Gameplay Videos Released For Fallout 3 97
Today Bethesda released walkthrough videos for their upcoming action RPG, Fallout 3. Joystiq has posted the trailers, which contain gameplay footage from the starting area and the city "Megaton," as well as combat scenarios and other features. One fight showcases the targeting system, which they demonstrate by targeting and then shooting off an enemy's arm. Another shows off the ability to create and use improvised weapons. Also shown are the lock picking and computer hacking mini-games, pickpocketing (or depositing something nasty in somebody's pocket), and general nuclear mayhem. Further detail is available at Shacknews.
Re:I know this will get me modded off-topic, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
This is nothing more than another crappy FPS. This is not Fallout. They just stole the branding.
I am incredibly disappointed. They took one of the cleverest CRPGs ever made and turned it into yet another urban combat FPS (of which the market is obviously lacking). Great. Now they have made it impossible for any other real Fallout game to ever be developed.
I totally agree with you. I held out my criticism in hopes that this wouldn't be a Elder Scrolls clone. But the FPS play of the game makes it feel and look like Elder Scrolls. I know the game play mechanics are very different but it looks soooo much like Oblivion. Bethesda could have hit such a homerun if they would have went with the isometric RPG that the original Fallout was. There are no games like that anymore and I think it would have gone over well....and worked on the consoles. But oh well, th
Re:I know this will get me modded off-topic, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that Bethesda already had a homerun with Oblivion, wasn't it smart they based Fallout 3 on it. You have to remember, that although the original Fallout was well regarded, it didn't actually sell all that well. Which is why that are no games like that anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
+10.
I watched videos and second: this is not Fallout. There is ZERO ZILCH NADA of what made Fallout such great, long lasting experience.
Re: (Score:2)
But it probably has lots of what made Oblivion such a great long-lasting experience.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Excessive bloom? Are you talking about the PC version, because the PS3 version uses a toned down version HDR. It's a fine game, though I can see why the graybearded RPG grognards don't much care for it.
ZERO ZILCH NADA (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your thinking is limited, instead of thinking that Fallout must equal 2D isometric 1990's style RPG, think of Fallout as a "universe" that supports many different styles of gameplay. Like Square-Enix's Ivalice (FF Tactics, FFXI), or TSR's Forgotten Realms, or SOE's Tunaria.
Re:I know this will get me modded off-topic, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry I don't have an account.. so AC.
Anyhow I watched all the vids and the game looks like a nice bioshock/oblivion cross. Doesn't much look or feel much like fallout. Have to play it to see, but in fallout a fight with 3 equally armed and skilled people was hard... this looks like its just a FPS where you knock out thousands if not millions of enemies for no reason at all.
Also not sure how you can do it all without killing people when its just mini dungeons linked all together (like oblivion) that you have to kill * in etc.. just like oblivion..
In fact it looks like its a dumbed down version of oblivion.
Sigh.. hate seing the best strategy games in the world turn into FPS nightmares. Even if it mkaes for a great FPS game.. its sure as shit no turn based strategy game anymore.
(I would kill 5 children and eat 3 live skunks for one of those).
Obvious fallacy in your argument (Score:5, Funny)
It's not technically possible to dumb down Oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't make it dumber, it would only make it shorter (which might in fact count as an improvement, because it saves you all the anxiety of thinking "surely, the game must get better at some point?" as you follow an arrow and click through pointless repetitve dialogue, hour after hour after hour...).
Re: (Score:2)
See, Bethesda wants to actually "make lots of money". Turn based games are niche games and don't "make lots of money" It's 2008, do you really want it to be exactly like 1997's Fallout 1 which didn't really sell well?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. We, well I at least, want it to be similar to the old Fallouts but nothing like Fallout Tactics. This looks like Fallout FPS. I'll still be buying it.
Obviously the mods didn't play the first two... (Score:2)
nice graphics (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm pretty sure they've stated that you can change it to iso view instead of FP.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they have demoed (as usually) the best what game has to offer.
Consequently, whatever was left out of the demo will be half-arsed experience: strategic play, quests w/o killing and well actually playing game without killing anyone.
