MCA and gameplay footage on G4 TV

Whoa, whoa!

Gratuitious gore? Shitty animations? Outdated engine? Is that what NMA crowd, the hive of would-be "true" Fallout fans, is really concerned with in an RPG? Seriously. That's what it looks like from my casual visitor's, many-months perspective. Whenever I come to this forum, it always seems to me that the more voices complain about some stuff, the more irrelevant stuff it happens to be. This thread being a perfect example. What more, the harder you criticize the new games, the more oblivious you seem to be about the old ones. Let's compare:

typical complaint about F3: too much gore, ridiculous critical hit effects, unrealistic rag doll mechanics, etc.
as opposed to... punching holes through people, blowing heads of mole rats with pistols... In later game you had critical animations almost all the time. You could turn gore off but I don't know anybody who would use that option.

F3: shitty animations, no diagonal movement
as opposed to... zig-zaging! It looked more ridiculous in '96/'97 than Morrowind-style player character running/jumping animations do today. And you had to watch it all the time.

F3: old engine
as opposed to... F2 and it's novelty graphics of late '98. I love its graphics even today but it was obsolete even then and what more, the new "plastic" models introduced in F2 looked out of place and were very poorly animated. As if it wasn't enough the game was buggy and a terrible resource hog. On my AMD 486DX5@160 with 16MB RAM it would take about three minutes to load a saved game. Even in F1 Boneyard battle would take no less than half an hour.

So I'm glad they use that shitty GameBryo engine. Because I know it will run on my P4 without pain. Frankly, in my opinion, the FPP and landscapes were the best things about F3. Sigthseeing was the most enjoyable part of the game. I was always eager to check out whatever I saw on the horizon or climb a hill to see what was on the other side. And often views were close to breathtaking. Unfortunately Bethesda filled this beatiful world with bullshit content. Hopefully Obsidian will make up for it, and this time we'll get a decent game worthy of being called Fallout.
 
The thing is that I judge F3 as a sequel to the series. Old Fallouts were CRPGs at their core. Some might add turn-based combat to it but that's it. Trimetric perspective, hex-grid, aren't essential here. What made them great games was that they were robust CRPGs with interesting world and that turn-based combat was much fun. That's the core. The game could have been top-down with octagonal grid for all I care. While I miss the TB combat myself, I think that *balanced* RT-pause combat is a fair trade off for exlploring the world in FPP. Although combat mode and perspective aren't strictly related, let it be. Combat aside, still the biggest part of what made old Fallouts great is the game world and role-playing possibilities. Therefore I judge new Fallouts primarily as CRPGs. Combat mode, perspective are secondary things. Technical things like graphics quality or amount of bugs is a tertiary thing. A 3D FPP in a Fallout game is a new approach but the core is still the same (at least nominally): it's a CRPG. And as such it should be judged. Downgrading this game by calling it an "action game with RPG elements" and then bashing it for graphics is like calling Eye of the Beholder a "Wolfenstein 3D with swords" and bashing it for shitty animations. All that because it's different than Pool of Radiance that you used to like so much.


you fail to notice that Fallout 3 was made ten years after the first one
On the contrary. I just pointed out the originals' analogic weak points by their contemporary standards. Just because we live in another decade doesn't mean that games are bound to be bug free, to be excellently well programmed or to use newest graphics technology available at the time.

I do not understand how your ancient AMD system is relevant in any way to us in 2010, especially considering it was below Fallout 1's recommended specifications at the time.
Fallout's minimum requirements were P90, 16 MB RAM. AMD's 486/160 was roughly an equivalent of P90. But you know what other game had the same min. reqs as this static game with mediocre graphics? Fucking Quake II. Besides, that machine served me well into '99 with exception of all the 3D accelerated games. One of the last games I played on it was Carmageddon 2. This is just to exemplify that original Fallouts were far from being well programmed. F2's bugginess is legendary, I think. So next time you discard a new Fallout game for something technical, remember that old Fallouts were great despite having so many problems.
Bethesda deserves bashing for a lot of things, but set your proportions straight. Don't blame them so much for what Black Isle would do anyway.
 
CoconutShell said:
Gratuitious gore? Shitty animations? Outdated engine? Is that what NMA crowd, the hive of would-be "true" Fallout fans, is really concerned with in an RPG?

"Oh hai I made Civ 5 into a 3D shooter."

