Words later. E3 Video now:
Immediate thought: Oh. Is that… it? But before we dismiss it as -nnng- ‘Oblivion with guns’ (I’m strongly tempted to ironic-o-edit any comment that includes that ‘orrible phrase from now on), let’s keep in mind that this is a 100 hour, open-world RPG brutally compressed into a 3-minute combat demo for an audience of gun-hungry 360 journos, eh? I presume – based on how the game’s been described previously – there’s an awful lot more to see. And the palette aside – always a problem with post-apocalyptic landscapes – some of those dystopia-vistas really do look impressive.
Extra! Beneath the cut, a full-length trailer, showing more baddies, Dogmeat, some in-Vault stuff and more 50s ad-spoofery. And an excellent into-the-sunset closing shot.
Looks a lot sparkier than the demo walkthrough, though some of that’s down to the splendid music. Still, we desperately need to see some of the questing, dialogue and non-monster towns to get a real sense of the game, I think.
Related Stories:
Oblivion with bullet time. I shouldn’t be surprised, but I’m surely not encouraged.
Fanboy? Oh, I see, so that’s the way it works. If you like it you’re a regular guy, but if you dislike it you’re automatically a fanboy? Thanks for clearing that up, guess I’ll have to register for a forum account over at NMA now.
I’ve been pretty positive about Fallout 3 up until now, but as I said in an earlier comment, this demo left me unimpressed. Being a sucker for post apocalyptic games I’ll probably purchase it when it’s released anyway…
What the fuck, he gets shot in the head and his body falls apart? Once again, what the fuck.
Also, how did they manage to fuck up the look of supermuties and the pipboy?
I only hope the over-gibbing was due to some uber-cheat they had on.
It’s because of a perk or skill called Bloody Mess. Was in the original Fallout games. Buy it, and people explode hilariously.
KG
Only difference was that it dident look retarded back then. Some of the death animations in the orginal fallouts where sortof over the top, but very stylistic, it looked like some heavy shit ripping through flesh and bone, that guy just looked like some generic ragdoll whoms limbs just suddenly stopped being attached to his body.
I hate you todd.
I absolutely loved the original Fallout, liked Fallout 2 quite a bit as well (despite thinking it was a step down in quality), and even enjoyed Tactics enough to play it through to the end. Does this make me a fanboy? I associate the term with slavish devotion to a product absolutely regardless of that product’s quality, usually accompanied by vicious denigration of that product’s competition. By those standards, I don’t consider myself anything like a fanboy, not of Fallout and not of any other IP.
But anyway . . .
I was looking forward to Fallout 3 — I didn’t really think Bethesda were the best guys for the job, but I’ve liked their work (I adored Morrowind) and I was cautiously optimistic. The screenshots had been a mixed bag, but the concept art seemed good and they talked the talk well enough. I just need to see the game in action, in motion.
I’m . . . “appalled” is too strong a word to apply to a video game, but I’m extremely disappointed. A lot of my reactions have already been echoed a dozen times in this thread, so I’ll spare you. I do have one thing to say that nobody’s brought up, though: I grew up in DC. Fallout 3 doesn’t look anything like it. The design is a generic gray clutter of urban ruins with a few landmarks sprinkled around. It doesn’t look like Washington, and it doesn’t look like Fallout. Even the famously brown Fallout games, set in the arid Southwest, had their share of vegetation. DC was built in a damn swamp; it’s one of the most forested cities in the United States (right behind Portland, I believe). It’s been a hundred years since the bombs dropped — give me a bit of crabgrass and some scraggly bushes at the very least.
Even though I worry, I’m not going to slam the game for having bad animations, weak sound/music, and gameplay that looks very Oblivion-like (wandering around an open space, offing monsters sprinkled about at random, who have no purpose other than to wait for death at the player’s hands): all of these things could change. The fact that they’ve missed the mark on the atmosphere and setting, that they clearly haven’t captured the essential feel of Fallout, and that the devs (or at least their PR department) revel in the stupidest aspects of what they’ve created — I’ll never be able to abide the Fat Man or the slow-motion aimed shot replays — these things won’t change, and have put me off the game for good.
Well I grew up in London and after a nuclear holocaust had torn my city to smithereens i’d expect it to look EXACTLY THE SAME AS BEFORE!