Greatest feature of original Fallout people are clamoring about that you could have played thru the whole game with only one single battle.
They demoed urban shooter flick with story. I have to conclude that the game has nothing else (interesting) in it.
Original
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to happen, because unlike the old days, hard core RPG gamers (the kind that used to save before level ups so they'd get max hit points, save before and after EVERY combat, etc), are a much smaller part of the market. Bethesda wants to make money, unlike the original Fallout devs who made a well regarded
Re: (Score:1)
*chuckles* if you even half expected that from bethesda software, then you are a bigger fool then i thought. all i saw in the game play video is oblivion with guns. the beginning was /exactly/ the same with the 'start off in a dungeon.. excuse me vault'. with a generic /blob/ of a character. surrounded by model's that they probably spent more time on then the rest of the game. you are then greeted RIGHT at the exit of this dun.. i mean vault with a character generator ala oblivion. Once you open the door yo
Re: (Score:2)
all in all this is one game i am not going to waste $60 bucks on.
As much as I'm disgruntled too that we are not getting real Fallout, still as post-apocalyptic "Oblivion with guns" the game might stand.
I do not like RPG mechanics (nor first person mode) of Oblivion, the thingy might just be something I would take a look at.
I would definitely take a look at it if they would at least change name to not to spoil the great franchise which Fallout was.
At the moment there are really few good RPGs are coming out. I'm replaying at the moment Sacred awaiting for Diablo3
Re: (Score:1)
it's not just fallout three. it's the industry in general. daiblo 3 is another example, the health orbs are a example of dumbing down a game because god forbid a game must not always be 'fun' or making the game so simple on purpose that people younger then 10 will have fun playing it when they should not be playing it in the first place.
it's up there as one of the most annoying aspects of modern games, next to being treated like a thief first, pirate second, and a customer a distant third.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you know, Diablo never was praised for being great RPG.
Restarting after death was very easy in original Diablo 1/2 - do not think that Diablo 3 would make that worse.
In world of RPG, Diablo is essentially senseless shooter. Shoot whatever moves. Multi-player also played not last role in its success. If you ever tried to play co-op in NWN1, you would understand that dumb-down Diablo has its niche: simpler game play allows to add more features elsewhere (e.g. multi-player), which are way too comp
Re: (Score:2)
An intelligent game is you! (Score:5, Interesting)
They mostly want to show the graphics and the combat. They are reviewing that everywhere but I don't care. I'm awaiting this game for its intelligent side. You can actually play it without having to shoot first and ask questions later. This is rare nowadays...
A game that also rewards intelligent actions? Count me in Bethesda! And I hope other games like that will follow.
Re: (Score:1)
Bethesda promised an intelligent side for Oblivion, too. Perhaps the reason they are showing off the graphics and combat (which in my humble opinion aren't anything to write home about) is because there really isn't much else to it. The one quest we do know about, i.e. the quest to destroy Megaton, is hilariously bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why just because as someone raised his entire life in a fallout shelter, as were generations before him, a safe place to shelter from the horrors of nuclear war and the wasteland it wrought, you don't think his immediate reaction to a nuclear weapon would be "sweet, let's set it off!"?
Uh, yeah, me neither. The storyline sounds pretty bad. It's doesn't seem like it's going to be a good installment of the Fallout serices. Ah well, at least the graphics are pretty.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, what they show in the videos is only a very brief snippet of the time I expect you are intended to spend in Megaton. They most likely wanted to show that your decisions in the quests you accept and complete have very obvious and massive changes to the game's story - he didn't have to set up the bomb (He actually had an option to defuse it!) but they wanted to show everyone the nuke scene.
He also only talked to 3 people in the town, the sheriff, a girl who obviously had a quest he refused to take
Re: (Score:2)
In original Fallout you could have solved quests without ever shooting at anybody. Fallout 3 is plain shooter in that aspect, quests do not really matter: shoot first, ask questions later. And you have to shoot because you get shoot at first too.
Re: (Score:2)
If Fallout 1/2 I could slaughter whole town, become a slaver, sell off my own wife/husband and in general do very horrible things. That's part of the game series. Your options include a lot more than just mild good and mild evil. After all a psychopath can be born anywhere and if you want to then your character can be one of them.
