triplestation
Member
This won't happen because Bethesda is tasteful
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fallout 4 Officially Revealed for PC, Xbox One, PS4 [Reddit Rumor = Ban]
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
that was bloody awful, music on trailer was stunning, all Bethesda OST's are amazing
triplestation
Member
This page is making me nauseous
triplestation
Member
Yap
Admiral Woofington
Member
This is me as well. These games have horrible gameplay and janky physics. The exploration and world building are the redeeming aspects
CMojicaAce
Member
Are the GOTY/Ultimate editions of Fallout 3 and New Vegas worth it? Or should I just get the standard editions?
I fully believe it'll be out for October/November 2015.
The trailer was basically in engine but "gameplay in engine" if you know what I mean?
You could tell it was gameplay from a few scenes like the shopping mart scene.
Anyway what I'm trying to say is it looks far along and I expect it this year!
The trailer was basically in engine but "gameplay in engine" if you know what I mean?
You could tell it was gameplay from a few scenes like the shopping mart scene.
Anyway what I'm trying to say is it looks far along and I expect it this year!
Because it adds to immersion. I loved making a home base and actually decorating it. It also made the world feel more real to me when items didn't just move around, but I could pick them up.
Bethesda games to me are like the equivelant of making the computer the games master, giving you a situation, and telling you to make a character and personality, and figure out how he/she deals with the world. You have set rules but in general you are free to try whatever the hell you want. And you are given the abilities to rp. For example being able to sit down, I love that. I miss that in Witcher. I would make my character eat twice a day and she'd sit to eat. I also loved being able to find beds to sleep in cause I made her sleep at least 6 hours and she had to find a bed she could do so (that was a challenge in itself when the game was new and I hadn't marked out spots I could go to).
To me, their worlds allow me to pretend I'm that character and I'm in that world. The little things like being able to move stuff around really does help with that. And Bethesda seems to do that kind of stuff well. I've yet to see any non turn based games that do it as well (They all seem to be really missing that. I mean I absolutely love Witcher but it definitely misses that because it's more aimed at you playing a particular story rather than playing whoever you want however you want). The many different tools you are given to choose how your character does stuff (is she good with dialogue, high charisma? Does she know a lot about science?). The fact you can do a whole peaceful play through even (in fact, if you look at people who love the Fallout games, this tends to be a marker... can we actually play without ever fighting and being a pacifist?).
That is what Bethesda does well that a lot of people who rag on them and call them awful completely miss. Something a lot of other ARPG games really miss as they focus more on just the combat gameplay part.
And no, Bethesda games aren't perfect for it. And I think there are some very valid complaints. I think they could still do better story and still allow for open gameplay (Look at New Vegas). They could do way better characterizaton (Hell, I loved how each follower had a questline that told you a story and really personalized them in Vegas). They are not so good at your choices truly affecting what you do (Skyrim, I help the stormcloaks win and I still have imperials marching stormcloak prisoners around... really?!), they kinda rail road you in the main quest (you are going to kill the big evil dragon, you are going to help the Brotherhood. No you can't decide you agree with the Enclave or you are crazy/super evil and want to help the dragon destroy the world). Hell,sometimes they forget to allow you to do everything (You can't get rid of the Thieve's Guild in Skyrim. You can't even just kill them all even if there is no quest for it. If you want to get rid fo the Assassin's Guild you are punished bya much weaker quest line with all of one quest and much crappier rewards, no neat horse for your character). All of these are valid criticisms that actually take into account why people like Bethesda games and where they could really improve for the people who want their type game.
Hell, I'd even argue that it would be nice if they improved combat (personally I just want Dragon's Dogma's combat in all my RPGs, I have yet to see another ARPG do combat near as well. It was so good that despite me finding it weak as an RPG in everything else I still enjoyed the game. And combat is not really the main reason I tend to play RPGs!). I didn't like how in Skyrim when you had fetch quest it just told you were to go. I would have rather they gave me a way to try to figure it out myself (and let me turn on marking it if I gave up. But if you didn't mark it they really gave you no way of finding where you were supposed to go). Witcher does this a lot better (I like how at the very least I have to use my Witcher senses and they even give me verbal clues on stuff sometimes). These aren't complaints I think that address more why people play Bethesda games but I do think would make them better.
Gemüsepizza
Member
I would be happy if the whole game looks like that shot. But I don't really believe it. The rest of the footage doesn't match up with that. I'm still convinced that this particular scene is shopped somehow.