Do they not teach basic reading comprehension in London?
Stop that.
Nuclear blasts don’t alter the geographical layout of an area, man. A building that’s on one street before the blast, if it still stands, will still be on that same street after it. If landmarks have survived, the area will still be familiar and will still have roughly the same layout. It’s not difficult.
London’s a good example – the Thames will still be there, right? So if you’re stood where tower bridge used to be, you’ll still recognise the area. Assuming there are ruins, they’ll be the ruins of familiar buildings, in familiar places. If enough of the area survived to identify the city, you’d still recognise where you were within it.
Sorry, I don’t mean any disrespect to the English school system, I’m just miffed about being deliberately misunderstood.
After a nuclear holocaust had torn my city to smithereens — a century later, mind you — I’d expect it to look like my city, fallen to ruins and overgrown. Not Stalingrad with the Capitol and the Pentagon dumped on top.
PRESS BUTTON TO COMPLETE GAME
I would except the so called “fallout-fans” to take a good look at the mirror and hopefully see a person good deal older than a teenager and then ask the question, “why in the name of hell are we at this age still flooding every forum, every gaming site, every nook and corner of the internet with the same crap every fan-boy and every brand-lover all around the world are saying about their product continuities.”
To me at least it seems like people are just joining the party-wagon to get some self-esteem points. Why not just sit back and enjoy the ride? I would except more enthusiasm instead of constant sarcasm at the prospect of playing a game that might as well be good, in it’s own right.
Brands live because people want more, if you do not want more, then stop caring and do not buy, vote with your wallet.
Sorry for the rant, no disrespect meant to any of the people I so vaguely describe. Just tired of seeing the constant stream of fud.
And I’m tired of the constant stream of ‘oh another Bethesda game whoopie, who cares that it’s devoid of decent original idea and has nothing to do with the first two games it’s by Bethesda it’ll be great’.
Since when has fandom had anything to do with age?
I voted with my wallet with Oblivion, didn’t work, so I’ll rage, rage on.
So thanks to Mr. British for the links; the screengrab with the TV’s now my desktop.
While I was over at NMA, though, I took a look through to see what their take on it was. And I noticed some things, some good, some bad.
- There’s another trailer, here. It’s basically the same thing, but the player takes a couple of the other approaches, and demo’s lockpicking and hacking. And answers some questions. It’s a little more informative.
- During the trailer one of the audience mentions the AI, and the fellow doing the demo says something along the lines of “Yeah, it’s pretty advanced. We’re using the Radiant AI system, same as we used in Oblivion, but with more stuff.” Except that Radiant AI, in the form that was hyped and talked about BEFORE Oblivion came out, never actually made it into the game. Instead of being ground-breakingly intelligent, NPCs just followed pre-scripted schedules.
- The rocket launcher is something you build. And you launch inventory items out of it. I can’t see this NOT being used for problem solving in some way.
- It’s not the one that shoots actual rockets, unfortunately.
- It’s confirmed that the character was toughened up quite a bit for the demo. So you can’t really sit there and leisurely take bullets.
- Funny little quote from the thread following: “Also, did anyone else laugh when Todd said, at 18:01, that cars in Fallout 1/2 are nuclear powered? Waaaaaay wrong; they had fusion fuel cells. FUSION. Nuclear power is fission-based. Yeesh.” Brave fellow there, contradicting the dictionary and all. Not the man I’d want in charge of overseeing MY countries nuclear nonproliferation. Or maybe EXACTLY the right man. Though he’s also the one saying that rail spikes would be uselessly corroded.
Also some whining about how absurd the dismemberment is which apparently forgets that they’re demoing with Bloody Mess, and that the POINT of it is absurd and cartoonish violence. But all in all, I think I’m feeling more optimistic now.
I’ll end with another quote from the thread:
“They don’t assume people have played Fallout. We’ve heard it 100 times, but damnit, I love hearing about a game not made for it’s fans. “
“Yeesh.” Brave fellow there, contradicting the dictionary and all. Not the man I’d want in charge of overseeing MY countries nuclear nonproliferation. Or maybe EXACTLY the right man. Though he’s also the one saying that rail spikes would be uselessly corroded.”