Sure you may have been born in a vault but that's why you wouldn't care much about nukes. After all they are just stories, you never saw one or even saw the effects of one. That's
Re:An intelligent game is you! (Score:4, Interesting)
A game that also rewards intelligent actions?
Well, I am currently a few hours into Fallout1 and I am still waiting for that one to reward intelligent actions. So far each and every quest (all three of them or so, quest seem to be incredible sparse in that game) has got me spawned right in front of the enemy with exactly zero choice to an intelligent approach, since the shooting starts instantly. Half the people and creatures I am supposed to fight are not even reachable via the worldmap, instead they exist in magical places that you can only reach when an NPC guides you there (aka. instantly teleports you there and when you exist you get teleported back). Reading through a few FAQs also left me rather puzzles, since most of their "tips" are based on pure try&error and abuse of the save system (save before you steal and if it doesn't work, load and try again..). And given how many times I died just because I tried to talk to the wrong person or asked a wrong question makes it clear that a save before pretty much every action is required for survival.
So far I am not exactly impressed by Fallout1 and quite close to ditching it, since the gameplay just doesn't make a hole lot of sense and the time limit and constant threat of death even on the tiniest misstep of course makes exploration a pain.
Re:An intelligent game is you! (Score:4, Interesting)
Last RPG I played was Planescape so maybe I was just spoiled by that.
There also doesn't seem that much to the game questwise; I think I'm almost done and I haven't really been playing that long.
Re: (Score:2)
Fallout and Fallout 2 are fairly buggy games. You may have heard of something via a trigger that didn't actually show the dialogue; I know that happens in FO1.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of it's probably nostalgia, sure. Keep in mind that there was nothing like Fallout before, nothing with the same level of panache and style in everything it did. The neo-50's art theme, the very stylized over-the-top violence, all of that created a game that remains indelible upon those who played it when they were young.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, maybe, but I'm not sure. Fallout was kind of after my time, mind you, I grew up playing CRPGs in the late 80's early 90's, and I can still load up Wasteland and have fun with
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ergh. Everyone always says "but Wasteland!" I've played Wasteland. Wasteland is a favorite of mine. And Fallout, sir, is not Wasteland. (Okay, I completely butchered that quote.) Seriously, though--Fallout is a spiritual successor to Wasteland (though far superior in most respects, including the most important one--usability); the developers have said as much. Complaining that they co-opt the background (not the story, the setting) is kind of silly.
I played Wasteland for the first time in 1993 or so. I thin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The story's not particularly similar at all...Fallout's a MacGuffin story (as is FO2), Wasteland really isn't.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
True. There's another side to that coin, though--that kind of completeness introduces way more bugs and problems like the ones you decry. ("Ask About..." has a surprising amount of stuff, though.)
Both Fallout games were absolutely rushed out the door. Doing what you suggest would make it even more unfinished. Which sucks, but there you go.
Re: (Score:2)
I do like the Ask About part, that's how we did it in the olden days with games like Ultima.
Both Fallout games were absolutely rushed out the door. Doing what you suggest would make it even more unfinished. Which sucks, but there you go.
That's probably a lot of the problem, but honestly it's not something I
Re: (Score:2)
FO2 is both better and worse. Better in that they fixed a few bugs and the story's more developed and different...worse in that it's a little more unfinished.
(And while it's not terribly germane to your point, keep in mind that Interplay didn't develop Fallout in-house; they were armlocking Black Isle to get it out the door for something like four months before they finally released it. This is one of those cases where I personally can't fault the developer a bit and very much do wish a pox upon the house o
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'll take the better story even if it's a little buggier. Just finished Fallout a little while ago (well, the easy way, by detonating the nuclear bomb; I assume there's a more elegant way to finish it so I'll try to get an ending that doesn't make me a mass murderer).
Re: (Score:2)
There's a "better" ending, but the results are the same.
Hint for you: lots of intelligence, the Empathy perk, and talk to Vree before partying down upon the Cathedral.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and get the Restoration Patch [nma-fallout.com] before playing; it fixes most of the bugs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The dialogue trees are generally better in FO2, and the free-form play is on better display there as well.