Solid Samus
Banned
they're worth it. both of them expand upon the base game meaningfully. Fallout 3 Broken Steel is essential for circumventing the original 'hard-stop' ending of Fallout 3, and NV has some of the best DLC I've ever played.
Unaha-Closp
Member
As long as that rumor about them forcing you to play a male is wrong, this is exactly what I'm expecting (except I'm hoping them voicing the character won't ruin my immersion as I fear it will. It's fine for games where you aren't making a character of a personality you have in mind already for it. Not so much in a game where part of the appeal is playing who ever you want).
And honestly, the more I look at the pictures, the better it looks. It looks like there is far more details in the world than before. That's far better to me than higher resolution or the character models being hugely different (To be honest how they do their character models never really bugged me). I'm more interested in them making the world more interesting than making the graphics more impressive.
yeah I am with you on that. I played female in all the games I mentioned and to not be able to in Fallout 4 would be a huge bummer. Again time will tell if the inclusion of a voiced player character would ruin the immersion really - with good enough writing it could work - but what the hell do I know. And the detail I agree with too - you can see the walls (or the wood panels I guess?) in the first house are kind of bent and warped a little as if they were aged and had been hit with a force of some kind
If there are little details like that I will be happy.FunkyPajamas
Member
The best part is that actually looking at that shot reminds me how good looking the game is in reality after you strip away all of the sour-grape talk. Esp. considering the immense scope of the sandbox world.
If I were to read nothing but the posts complaining about the graphics before seeing any actual media first-hand, the only logical conclusion would be that the game looks something like this.
That's ultra on PC, right?
I don't want to trash on the graphics here again but the huge aliasing issues and completely missing AO makes me thinking.
You can force AO through the driver, so even if they haven't implemented AO in their engine for whatever reason, why didn't they chose to enable it outside of the engine? Wouldn't you show off your game in the best possible quality? Same goes for a better AA, which they could've easily achieved by downsampling.
They either:
- don't want a ticket in the "everything was downgraded" train - but if so, even if you would have to throw 2 TitanXs at it for good AA and AO, it would be an achievable level of graphics and thus shouldn't cause an outrage if it doesn't look that good on consoles, "normal" PCs. Which brings me to my other theory
- they are showing the console version for whatever partner they have made a marketing deal with.
- they are showing the game running on a moderately specced PC so that you can see what most people get.
- in addition to the above theory, they did it, do be the first where everything was upgraded when the game releases and not downgraded. So some weird kind of trolling.
You can force AO through the driver, so even if they haven't implemented AO in their engine for whatever reason, why didn't they chose to enable it outside of the engine? Wouldn't you show off your game in the best possible quality? Same goes for a better AA, which they could've easily achieved by downsampling.
They either:
- don't want a ticket in the "everything was downgraded" train - but if so, even if you would have to throw 2 TitanXs at it for good AA and AO, it would be an achievable level of graphics and thus shouldn't cause an outrage if it doesn't look that good on consoles, "normal" PCs. Which brings me to my other theory
- they are showing the console version for whatever partner they have made a marketing deal with.
- they are showing the game running on a moderately specced PC so that you can see what most people get.
- in addition to the above theory, they did it, do be the first where everything was upgraded when the game releases and not downgraded. So some weird kind of trolling.
Bethesda is taking note of the graphics backlash and delaying the game to late 2016 to give them time to tighten up the visuals.
Absolutely. The DLC adds tons of content and, with the exception of a couple, are really good. And I don't think the GOTY editions cost much more anymore either.
I've played NV and FO3 many times over. I fell in love with everything fallout and now it's one of my favorite series ever. I don't really care much about graphics at the end of the day but...
How in the fuck are they still using these old ass running animations? That leads me to believe they've carried over a bunch of other stuff since it's the same fucking engine. The stiff gunplay could carry over. The awkward 3rd person view may be a carry over also. To me, that's worrying. And mentioning it/noticing this stuff doesn't mean I've been playing fallout for the wrong reasons.
LookAtMeGo
Member
I can't believe this could possibly come out this year. With Bloodborne and TW3 and this coming out in the same year.. That's one damn fine year for RPGs. Might be the best year ever in my books. I have zero doubts this game will deliver. I need more details! I hope they have a lot more info at E3.
Not sure if posted already ,but the FALLOUT 4 page is up on steam and you can preorder it now .
http://store.steampowered.com/app/377160/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/377160/
Swarming101
Member
Or we could play the Witcher 3, which has a better combat system, a bigger map, better storylines, better side-quests, better characters, and infinitely superior graphics all in one package, without having to compromise. You're acting like it's a trade-off that has to be made, but for the last few weeks we've all been playing a game that made no trade-off and delivered arguably the best RPG experience in the last decade or more.