The point he was probably trying to make about the fusion/fission is that in the original games fusion cells powered most things including the power armour but didn’t blow up when shot at. And the rail spikes, mostly being exposed to the elements all those years would be corroded away, unlike guns which would more likely to have been cared for and maintained.
The bloody mess trait originally just played the maximum gore death, usually only gotten with a critical hit, it didn’t make people’s limbs fall off like some marionette with their strings cut. And considering the rpgs used prerendered character art and had limited space on the cds the death animations were fairly varied and fun, what’s Bethesda’s excuse?
It’s funny how when Fallout fans make criticisms about the game, people feel the need to point out any silly things also said by fallout fans, and then start to feel more optimistic again.
Reply to Harrumph
You’re basing your assumption on a few minutes of video. Also look at how much trouble was caused when Resistance featured Manchester Cathedral. Imagine that in an American city filled with landmarks in a post 9/11 world, quite frankly I’d prefer a whole new city than put up with the monthes of (hot) coffeeage (coverage, that joke).
Reply to Requiem
You didn’t notice the turn based moments, the changing radio stations and the buildable weapons?
Fanboy. Because you’re immediately dismissing the game rather than seeing if it will stand on it’s own.
In high quality 3D engines it takes monthes to produce any single animation and having the same death sequence for every enemy/weapon combo would be hella jarring. Therefore they’d need at least 3 or 4 hundred animations and you’d be looking at 15 year development cycle. How’s that for an excuse?
Well here’s the thing.
There’s an argument, and it goes like this: “Exploding cars is a little silly. I mean, would fuel cells even still retain their integrity after all this time? And if they sat through a nuclear blast, wouldn’t THAT have set it off in the first place? It seems like it’s really just an excuse to have more things explode, rather than a reasonable extrapolation of the science involved.”
Then there’s the argument that goes “That guy is stupid, he said they’re nuclear when they’re fusion, which is a completely different thing, and he CLEARLY doesn’t know anything about Fallout at all so the game is stupid.”
One is a reasonable critique of a design choice the team made, and one is silly and inaccurate. Also, on the rail spikes: there’s a lot of metal in the world. There’s a lot of metal in the OLD Fallout games. Especially in an arid post-nuclear wasteland, there isn’t a lot of moisture so rusting isn’t as much of an issue. The idea that “This gun is stupid because there wouldn’t be SPIKES after an apocalypse” is the same sort of silliness as with the fusion thing.
And you can’t pretend that there’s nothing silly and slapstick about enemies gibbing from being punched and shot with a pistol. Bethesda’s “excuse” is that the perk is a matter of slapstick, so the realism isn’t an issue. Realistic wounds and such can come when the perk ISN’T in effect.
It was the extended video, and hearing the fellow demonstrate some things and talk about others, that made me feel more optimistic. The silliness in the comments thread has nothing to do with it. What it DOES have to do with is the fact that it casts the game’s detractors as a whole in a juvenile light that illuminates a tremendously immature sense of entitlement. Does this mean that none of the concerns about the game are valid? Of course not. But it DOES mean that a lot of the game’s detractors seem to be out LOOKING for reasons to dislike it.
And, for the record, I could go on for hours about how disappointing Oblivion was. There’s no Bethesda fanboyism here. Actually, there’s not very much fanboyism at all . . . I kind of got over that kind of cliquishness once I got out of high school. So apparently age DID have something to do with it, look at that.
I felt a little unimpressed with the first video, but I suspect that’s due to the dull presentation by the guy with the bland voice, and the fact that the gameplay didn’t touch on much.
Watch the second video! – that feels more like Fallout! The few fragments of the Vault Dweller walking among NPCs and environments, that’s all gravy..
… and using perks to grenade a big Mutant’s leg off? Perfectly aimed rockets at Bros of Steel mech armour? That felt like a good moment. A great moment.
The second video does fit rather well into Fallout’s pants. The first one? Not so much. That nuke launcher really needs to go, too.
@Jonathan Turnbased moments what turnbased moments? Turnbased is my turn, your turn, my turn… you know like Chess. Not enter targeting mode line up several shots, return to game and watch the computer take the shots for you. VATS is an extension of Fallout’s targeting screen, which by it’s self does not mean turnbased. VATS seems far closer to Stranglehold’s precision aiming mode right down to the slow mo follow through on the deaths. And what do radio stations and buildable weapons have to do with Fallout? Oh wait you aren’t trying to claim they are original ideas now are you?