If you do pick up FO2, make sure to get the unofficial Fallout 2 patch [nma-fallout.com] (on top of the 1.02 patch if you didn't buy version 1.02) as it fixes most of the quirks in the second game.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it is ten years old. Games age quickly and you'll never feel the magic we did when it was fresh and new and we'd never played anything quite like it before. Not to mention, the graphics actually looked cutting edge and we were used to the awkward controls back then. I wouldn't expect anyone to pick up Fallout, Diablo, Starcraft or Baldur's Gate and really feel the same magic as when they were revolutionary and new.
That said if you give Fallout some more time and patience everything will start to cli
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it is ten years old. Games age quickly and you'll never feel the magic we did when it was fresh and new and we'd never played anything quite like it before.
I got addicted to XCom:UFO pretty quickly and that is even older, same with RAMA, Gabriel Knight and quite few other older games that I played recently. I mean, sure, it might never feel like back in the day, but I don't care as long as it still plays well. Graphically I actually like Fallout quite a bit, sure 256 colors make it look a little grainy, but other then that it looks perfectly fine, sound is fine too. Its the gameplay part that gets annoying, since it seems to be based much more around just tryi
Re: (Score:2)
Anal RPG geeks who had to have MAX stat boosts at every level up, saved before and after every combat, and re-rolled their characters until ALL their stats were perfect are NOT the kind of people who should be catered too in game design. BAD designers, bad bad! What was worse was when they began designing the games with the expectation that the players would do that.
Re:An intelligent game is you! (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure what this is about. One of the earliest quests you get is rescuing Tandi from the raiders, and it has the following solutions (taken from here [wikia.com]):
* Kill them all and break her out
* Fight Garl in unarmed combat for her
* Buy her from Garl
* Intimidate Garl for her release
* Quietly kill the two guards in back and pick the lock on Tandi's cell.
* This one doesn't work 100% of the time, but if you enter the Raiders area wearing a Leather Jacket, have 10 ST and 10 EN and are male, the raiders will think you are Garl's father who Garl apparently killed to take control of the Khans. You can try and bluff Garl with this ruse and demand Tandi's release.
This isn't the norm.
You don't have to steal things, it's just one option. Obviously getting caught has to have some consequences, so reloading becomes an issue. However, the higher your steal skill is the more likely you are to succeed, and there are also perks that will make it easier to steal. Approaching your target from the side or the rear increases your odds, and the size of the object you're trying to steal is also a factor.
This is what happens when a game isn't dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. You have to be careful and think about what you're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
* Kill them all and break her out
* Fight Garl in unarmed combat for her
* Intimidate Garl for her release
* Quietly kill the two guards in back and pick the lock on Tandi's cell.
* This one doesn't work 100% of the time, but if you enter the Raiders area wearing a Leather Jacket, have 10 ST and 10 EN and are male, the raiders will think you are Garl's father who Garl apparently killed to take control of the Khans. You can try and bluff Garl with this ruse and demand Tandi's release.
The problem is that none of that will work if my character doesn't have the right stats and there isn't even a way to find out how good my character needs to be to even have the slimmest chance of success for any of that. So after getting killed trying the first, I got killed trying the second and I think the third one got me killed too, so I bought her ought which seems to be the only think that actually worked with my character, didn't feel very intelligent doing that, was just try&error finding somet
Re: (Score:2)
Your character is not supposed to be able to do everything (at least not well). You can create balanced characters that can do most things, but there will always be something you won't be able to do or aren't good at.
Re: (Score:2)
Your character is not supposed to be able to do everything (at least not well).
Thats all fine, but how do I find out what I can do other by trial&error? Take the hand to hand combat choice for example, how am I supposed to figure out that I won't stand a chance in that one? Is there anyway to query the enemy stats that I am missing?
Re: (Score:2)
How good are you at H2H? How much strength and endurance do you have? If your character is a limp-wristed intellectual then you should already know that trading punches with the leader of a raider group is going to end in tears. Much like in real life.
