loot systems.
The only need I can see if simply to have had that adventure and become cultured if you consider yourself a serious gamer. As far as fun goes, you'll have fun in both so there is that bonus, too. I liked NV far more than Fallout 3.
Based on my estimate, in the trailer, the graphics are too good for current gen consoles but not quite up to snuff on current gen PC games. Meaning, it would be middle of the road for a PC game in 2012-13.
The only legitimate point that Kotaku author brought up was whether or not she leaked it to them. Her words do not indicate she leaked it directly to them. Here were her words on that:
"PS. I leaked some of the first Fallout 4 info by accident, and it ended up in the hands of Kotaku. Oops."
Also the console release thing is the only other marginally legit point. It is fully possible that development for 360 and PS3 were abandoned since a year ago.
The author seems more sore over the idea of competing news sources rather than having a legitimate claim that this potential former employee leaked info. I see it is butthurt and not a legit refutation.
Gender restriction? Probably because gender build had not been matured that far yet in development.
1. Played and did work on an early version.
2. Lied and put together truth with as much truthful speculation as possible.
Regardless, the stuff about the engines seems correct as reviews of the trailer are showing the game to have to at least be run on a significantly updated engine.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 4th, 2015 03:13 PM