Exactly. We haven't got 'in-game' footage as such, but we have got gameplay captured in-engine via a floating camera - from what we can tell it appears like they're still using the same Gamebryo engine they've been using for 13-14 years now. If that is the case then we can justifiably start worrying about whether old problems will continue to plague this game - the stiff gunplay and awkward 3rd person views you mentioned, the bugginess, the scripted scenes, the awkward animations, etc.
Absolutely everything points to a 2015 release.
No way this isn't coming out this year then. I even go out on a limb and say they will release it during or shortly after E3. Believe.
And I think we will all be floored when they show the game. The simulation stuff in the page source sounds like that we are going to have something like a fully simulated world where everything influences everything.
4K or go home, baby.
Solid Samus
Banned
this is one of the strangest comparisons I continue to see in this thread. Witcher 3 and Fallout might both be RPGs but they attempt to achieve very different experiences with their systems and to compare them on the surface like that does a disservice to both games. It's ridiculous. There's a lot that Witcher 3 does that Fallout doesn't do, and vice versa, because they've got very different focuses. I don't make the claim that Witcher 3 made compromises because its loot isn't real world modeled objects, like in Fallout, or because its world zones are segmented, unlike Fallout, do I? No, because that'd be crazy. Those measured decisions made during development suit the type of game Witcher is trying to be, like Fallout's systems and writing suit Fallout and its more personalized and open ended approach to roleplaying.
Good post. I am able to enjoy Bethesda's open world games for similar reasons - they give you more freedom to be your own character, which is always my preference.
But as you said they kind of ruin it by railroading you into the main quest which is always some urgent save the world thing. After playing all of their games since Morrowind, it's so easy to see the man behind the curtain and feel frustrated by how limited you actually are in defining your own character. You can't really be a bad guy, even New Vegas mostly failed there. Choices you make during quests tend to have zero impact on the world at large. You can create different types of characters but at the end of the day they mostly all play the same. At this point the whole "be any character you want!" feels very shallow. Bethesda's design philosophy seems to favour Jack of all Trades characters over specialized ones. You can create your own rules but the games tend to lead you into building characters who can do everything - use swords and magic, guns and stealth. Be the leader of the Thieves Guild, Mages Guild, Fighters guild simultaneously. You can decide not to do that but why would you? It makes no difference to the game.
Their games are big and there's lots of stuff but none of it feels truly connected in any meaningful way. A big playground that seems more and more familiar. I would hope Fallout 4 breaks the mold a little but the trailer hasn't given me any reason to think Bethesda have tried pushing things outside of their comfort zone.
not to be a mood killer but preordering being available does not mean it will come out soon .
Witcher 3 was up for preordering for almost a year before it released .
bananafactory
Banned
EB Games just officially confirmed that it's coming this year on their Twitter account
It's not a placeholder date
https://twitter.com/EBGamesAus/status/606349242760716288?s=09
It's not a placeholder date
https://twitter.com/EBGamesAus/status/606349242760716288?s=09
Deified Data
Banned
Here's what you should expect, when starting your first Bethesda-style Fallout game:
Fallout 3 has a pretty insipid story that requires several leaps of belief for any of it to make sense. It's fairly lacking in gear and weapon variety. Roleplay potential is somewhat stifled by the fact that you'll always be the 19-year-old child of Liam Neeson, fresh out of the Vault. That said, the world mostly certainly isn't barren and empty. Every few feet you're going to run into a new set piece or dungeon. The DC wastes are infinitely more enjoyable to explore than the Mojave. Unlike New Vegas, there's still stuff in the DC wastes I haven't found yet after putting hundreds of hours into the game.
New Vegas is the polar opposite of Fallout 3: a game with a engaging story, branching quest structure, open-ended roleplay scenario, and characters that have interesting and believable motives. The Mojave is also an unmitigated bore to explore. There are 5+ dungeons in Fallout 3 for every one in New Vegas, and they tend to be stuffed with more things to find even still. You play NV for the narrative, as the Mojave is essentially a linear circuit that you're going to travel the same way each time you play. Exploring is just a thing you do in between quest markers in New Vegas, unlike Fallout 3 where quests were a nuisance that broke up your time exploring.
So your choice should be pretty clear. Do you play to explore, or to immerse yourself in an engaging story? Both games are serviceable in their weak points but their strengths are obvious.
