899 réponses à ce sujet

[Queen Skadi]

hmm, anyone else unimpressed by the trailer? Looks like the game was meant for last gen consoles, the only thing that is truly remarkable about the visuals is the lighting but you can sure as **** bet that it wont be in the retail version.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

holy hell, looks like I made the official fallout thread. lel

 

It seems in your anger you killed her:

 

http://forum.bioware...poilers/page-99

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

hmm, anyone else unimpressed by the trailer? Looks like the game was meant for last gen consoles, the only thing that is truly remarkable about the visuals is the lighting but you can sure as **** bet that it wont be in the retail version.

 

It looks better than New Vegas and ME3. (Almost as good as Inquisition?) That's good enough for me.

[Gravisanimi]

hmm, anyone else unimpressed by the trailer? Looks like the game was meant for last gen consoles, the only thing that is truly remarkable about the visuals is the lighting but you can sure as **** bet that it wont be in the retail version.

I don't have a release date so it could be in an unplayable state for all I know.

 

Hell, they may only be about a year into actual dev and released this trailer to wind up the hype all these leaks have wrought.

 

I don't expect it to look a lot like this when it's on my screen.

[Barbarossa2010]

It looks better than New Vegas and ME3. (Almost as good as Inquisition?) That's good enough for me.

Yep, looks good enough for me to.

[Mr.House]

Honestly I found both Fallout 3's and New Vegas' endings to be stupid.

 

Fallout 3 because lack of logic and up until Broken Steel, not being able to continue afterwards.

 

New Vegas for not learning from that and not being able to continue afterwards again, and never fixing it.

NV has a far better excuse then FO3. The endings are far more varied and I don't expected Obsidian to have the time to do that when they already had to cut stuff because of Bethesdas deadline. Faaar more different then Bethesda simply screwing up with FO3's ending.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Bethesda I think still does top notch exploration, and I'm sure they're working on improvements to their formula. You are comparing a game from 2015 to a game from either 2008(Fallout 3) or 2011(Skyrim) with a whole new console generation being released in between the two.

 

Inquisition had great looking environments, but there wasn't really a whole lot of interesting things to fill up the world. It's not like a Bethesda game where there's lots of dungeons to go into and loot. The Witcher 3 has done a great job of things, having both a well crafted world and an array good side quests to go along with it.

 

Bethesda can create a really good game world, they just need to work on filling it with more interesting characters and actual side quests.

 

As for graphics I tend to care more about aesthetics over graphical fidelity, especially in a game that's going to be modded to have higher res textures among other things. Even then, keep in mind that A. This is early game footage we're looking at and B. It's a YouTube video. Those never look as good as in-game.

 

but yeah, XCOM 2 hype train is full speed ahead.

 

Bethesda puts load of content in their games, but a lot of it is filler. Sure they have dozens of dungeons, but most of them are Draugr filled tombs with recycled enemies and generic loot over and over and over again. Not to mention stuff like Radiant quests. At least Inquisition put some unique loot in several hard to reach places, Morrowind style.

 

TW3 has an even better open world, with loads of side-quests and little dungeons that feel better crafted even if they're short.

 

All I'm saying is, FO4's open world better be damn good, or Beth needs to have taken several steps up in terms of writing and/or gameplay, for FO4 to impress me.

[Gravisanimi]

I'm just hoping we get Obsidian's in the South.

 

I wanna fight my super gators.

[Queen Skadi]

I don't have a release date so it could be in alpha for all I know.

 

Hell, they may only be about a year into actual dev and released this trailer to wind up the hype all these leaks have wrought.

 

I don't expect it to look a lot like this when it's on my screen.

 

There are rumors flying about that it could be released this year which given that it has been 4 years since Skyrim and that Skyrim was only announced a year before it's release so it seems plausible

[spinachdiaper]

Fallout 4 will be out this year. Too way much of the previously leaked info has been confirmed true.

[Cyonan]

NV has a far better excuse then FO3. The endings are far more varied and I don't expected Obsidian to have the time to do that when they already had to cut stuff because of Bethesdas deadline. Faaar more different then Bethesda simply screwing up with FO3's ending.

 

I don't consider either a good excuse. A game like FO3/NV shouldn't have a point in the story where the game goes "okay, you're done now. You can't play this save anymore".

 

It means that without modding, I'll only ever run the ending once just to see it. Then I'll completely ignore that it exists.

 

Bethesda puts load of content in their games, but a lot of it is filler. Sure they have dozens of dungeons, but most of them are Draugr filled tombs with recycled enemies and generic loot over and over and over again. Not to mention stuff like Radiant quests. At least Inquisition put some unique loot in several hard to reach places, Morrowind style.