The level 3 perk Awareness will tell you how much hitpoints a target has and what weapon they have, but you can't know what stats or skills someone has.
Re: (Score:2)
How good are you at H2H? How much strength and endurance do you have?
None of that tells me how strong I am in relation to the enemy. Are five points enough? Six? What about having seven? How am I supposed to know how strong is strong enough to fight a random person in the game? Since its all just points it is impossible to tell which means exactly what, unless you have some prior knowledge from already playing the game or doing the load/save trick. This simply isn't a Lost Vikings or whatever where each character has well defined properties that make it easy to tell who can
Re: (Score:2)
So basically what you want is a game where you know everything in advance, where no random variables exist and where it's never possible to fail.
There's nothing wrong with the game, it's your attitude and expectations that are the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically what you want is a game where you know everything in advance, where no random variables exist and where it's never possible to fail.
No, what I want is a game where there is a way to figure things out that doesn't involve dieing and load/save. Where facing an unbeatable enemy gives the option to run away. Where I am not teleported right into the enemy cave without a way to scout the situation first. And where randomness is limited to such a degree that it doesn't mean the difference between winning and dieing, without giving me the choice to intervene.
There's nothing wrong with the game, it's your attitude and expectations that are the problem.
Quite seriously, even when one enjoys the game, which I even do to some degree, there a
Re: (Score:2)
In Fallout you have to figure things out. There is no tooltip telling you the power level of an opponent. If you're looking at a bunch of dudes with combat armor and automatic weapons and all you have is a leather jacket and a pistol, then it's really up to you to realize that you're going to die if you attack them. That said, even very difficult fights can be overcome if you know what you're doing.
Randomness can allow you to, say, instakill an enemy with a critical shot to the head, but it works both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Cedega, or a VLA key, here I come. (Score:2)
Very few games themselves have ever triggered me to do much hardware purchasing. Sure, after playing through _all_ of Doom 3, I got a new video card. But this, this is just amazing. If it runs under Cedega, I'm all over that. If not, fuck.. It'll be the first time.. First time this century.. that I'll slap Windows on my personal home system.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the PS3 version got the shaft in the additional content department it has only Shivering Isles and Knights of the Nine.
But I must say that I am not overly fond of the existence of the mod community. Why? Because it gives professional developers the justification to slack off! Think about it, if there weren't any amateur modders and patchers the pro's would have more incentive to get it right and bug free the first time, just like they do on consoles. And they'd also have more incentive to release n
Re: (Score:2)
Ha-ha-ha! If I had mod points, I would have modded you up "Funny"!
True: what kind of idiot would trade true gaming - PC gaming - for a gimmicky controller and games which generally belong to genre "button mashing TV show. sit tight and watch." Ha-ha!!!
[/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did I miss a memo, I thought that Sony was more evil on slashdot this week instead of microsoft? I can never keep up anymore now that Apple and Google have joined the evil fray.
FPS players (Score:3, Interesting)
I think a lot of FPS players are going to be tricked into buying this ("Wow! Look at those graphics/setting/review score/whatever"), and be very distraught once they learn that it is not an FPS. Sure, there will be those who will like the fact that your shooting skills/power are based upon your stats, but I can see those who are used to guns doing a set amount of damage with a set amount of accuracy being very turned off by this game.
Regardless, I think it looks fantastic, and moves a classic series in the right direction (the isometric viewpoint no longer feels right for this series, IMO). Hopefully it can shake off the "Oblivion with guns" moniker - and properly execute the setting. The new viewpoint/gameplay coupled with the classic Fallout setting/themes (very dark, lots of black humor) looks really promising. There's a lot of ways to mess this one up (especially with regards to the setting!), but it looks like Bethesda did their homework. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
An FPS with stats is still an FPS (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like RPG players were tricked into buying Oblivion with talk of a "living world" and "revolutionary AI", only to get a first-person combat game with auto-levelling enemies, quests designed for 8 year olds with ADD and an interface designed for the Xbox?
I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that, with Fallout 3, the FPS gamers "tricked" into buying it will turn out to be the ones that weren't tricked at all.
