PC Gamer welcomes our new Roman overlords... back?

The Dutch Ghost said:
100LBSofDogmeat said:
but i do agree that van buren was never made and isn't really canon. though i personally don't accept anything in "Fallout" 3 canon either.
Click to expand...

It makes me wonder, because of the lack of a Fallout sequel that really feels like a Fallout sequel I considered everything in Van Buren to be canon even though it never came on the screen.

Do members here think that New Vegas will be a good replacement?
Storywise I mean, not gameplay wise.
Click to expand...

No way to know for sure until release but the addition of New Vegas into the Van Buren setting is already a bit of a red flag to me. That's more a thematic failing than an issue with the storyline though.

I'd imagine Bethesda is responsible for enforcing this idea that each new Fallout game must revolve around a single city onto Obsidian but I can't believe Obsidian had no hand in coming up with a location as completely out of place in the gameworld as New Vegas. It has shades of New Reno all over again.
 
cogar66 said:
All the comments on that page are "Why aren't the graphics better?"

Ignoring the fact that it's an alpha build.
Click to expand...
Also ignoring the fact that the graphics look the same (maybe slightly better) as Fallout 3, whose graphics I'm sure the same people praised to the heavens.

And yeah, the previewer is obviously not making reference to knowledge he has about Van Buren. He's trying to sound intelligent but merely makes it obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about. Common mistake with the amateur writers that infest the video game journalism world.
 
Kyuu said:
Common mistake with the amateur writers that infest the video game journalism world.
Click to expand...

Amateur isn't the right word. A professional career doesn't hinge on always getting the details right.
 
Kyuu said:
cogar66 said:
All the comments on that page are "Why aren't the graphics better?"

Ignoring the fact that it's an alpha build.
Click to expand...
Also ignoring the fact that the graphics look the same (maybe slightly better) as Fallout 3, whose graphics I'm sure the same people praised to the heavens.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it, do you? Every game in a series must have vastly improved visuals over the previous one, with exactly the same gameplay. Gameplay will "improve" with the addition of new weapons, new weapon mods, expanded online play options, and a shorter single-player story.

Sheesh, you're so out of touch with how things are done nowadays! ;)
 
cogar66 said:
All the comments on that page are "Why aren't the graphics better?"

Ignoring the fact that it's an alpha build.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't expect the graphics to get any better by October.
 
i've always valued content over graphics. i mean, wasteland, for one , has hideous graphics but great content, imo. and it seems like games that have "amazing" graphics lack any depth or content.

oh, and i really hoped they would have finished van buren, i did like a lot of what would have been.

is there any fiend out there trying to build it on the older fallout engine? or fife?
 
I never really minded the campy anachronisms, so long as the writing and overall game play is improved I'll be happy with the end product.
 
UncleSlappy said:
The Dutch Ghost said:
100LBSofDogmeat said:
but i do agree that van buren was never made and isn't really canon. though i personally don't accept anything in "Fallout" 3 canon either.
Click to expand...

It makes me wonder, because of the lack of a Fallout sequel that really feels like a Fallout sequel I considered everything in Van Buren to be canon even though it never came on the screen.

Do members here think that New Vegas will be a good replacement?
Storywise I mean, not gameplay wise.
Click to expand...

No way to know for sure until release but the addition of New Vegas into the Van Buren setting is already a bit of a red flag to me. That's more a thematic failing than an issue with the storyline though.

I'd imagine Bethesda is responsible for enforcing this idea that each new Fallout game must revolve around a single city onto Obsidian but I can't believe Obsidian had no hand in coming up with a location as completely out of place in the gameworld as New Vegas. It has shades of New Reno all over again.
Click to expand...
It's a known fact that Obsidian wanted to do another location,but Bethesda had already had plans for it,so they chose Las Vegas.I doubt they were force into anything.
 
sampson70 said:
It's a known fact that Obsidian wanted to do another location,but Bethesda had already had plans for it,so they chose Las Vegas.I doubt they were force into anything.
Click to expand...

crap, i didn't know that... but i do live under a rock. what location did they want to do?
 
Probably California so Bethesda can fuck with the canon some more.

Oh, and I just checked the schedule for Comic Con and Obsidian will be there at July 23rd to talk about writing characters for video games. Could ya post it in the News board, moderators?
 
I was under the impression that Obsidian had chosen Las Vegas themselves, I never had the feeling that they wanted to go back to California as most of the story there had been told. (rise and defeat of the Master, rise and defeat of the Enclave, foundation of NCR, rise of Vault City etc.)

But if it was true, what location in California would Bethesda want to do themselves.
Seeing how they are so focused on well known cities all I can think of is Los Angeles and we already know what happened there from Fallout 1.

I feel it is more likely that Bethesda want to do New York next.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
I feel it is more likely that Bethesda want to do New York next.
Click to expand...
Ugh, this would mean more enclosed city streets full of rubble. :?

Also, if they did do New York you could probably expect the Empire State Building (or some other recognizable landmark) to still be standing whilst everything around it is blown to shit.
 
Reconite said:
The Dutch Ghost said:
I feel it is more likely that Bethesda want to do New York next.
Click to expand...
Ugh, this would mean more enclosed city streets full of rubble. :?

Also, if they did do New York you could probably expect the Empire State Building (or some other recognizable landmark) to still be standing whilst everything around it is blown to shit.
Click to expand...

I think a city would be cool if they did it so it only had minor damage and such.

Have all the wood rotted and glass broken as well as any other aging effects, but an actual desolate city.
 
That is not what they do best Aphyosis, Washington DC was supposed to be a desolate city and you saw what they did with that.

Sorry Reconite but that is something that would most likely happen, easier to map all kinds of small locales into.

As Lexx said, more metro tunnels and stations for them to place which are Bethesda's version of dungeons.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
That is not what they do best Aphyosis, Washington DC was supposed to be a desolate city and you saw what they did with that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, obviously it would have to be done properly. Like i said, i think it would be neat, but it would be entirely dependent on execution.
 
Personally I had hoped that Washington DC would have been a series of craters and collapsed buildings, with only vague hints of its former glory.

Perhaps pieces of buildings and monuments would still be standing but the rest just being concrete rubble and twisted metal frameworks.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
Personally I had hoped that Washington DC would have been a series of craters and collapsed buildings, with only vague hints of its former glory.

Perhaps pieces of buildings and monuments would still be standing but the rest just being concrete rubble and twisted metal frameworks.
Click to expand...

If developers would read this they would be "Oh my gosh! How didn't we think of this sooner :o "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top