As for animations, I think you’re getting confusing producing animations for prerendered vs 3d games.
@Noc DC former swamp remember not an arid desert environment. His post might of been… confused but that doesn’t detract from from your need to highlight his comments on a totally different site where the game is also being dismissed. And there’s a big difference between over the top gibbing and limbs simply dropping off.
What’s with all these comments? This looks fab.
I notice he said we’ll be able to play as any kind of character we want, but then he said a stealthy guy etc etc. I haven’t been following the press for this much, does that exclude female characters?
STALKER is the new Fallout.
Over the last few days i have warmed to fallout 3. Before i was just “okay” with it.
I think a lot of Fallout fans are just scared of seeing something new, even if it ends up being a good thing or *gasp* benefitting the game! What do you want? Fallout 3 with the same graphics engine and the same combat system, characters, dialogue etc…?
:edit: watch the latest 1up show… they had the same guy come in and do a demo of fallout 3 and he talks quite deeply about what’s in the game.
“I think a lot of Fallout fans are just scared of seeing something new,” Bullshit! What do you think we never play any other games? What do we want? Not the same graphics engine, no there’s no way I’m going to pay for ten year old graphics in a modern game. But I do want graphics that follow the same design as the originals. In the cutscenes and talking heads of Fallout we got to see how things look close up in 3d yet Bethesda decided to redesign everything, how would that go over in a Star Wars or Star Trek game? Same combat system? Yes! Yes! Yes! Or preferably an enhanced improved version of the original combat system that’s clearly a natural progression of turn based combat. Turn based combat goes to the heart of the pen and paper mechanics that Fallout is built on. Ripping that out and replacing it with generic fps mechanics isn’t progress, isn’t something new. Fallout could of gone that route originally, ten years ago we had our Quakes, our Tomb Raiders even an TES game. Turning Fallout into Oblivion is going against all the design descisions the original devs made, it’s actually regressing gaming not moving it foward.
Same characters no, why would we expect that, Fallout 2 might of had a couple of cameos from the first game but didn’t set a precedent for a direct continuation of narrative, though it’s funny that despite the location change and advancement in years Bethesda are using the same organisations and can’t come up with a more original name for their dog companion. Same dialogue, same quality of writing certainly, same dark humor and level of irony, same ability for your stats to affect what dialogue choices you have and most definately the same level of consequences to what you say and do.
What we wanted basically is a new game with decent graphics and interesting storyline that’s a continuation of the series in both terms of gameplay and canon. Not a generic sandbox shooter with rpg elements, that picks bits and pieces from the previous games (including Tactics which they’d declared non canon) and jumbles them all up together.
Turn based combat goes to the heart of the pen and paper mechanics that Fallout is built on.
Oh, please. “Pen and paper mechanics” can lick a socket. Turn-based combat is fun because you have to plan your moves and think tactically, not because it’s just like being a tedious spod throwing dice around.
Same dialogue, same quality of writing certainly, same dark humor and level of irony, same ability for your stats to affect what dialogue choices you have and most definately the same level of consequences to what you say and do.
How do you know none of these are in there? The demos have focused almost exclusively on shooting. Yes, that is a worrying sign, but it doesn’t mean that there’s nothing else to the game. Apart from anything else, they’re probably saving the dialogue fine-tuning until later on, when the world’s been properly put together and all the possibilities programmed in. You’re talking as though it’s already been released. Express reservations, by all means, but damning the whole game before it’s even finished, let alone without playing it is just silly.
And get your arguments together, man – you say you (well you say “we” actually, which is pretty presumptuous by the way) want “decent graphics” but also complain that they’ve redesigned things and that you want the talking heads from the first one back. Which is it? How are they supposed to give you new graphics without redesigning anything, particularly given that it’s set in a different town with different people?
Fighting the urge to bludgeon anyone using the word ‘canon’ outside of a cathedral…. arghnnkk!
Who said anything about tedious spods, pen and paper mechanics are the heart of the game because it all boils down to the skills of the character not the player.