HOLY HELL
EB Games just officially confirmed that it's coming this year on their Twitter account
It's not a placeholder date
https://twitter.com/EBGamesAus/status/606349242760716288?s=09
Nice!
Witcher 3 is a perfectly valid comparison. One of the main reasons people love the original Fallout games is because of choice and consequence, which is something Witcher 3 does very well and something Bethesda have utterly failed at repeatedly.
OnionPowder
Member
Solid Samus
Banned
Witcher 3 is a perfectly valid comparison because of one cherrypicked element out of many that help to define these very different games, huh? In the context the comparison was originally made in, no, Witcher 3 is not exactly a valid comparison. People don't play and enjoy Witcher 3 for exactly the same reasons they play and enjoy Fallout and to suggest as much is just plain asinine to me.
I could talk all day about Bethesda's shortcomings. I've chosen to take a wait and see approach with Fallout 4 with the hopes that it defies my normally cynical expectations. but had you caught me in a Fallout thread six months ago, I'd be agreeing with you about Bethesda and how they handle things like choice and consequence. Even then, I wouldn't consider Witcher 3 and modern Fallout games that could be directly compared, they work to achieve very different roleplaying experiences.
well considering that someone like you or me could literally work for EB games' twitter I don't think it's too much of confirmation.
You're right. People play and enjoy Witcher 3 for the excellent writing, amazing quests with choices that matter, and at the very least, decent combat. No one plays Fallout 3 for these things.
StealthGoblin
Banned
I'll be happy if it does release this year. I'll probably get it around February time when I have vouchers and a bit of time to play it. Much better than waiting a whole extra year on top.
(The added benefit of Feb is that it'll hopefully have had the game-breaking bugs etc ironed out and I'll have some DLC to sink my teeth into - I always do the sidequests as soon as they are available)
(The added benefit of Feb is that it'll hopefully have had the game-breaking bugs etc ironed out and I'll have some DLC to sink my teeth into - I always do the sidequests as soon as they are available)
But Witcher 3 got delayed along the way.
NullPointer
Member
Funny enough I was listening to the latest VideoGamer podcast, recorded before this trailer hit, and one thing stood out: One of the hosts talked about how Fallout has never been the greatest looking game, and that once Fallout 4 was revealed its visuals would be compared the most to Witcher 3 as another sprawling open world game - and that if Fallout 4 didn't compare favorably to Witcher 3 there'd be some real disappointment in online reactions.
I think they nailed it.
Its still early going yet, and while I'm not impressed with a lot of the visuals here I'm now really looking forward to that e3 presentation and a focus on gameplay.
Solid Samus
Banned
Thanks for the dismissive shitpost, I really appreciate it because it actually does help to illustrate my point further. People don't play those games for quite the same reasons, and you acknowledge that much, so why pretend otherwise? People play Fallout 3 for a personal and involved roleplaying experience that puts them in the position of journeyman, free to go where they want, see the things they want, do the things they want, say the things they want - and lets them determine the inside and outs of that characters life in the context of the story. Lets them roleplay on levels entirely removed from Witcher 3, even in the absence of a sensible plot or motivation, because they can roleplay in any context they see fit. New Vegas marries those elements with some of the best writing in an RPG, not to mention quality characters and mechanical improvements abound. I wouldn't suggest Fallout 3 or New Vegas to someone solely because they enjoyed The Witcher 3, and vice versa, do you understand?
Beelzebufo
Banned
The only thing that looks kinda bad I think is the characters in that trailer. But they looked way worse in 3 and it never bothered me too much.
Well I'm really struggling to understand how someone could say Witcher 3 and Fallout aren't comparable. They're both open world RPGs with quests and exploration. In W3 you play Geralt, in Fallout 3 you play your own character - who is always someone looking for their dad. So massive a difference that it is just asinine to compare them.
Aces&Eights
Member
Except that's your opinion, mate. You "expect" me to subscribe to a line of shit that is simply not true. I think the graphics look fine. I think Bethesda is bringing their best and I don't think this is mediocrity. I think you have unreasonable expectations and too loud of a voice. Can't you just go blog about it instead of thread shittng?
PurpleSquid
Neo Member
ha yea i agree with you. don't like it at all
-duskdoll-
Member
EB Games just officially confirmed that it's coming this year on their Twitter account
It's not a placeholder date
https://twitter.com/EBGamesAus/status/606349242760716288?s=09
awwwww yissssss