The demos show a cross between Oblivion and Half Life 2 with a hint of Max Payne. Might be fun to play, and doesn't look bad (then again, there are better-looking games out now), but it's definitely not looking like an RPG (and that has nothing to do with the POV; many milestone RPGs had a 1st person perspective - Dungeon Master, Ultima Underworld, etc.).
Hopefully this time Bethesda will at least have the game properly playtested (Oblivion was only tested internally), and catch the most obvious design / gameplay bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you explain that reasoning?
When it comes to UI, simpler is better. Why have one button for character stats, another button for quest log, another button for inventory when you can have ONE button and use a tabbed interface. That also lets the developer port it to other platforms, more platforms more sales. I'm playing the PS3 version myself, which is a "Greatest Hit" now, it's a fine game. Reminds me a bit of the PS2 Drakan
Re:An FPS with stats is still an FPS (Score:4, Insightful)
Could you explain that reasoning?
Let's see, maybe it's the fact that, through 99% of the quests, you have a great big arrow pointing at your next objective, and can basically complete it without even looking at the game world (except to kill monsters).
Maybe it's the fact that even when a quest consists of something like "You must find the secret code to open the door... which is two plus two.", some character standing by the door will tell you "Hi there. The code is four.".
Maybe it's the fact that, each time you complete an intermediate objective, a dialog box pops up with your thoughts ("I have found the door that leads to the secret base." - How the hell do "I" know that? The door looks like any other door! Shouldn't I have to actually explore to see if the secret base is there or not?).
The game doesn't just "hold your hand". It picks you up, carries you around and keeps yelling at you, telling you what's happening in case you suffer from short-term amnesia.
Why have one button for character stats, another button for quest log, another button for inventory when you can have ONE button and use a tabbed interface.
Because I already have a "103-tab interface" sitting in front of me (called a keyboard), I have more than one finger, and would like to be able to get to the screen I want without having to move the cursor, look at several virtually identical icons, and click 4 or 5 times each time I want to change a spell or look at the map.
Hell, the game won't even let you add a description to your saved games or add comments to the map (even Ultima Underworld let you do that, and UU came out in 1992), that's how "anti-keyboard" it is.
I'm playing the PS3 version myself, which is a "Greatest Hit" now, it's a fine game.
Oh, if it's a "greatest hit" it must be good. Glad you're enjoying it. And thanks to the auto-levelling enemies and loot, you can be sure that the experience you're having now will be exactly the same experience you'll have through the next 400 identical quests of the game. Never too easy, never too hard. Why feel vastly superior to an enemy or why feel afraid of a big monster when they can all feel exactly the same? There's nothing quite like improving your magical abilities by 10% and knowing that all the enemies just had their magic resistance increased by 10%, too. The fact they used the same 5 voices for all NPCs also helps give the game a sense of comfortable "unity".
Speaking of which, I've just noticed some of the exact same voices in the Fallout 3 demo, so the transition should be easy.
Don't get me wrong; I think Oblivion looks very nice and is a pretty decent "medieval combat" game. Just as I'm convinced that Fallout 3 will be a decent shooter. But Oblivion is not even close to the believable, consistent, "living" RPG that Bethesda spent years promising, and - I'm convinced - neither will Fallout 3 be.
