Hey, another thing that Bethesda doesn't "get" and then can say "Oh... well... this is the East Coast, and a different time... yeah.. Ahhh.. no the Enclave didn't get wiped out at Fallout 2... no... ahhh.. did I read or play game.... what? Was I supposed too? .... I mean, we have the license... so... doesn't that mean we can create anything we want to? Consistency? No, never heard of that. What does that mean?"
Anani Masu said:
Some of the hands on mentioned minor issues with the lip, eye and body movement. I'd expect that is what they are referring to polishing the dialogue.
Maybe. But then, that also sounds a bit like the wishful thinking that Bethesda could actually make a real Fallout 3. I had similar delusions a few years back and have been regularly disappointed.
Best to be skeptical if not critical.
The post apocalyptic comment was more about how they can cut down on the number of NPCs without it feeling odd. Oblivion included thousands of NPCs but there were plenty of complaints that cities didn't feel big and bustling enough.
Ah... which is why their demo is all about all the "look kids, its cool to kill with bloody perk!" (Because violence sells!).
Bethesda has always said they never bought the IP for one game. They have always said they intend to produce more.
Which is why I pray that this game sinks faster and harder than the titanics, Bethesda jettisons the license and some smaller boutique company comes, buys it, and makes a real Fallout sequel. Because, Bethesda is apparently all about the money.
And on your last point I'm not sure what you mean? Lack of vehicles?
No, actually I think vehicles is generally a bad idea. What I referred to was the lack of personal movement. Crawl, climb- etc. I mean, its a bombed out city, it might be fun to crawl through a pipe, climb over loose stones, or up a broke fire escape. Stuff we did back in Half Life, which is what the video reminds me of more than any Fallout game I ever played.
(But then I missed FOBOS, the real prequel to Bethesda's FO3).