 

TW3 has an even better open world, with loads of side-quests and little dungeons that feel better crafted even if they're short.

 

All I'm saying is, FO4's open world better be damn good, or Beth needs to have taken several steps up in terms of writing and/or gameplay, for FO4 to impress me.

 

Well, I've already acknowledged that Bethesda needs to step up their game when it comes to writing and actual quests.

 

As strange as it sounds, exploration is one thing where I don't think it's a good idea to go all out on quality and sacrifice quantity. You'll very quickly run out of new things to find. Of course, in an ideal world you've have both.

 

I'd also keep in mind I'm talking about overall. Inquisition had some good moments, but it doesn't make up for other 90% of the game's exploration being well below Skyrim in my opinion, filler or not.

 

and yeah, TW3 has done a better job. They've struck a pretty solid balance between the size of the game world and the quality of the content it's been filled up with.

[In Exile]

I think there's sometimes a fundamental incompatibility between people who like exploring and those who do not. Because exploring for it's own sake isn't just not fun for me - it's actually a chore. It's like cleaning IRL. 

[Queen Skadi]

I don't consider either a good excuse. A game like FO3/NV shouldn't have a point in the story where the game goes "okay, you're done now. You can't play this save anymore".

 

It means that without modding, I'll only ever run the ending once just to see it. Then I'll completely ignore that it exists.

 

To be honest I am totally fine with the game ending after the main storyline is complete, allows the writers more freedom when crafting the ending as there a lot of things you need to avoid (or find a clever way to get around as in RDR) if you allow the player to play after the main story is complete, if you want to go back and explore the world some more you can just revert to an earlier save.

 

That said I don't think it is something you have to worry about in Fallout 4, after the outcry of Fallout 3 I believe Todd Howard has formally acknowledged that it is not something the fans want and that they have no plans to do it again.

[Mr.House]

I don't consider either a good excuse. A game like FO3/NV shouldn't have a point in the story where the game goes "okay, you're done now. You can't play this save anymore".

 

It means that without modding, I'll only ever run the ending once just to see it. Then I'll completely ignore that it exists.

 

So you want to just be dropped into a souless world that does not reflect on your ending and breaks immersion?

 

Because CDP did that with TW3 and it backfired on them big time. When a game has so many endings and vairations like NV, it is imposable for you to get what you want, you either get a crap ton of possible endings and end the game, or get very little endings and just keep exploring. You can support whichever option you want but I know what I prefer.

 

Oblivion, Skyrim and FO3, you play after the world, very little difference if at all in your ending. NV, you can't play after, four main endings and a crapton of variations and how Nevada changed.

[Reznore57]

I only played Skyrim , I would say one of the very strong point of Bethesda open world game is ...the randomness.

 

Yeah lot of  quests and NPCs weren't really interesting , but it didn't matter all that much to me.

I think one of my favorite game experience was with a modded Skyrim , I found a mod with good companions and good quests (Interesting NPCs) so I got that covered ...and then my Dragonborn kept on running into trouble.

Not from scripted quests , just from being a noob and failing.

 

I remember a quest where I had to steal something from a museum in Markath , everything went wrong and I had to jump from a balcony , and run away from town .In panic mode I left  my companion to deal with the guards .I waited outside Markath hidden in the hills for hours ...no companion.Felt a bit bad ...well he wasn't dead but it took me a couple of days to find him.

Anyway from a roleplay experience , my character had to think about that whole being a thief thing because clearly that wasn't working out so well...

 

That kind of thing just doesn't and can't happen in a game like Dragon Age ,I remember Mike Laidlaw saying something like "with the open world , everyone will have a special experience blablabal" But it's just not the case.

You have suceed the quest or death screen , you can't just screw up and deal with the consequences.

[Cyonan]

So you want to just be dropped into a souless world that does not reflect on your ending and breaks immersion?

 

Because CDP did that with TW3 and it backfired on them big time. When a game has so many endings and vairations like NV, it is imposable for you to get what you want, you either get a crap ton of possible endings and end the game, or get very little endings and just keep exploring. You can support whichever option you want but I know what I prefer.

 

Oblivion, Skyrim and FO3, you play after the world, very little difference if at all in your ending. NV, you can't play after, four main endings and a crapton of variations and how Nevada changed.

 

I want a reason to actually do the ending of the main quest more than once rather than a reason to avoid doing it.

 

My most played NV save file has never completed the main quest, because if I did I wouldn't be able to continue playing without loading an earlier save.