"Baaah, we don't like 3D shooters. Wait, it's not even a very good one."

"I thought you didn't care about 3D shooters ZING ZING"
 
CoconutShell said:
Is that what NMA crowd, the hive of would-be "true" Fallout fans

ah, gee. see...you had to go and ruin what might have been a decent critical post of the generally ridiculous and hypocritical hyperbole of certain NMA members with a mind-numbingly idiotic statement. in fact, i've read this a few times and i still can't quite figure out exactly what it is you're saying here because your arms are waving too furiously.

Per said:
"Oh hai I made Civ 5 into a 3D shooter."

"Baaah, we don't like 3D shooters. Wait, it's not even a very good one."

"I thought you didn't care about 3D shooters ZING ZING"

at first i was like "Ok, what? wtf is this i don't even" and then i felt a tingle of pleasure in knowing that i'll never know wtf this means. but seriously, dude...what?
 
TwinkieGorilla said:
Per said:
"Oh hai I made Civ 5 into a 3D shooter."

"Baaah, we don't like 3D shooters. Wait, it's not even a very good one."

"I thought you didn't care about 3D shooters ZING ZING"

at first i was like "Ok, what? wtf is this i don't even" and then i felt a tingle of pleasure in knowing that i'll never know wtf this means. but seriously, dude...what?

Let's see, he quoted this:

Gratuitious gore? Shitty animations? Outdated engine? Is that what NMA crowd, the hive of would-be "true" Fallout fans, is really concerned with in an RPG?

And answered with that. Translation: replace Civ 5 with Fallout.

TwinkieGorilla said:
ah, gee. see...you had to go and ruin what might have been a decent critical post (...)

Nope, it was weak all around.
 
CoconutShell said:
F2 and it's novelty graphics of late '98. I love its graphics even today but it was obsolete even then and what more, the new "plastic" models introduced in F2 looked out of place and were very poorly animated.
I totally agree with you here. Fallout 2 was a failure to me, with its shitty graphics, shitty critters, and shitty lulz.
 
Quite honestly, I don't see any improvement in animations or faces or anything else you guys are mentioning. Maybe I haven't looked at F3 in awhile (I haven't) but those elements look about the same.

I do like the music and I like the supposed non-linearity, extent of which remains to be seen. Other than that, looks like F3 to me.
 
CoconutShell said:
Whoa, whoa!

...

1. typical complaints from the Fallout community that actually matter: horrible writing, lack of choices and consequence, horrible gameplay mechanics.

2. if Interplay had stuck around and still produced games in the old Fallout engine 8 years later you can bet your ass there would be complaints about it.
 
TwinkieGorilla said:
at first i was like "Ok, what? wtf is this i don't even" and then i felt a tingle of pleasure in knowing that i'll never know wtf this means. but seriously, dude...what?

Hmm... it was a bit condensed. For maximum understandability, I will present an extended remix of my amazing silly dialogue.

A: Look! It's the new Civ 5! It's so cool! Whenever a unit is defeated, blood-spurting giblets bounce around the entire world map for five minutes!

B: What the heck? They took out the technology tree!

A: Don't be so negative! You can't expect them to spend the time needed to do giblets and technology! They have to make a living, you know! And all games have giblets now!

B: I know they do, because whether you realize or not, I do play other games. That's precisely why I don't need the Civ franchise to have giblets as well. These aren't even very good - look at that diagonal one.

A: Aww, you're such a gonna hating hater that's gonna hate!

B: What does that even mean.

A: It's something I saw on the internet, it's supposed to shut you up.

B: Well, I hate it.

(two years later)

A: Look! It's the new Civ 6! It's so cool! They put the technology tree back in! Aren't you happy? It's still got giblets!

B: A technology tree is a requisite of a Civ game, not a bonus. Am I supposed to grovel because they made it back to square one? And what the hell, these are the same giblets as last time! Frigging Pac-Man has better giblets now!

A: AHA YOU CARE ONLY ABOUT GIBLETS AND NOTHING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY I HAVE YOUR NUMBER NOW

B: wat
 
yeah, that's fine and all...an' i'm sure it's real witty and interesting...but i'm not much of a gamer and don't even know wtf Civ is. so yeah, whatever.
 
don't care.

was only originally saying "whatever point you're making, it's lost on me. and i'm more than okay with that."
 
Back
Top