Oblivion is a 3D Diablo clone with some serious balancing issues and Fallout 3 will be a nice-looking first-person shooter with "stats", (repetitive) dialogues and a bigger world than Half-Life 2, but inferior to HL in every other aspect (because Bethesda simply don't have visionary designers like Origin had, and don't spend three years playtesting and refining like Valve does).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Complex 3D worlds, especially those with lots of scenery, are easy to get turned around/lost in. It was either have a compass with objectives and fast travel or have players constantly complaining about getting lost trying to find tiny little dungeon entrances. I'm glad the feature is there
Re: (Score:2)
Complex 3D worlds, especially those with lots of scenery, are easy to get turned around/lost in. It was either have a compass with objectives and fast travel or have players constantly complaining about getting lost
Guess what, the real world is also complex and 3D, and - amazingly - normal human beings (above the age of 8, at least) seem to have no problem navigating it, given reasonable instructions. There are roads and signposts leading to the main destinations and when you're "exploring the wilderness", well, then you're exploring the wilderness and should feel as if you are exploring the wilderness, not staring at a green arrow. An arrow that doesn't even point (just) at places on the map, mind you. If your next o
Re: (Score:2)
Those skills don't translate to the computer screen, because in the real world we have more input, on the screen we're limited to what the devs show to us, which is limited by the hardware. And as you say, we have things like extremely detailed maps of places we have never been, GPS's, and can ask directions of anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. At least one game I have played uses that combination. There's two ways of doing it, "base of thumb on circle + hit square with tip of thumb", or "index + middle finger"
The thu
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think a lot of FPS players are going to be tricked into buying this ("Wow! Look at those graphics/setting/review score/whatever"), and be very distraught once they learn that it is not an FPS. Sure, there will be those who will like the fact that your shooting skills/power are based upon your stats, but I can see those who are used to guns doing a set amount of damage with a set amount of accuracy being very turned off by this game.
You know, I've heard crap like this before and I'm tired of it. FPS players play games from other genres too. We're not all obnoxious 13 year olds who think Counterstrike is the end all, be all. Most of us have longer attention spans than you give us credit for. We can read where it says 'RPG' on the fucking game box and comprehend that it isn't going to be like CS or Quake. Stop looking down at FPS players like we're retards just because we like twitch games. Very few FPS players are going to be "tri
Re: (Score:2)
We can read where it says 'RPG' on the fucking game box and comprehend that it isn't going to be like CS or Quake.
*You* may not be retarded, but I heard a hell of a lot of whining about Mass Effect having "too much dialogue." Along with the complaints like "Why can't I hit what I'm aiming at?" maybe you should consider that not everyone reads the label, and just thinks "ooh, FPS" when they see a screenshot like the ones we've seen to date.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Fallout has always been isometric, and the Fallout 3 that was under development by Black Isle was also isometric.
Thanks Bethesda! (Score:1)
For making the 4th (3rd if you don't count Fallout Tactics: BOS) installment in one of my favorite game series completely unplayable on my box! Seriously i know Bethesda makes good games (Elder Scrolls), but they just had to go and make Fallout 3 into an FPS. A huge hog of an FPS, i would add.
Blah, blah, blah. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh, no, it's an FPS, it's not Fallout!"
"Durr, it's a tactical shooter now!"
"This game sucks because it looks pretty!"
"Additional generic fanboy 'they castrated it' comment"
Whatever. First of all, the game hasn't even been released yet. All we have is a gameplay video (which actually shows that you can go third-person, as well), teasers and screenshots to work with. To immediately discount the game because it's first-person (or third-person) instead of isometric is simply moronic, and completely disregards any semblance of intelligence that many people believe the game lacks simply because of its first person perspective. Even more silly is the concept that the graphics look good, and therefore the gameplay must be shit. What the hell? Does it have to be isometric sprite-based 256 colour graphics for it to be a good game? For it to be Fallout?
Stupidity. Wait for the game to be released and make your decisions then - Don't knock it based on a couple-minute long video that shows the very beginning of the game (wherein you have no interaction with anything but a vending machine and whatever you decide to randomly shoot). From what I've seen so far, the level system and the perks system looks more or less identical to the old Fallout games, and the general motif definitely seems in tune. I see nothing that immediately jumps out at me as "non-Fallout", and so until I've seen the game in action, I won't say it is or isn't. But, it certainly does look like Fallout.
Whats with the complaints? (Score:2)
There are a bunch of complaints talking crap about the first person view and that you could shoot stuff in real-time, but what's the problem? Fallout as an RPG wasn't a very good one. Fallout was a great game because of the different choices in ways to solve missions, the character development, but most of all the story and art direction. This looks like it's heading in the right way in terms of story and art direction so why is everyone bitching about the first person nature? First Person is more immersive
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we define RPG differently but the whole role playing aspect of it was really what I thought Fallout (FO2 was the best in my opinion) did very well. It allowed you to step into character, to accentuate the aspects you liked best, and to run through the game in so many different ways that you got to role play being evil, benign, good, or just to run through it like a made man.