[TheChris92]

hmm, anyone else unimpressed by the trailer? Looks like the game was meant for last gen consoles, the only thing that is truly remarkable about the visuals is the lighting but you can sure as **** bet that it wont be in the retail version.

It doesn't look all that different from Fallout 3, no risks, you're a Vault Dweller, you have a dog, the story is most likely going to be edgy and grim like your average game of today, despite Fallout's legacy of being incredibly quirky and tongue-in-cheek etc etc.

 

Not anything really spectacular about it -- The small bits of gameplay that was shown (say for example the ghouls attacking the MC) implies that the combat is going to be as stiff as it has always been in previous games.. at least for now.

[Ryzaki]

Eh game looks fine to me.

 

I don't expect every game to be jaw dropingly beautiful though. *shrug*

[Dermain]

Bethesda always releases particularly large DLC quite a bit after the game has been out. Why they would change this now I don't know.

 

Like the two DLCs they released for Skyrim? 

 

When they announced "Fallout 3 style DLC" I was expecting more than two DLCs for it.

 

To be honest I am totally fine with the game ending after the main storyline is complete, allows the writers more freedom when crafting the ending as there a lot of things you need to avoid (or find a clever way to get around as in RDR) if you allow the player to play after the main story is complete, if you want to go back and explore the world some more you can just revert to an earlier save.

 

That said I don't think it is something you have to worry about in Fallout 4, after the outcry of Fallout 3 I believe Todd Howard has formally acknowledged that it is not something the fans want and that they have no plans to do it again.

 

I wouldn't trust Todd Howard farther than you can throw him.

 

He's like Peter Molyneux but without the bad reputation (I'll never understand why).

 

I want a reason to actually do the ending of the main quest more than once rather than a reason to avoid doing it.

 

My most played NV save file has never completed the main quest, because if I did I wouldn't be able to continue playing without loading an earlier save.

 

Have you even played a Bethesda game? 

 

There's rarely, if ever, a reason to play the main quest more than once.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Don't really care about the graphics, mods will end up fixing it regardless. You can nitpick the trailer all you want but GameBryo Creation is not the most stable or most optimised game engine out there. So high graphical fidelity matching stuff you'd see on the CryEngine or the RedEngine would not be possible while still keeping consoles in the same ballpark. Skyrim or Fallout 3 didn't really look that good out of the box either, it's just that the large scope and strong environmental design of their games made up for the weak technical level of their graphics. Hell, when it comes to visual fidelity and technical graphics, Fallout 3 is destroyed by a niche game like STALKER.

In a trailer, we focus on the technical details a lot more because that's all you have to go on, but I'm sure actually playing it will give a better experience.

On open world games continuing after the ending. It depends on how the game ends. Most open world games don't actually let you play beyond the ending, which I think is fair. One of the reasons Fallout 1's ending worked so well because you couldn't simply keep playing afterwards. The finality of that ending kicked you in the teeth and that's what made it good.

On the other hand, I think with Vegas, the issue was simply time. They had about a year and a half to make the game. To implement the kind of reactivity and consequences necessary to be consistent with the rest of the game would've taken a lot of time they simply didn't have. If they had a half ass post-game, it would've ruined all the great build up of the endgame.

Basically, if Fallout 4 doesn't allow you to keep playing beyond the ending, that's fine with me.
 

I wouldn't trust Todd Howard farther than you can throw him.
 
He's like Peter Molyneux but without the bad reputation (I'll never understand why).

[The Invader]

NV blows. I'd take a Fallout by Bethesda over Obsidian anyday. Even with 3s faults. But I have a bias against most Obsidian games so....

Spoiler

Eat me Obsidian fanbots.

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel about NV. I liked the setting of FO3 much more than NV.

[AventuroLegendary]

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel about NV. I liked the setting of FO3 much more than NV.

 

I grew up with westerns so New Vegas' setting resonated with me a bit more, I guess.

[The Invader]

I grew up with westerns so New Vegas' setting resonated with me a bit more, I guess.

I can respect that, me I loved exploring the blasted ruins of the Capital.

[spinachdiaper]

It's truly sad that FO4 gets announced and the malcontents come out in droves and when the HMCC was announced the cesspool that is the Halo forums had about 24 hour of unabashed brevity and optimism.

[Cyonan]

Have you even played a Bethesda game? 

 

There's rarely, if ever, a reason to play the main quest more than once.

 

Well, obviously since Bethesda isn't good at it that means Obsidian is excused =P

 

I'm not trying to have a Bethesda vs Obsidian pissing match here. I don't like how either developer handled the ending to their Fallout games.