Fallout 4 cinematic trailer listed on artist's LinkedIn profile - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Speedhax;47704666]I feel like the only person who really enjoyed Fallout 3. Yeah it wasn't really a fallout but the atmosphere and world building was amazing.[/QUOTE] I have no idea where this hate is coming from to be honest. Wasn't the reason new vegas was made because how good fallout 3 was? If new vegas was better than fallout 3 then that doesn't make fallout 3 shit, it makes it not as good as new vegas.

i liked Fo3

Was pretty sure the hate for FO3 was originally because of the ending (which was swept away by Broken Steel) but usually nowadays it's about the writing compared to New Vegas, the pacing and black/white morality compared to how ambiguous New Vegas gets, but I suppose that would fall under writing as well? Also the level design, where the complaints I've heard are usually about the copy-pasted metro tunnels and how dead ends are everywhere, plus feeling that everything was empty? Not too sure about that. I personally enjoyed both FO3 and New Vegas, but enjoyed NV a bit more.

The hate was because it was nothing like 1 and 2 gameplay wise.

Honestly I get the hate because even though I don't [I]hate[/I] it Fallout 3 has a ton of missteps as a fallout game, though that probably comes with the fact that Bethesda was the developer. Bit of a rant ahead - Fallout 3 was actually my first exposure to the franchise, and I loved it for quite a long time. I finally got around to playing Fallout 1 and after a certain point I got so absorbed into it. Fallout 3's atmosphere was at its strongest when it was basically a retread of certain things Fallout 1 managed to do. Looking back on it after having played both, Fallout 3 and Fallout 1 are similar games. Except FO3 lacks the writing and even in some cases the world building FO1 managed to do. Fallout 3's most egregious misstep in the visuals department was the whole "let's make the world green cuz nuclear poclypse!!" decision. A lot of the stuff they did on the surface felt like looking at the ideas conveyed by the original and trying to execute them in a different manner, but without as much skill. I mean yeah, you get the idea of the desolate wastes, but it oversteps itself to hammer the point home. You get the idea of the hopelessness, but again, they constantly try to remind you of it (the brotherhood of steel base is the worst offender in this). And you get the player-driven choices, but they are completely black and white. The gameplay too, there was thematic consistency in the first game with the hopelessness of the world and the obvious disadvantages your character had in combat. Early on you'd get fucked by the simplest of enemies, or you could easily encounter baddies that you couldn't hope to take on until higher level. But at the same time, the large encounters you fought that you managed to win mostly had you feel like you were just scraping by, barely surviving. FO3 [I]could[/I] have instances of this at times, but mostly (due to the realtime-but-stat-based nature of the gameplay) combat would be marred by the basic AI or the fact that you just unloaded into a guy and he barely flinches (which leads into the perspective, FPS games typically should be more visceral than top down games) whereas in fallout 1/2 there were specific reaction animations that would indicate how much or little you are fucking somebody up with your shots. You get a reaction, you get a feeling beyond seeing a health bar go down, while in FO3 (and this is a problem with all beth games) you get a basic stumble or shake-head animation that indicates two damage states - minor damage (no animation) or large damage (animation) People will probably disagree with me here, but I think a first person fallout game would more successfully communicate the feelings of the early games if they were more toward the hardcore, with STALKER-esque gunplay and hit reactions, leaning, etc. and had more of a focus on outwitting your opponents than simply pumping them full of lead. All in all, I think it falls into the "good game but not a good fallout game" category. I'd say it was a great game even, but it doesn't manage to capture those elements fans wanted from a fallout game.

Bethesda are really good at creating large maps but not much else. They don't really seem to be well versed in story telling, world building (Which is weird since their track record with Morrowind), gameplay elements and quests are done because "It sounds cool", etc. Sure sucks they're pretty much the only devs doing it too.

Bettin' ittl release on Oct 23rd, 2015. If this is a genuine sign that they're gonna roll out a trailer it means the game's nearly done, which fits nicely with the time between major Bethsoft releases. [QUOTE=Nemisis116;47702695]Praying for a new engine, even Skyrim looks like shit without mods[/QUOTE] Maybe in 2026. Bethesda are gonna milk the CE for all its worth. 'Sides, Bethesda's games have never been about fidelity. The dated graphics certainly haven't kept me from logging literal thousands of hours in NV alone :v:

Seems like beforehand with Morrowind and Daggerfall (and even the not-so-TES TES games like Battlespire or Redguard) along with having different members their goals as game designers were different. Also it might have something to do with different people having more creative control

CG? Most of their reveal trailers tend to be in-engine with game assets, Skyrim and Fallout 3 both had inengine reveal trailers, you can even find the map they used for Fallout 3's along with all the assets in the GECK.

[QUOTE=Kuro.;47712838]CG? Most of their reveal trailers tend to be in-engine with game assets, Skyrim and Fallout 3 both had inengine reveal trailers, you can even find the map they used for Fallout 3's along with all the assets in the GECK.[/QUOTE] New Vegas was a cinematic reveal, so not that surprising.

Unless the guys planning to leave the company, Why the hell would you update your Linkedin if you already have a job.

[QUOTE=dark soul;47714084]Unless the guys planning to leave the company, Why the hell would you update your Linkedin if you already have a job.[/QUOTE] For potential scouts?

[QUOTE=Tuskin;47712137]The hate was because it was nothing like 1 and 2 gameplay wise.[/QUOTE] my problem with Fallout 3 is only that they forced you to be a knight in shining armor to progress through the story. There was very little side quests where you could do something bad, it painted you as the devil. In the first 2 games every settlement you went to felt very loosely connected to each other, and there was only a loose sense of what the right thing to do was. The brotherhood of steel was not good nor were they bad. You had the option to do what ever you wanted. In Fallout 3 I don't get the same feeling from travelling to a different settlement because they all seem like they have close ties with each other. Also unkillable NPCs because they are needed to progress the story instead of having an alternate path if you choose to kill them.