“How do you know none of these are in there?” Metal Circus asked what was wanted, how is answering that bashing the game? Though we do know that there’s no dumb dialogue for low intelligence characters because they’ve said there won’t be, and the examples they’ve given of the game’s dark humor just aren’t of the same style as the Fallout cRPGs. As the fine tuning excuse, the game is due for release in a few months, the voice acting would of been recorded a long time ago. Hmm perhaps that’s why none of the dialogue choices in Mass Effect matched with what your character actually said, they fine tuned the dialogue at the last minute.
Why do new graphics need a redesign? Aren’t their artists capable of recreating the same style but in glorious next gen 3d? Why does power armour have to go from smooth retro 50ish styling to clunky medieval knight with pistons, or why does the pulp sci-fi like skintight vault suits become a baggy ill fitting suit? Or why do the super mutants need to go from early marvel hulk like creatures to generic monsters?
Reply to Requim
What makes you say the straight turnbased combat and the isometric perspectives were intentional. This was 1998 and Baldurs was arguably among the first true real time rpgs. As for why it was isometric, do you really think it could have been made in the Quake engine? If this is true then why did the makers go on to create Vampire Bloodlines as a real time, third or first person game. A game based on a pen and paper rpg.
I’m not saying you have to kiss the game and marry it but sheesh at least wait for a review before you dismiss the writing and dialogue you haven’t even heard yet.
See fanboy. I liked the originals too, though they just fell short of the Black Isle games due to combat, but I’m still going to judge this game on it’s own merits.
Who said anything about tedious spods, pen and paper mechanics are the heart of the game because it all boils down to the skills of the character not the player.
And that has nothing at all to do with turn-based combat. You could easily have a first-person, real-time shooter where your character was only as fast or strong or accurate as you made them. Off the top of my head, Deus Ex, Oblivion, and even Rainbow Six Vegas to a slight extent (character with more armour = slower, but tougher) all managed this just fine.
There’s no reason at all why the new Fallout would have to be any different just because it’s played from a different perspective. Even if it weren’t for the VATS thing, it’d be very easy to, for example, make your gunfire less accurate if your character had lower gun skills. Have a look at Mount and Blade, for instance – all about action and fighting, but if your character was crap with a bow, you’d be crap with a bow. Simple. Given that it’s based on the same engine as Oblivion, this is if anything MORE likely than its being a mindless twitch shooter where any character with a rifle is as good as any NPC with a rifle.
Besides which, there’s nothing ‘pen and paper’ about your abilities being restricted to those of your character. Just look at any football game or even ancient side-scrolling shooters where you choose between a fast, weak ship and a slow, strong ship. Do you suppose those are all “going to the heart of pen and paper” whatever?
Look at the X-Com games, too – yeah, your soldiers have stats and such, but even if they’re hawk-eyed supermen, they’ll be cut to ribbons if you’re tactically inept.
Even when you’re totally in control of what, if any stats your character has, success at the game – any game – should still rely on player skill. Turn-based combat just generally requires different skills – foresight and resourcefulness rather than speed and accuracy.
Otherwise, what’s the point? If the game’s totally dependent on character skills and nothing else, you can just grind up an invincible player and cruise to the end without even thinking about it.
As for the graphics, what you’re actually complaining about, then, is that they’ve changed the style. You earlier claimed that you wanted ‘decent graphics’ and would be happy with that, but despite the fact that they’ve given you decent graphics (although I maintain that what I’ve seen so far is far too grey for my liking), you’re now complaining because they’ve changed the style.
I’ve no problem with your not liking the art direction, but, y’know, pick a bloody reason and stick with it, please.
@Jonathan “What makes you say the straight turnbased combat and the isometric perspectives were intentional.” Oh I don’t know, how about all the interviews over the years with the original developers for a start? Or that it was originally going to be part of a licensed GURPS series with each instalment using a different setting. Or even that first person games and real time games have been around since computer gaming started, and real time with pause predates Fallout by at least six years.
“I liked the originals too, though they just fell short of the Black Isle games due to combat” So Fallout fell short of Fallout 2 due to the combat? Yeah maybe I suppose since in 2 you could change what armour and weapons your npc followers used and tell them to keep their distance or move up close. Though really it didn’t make that much of a difference.
And what has VTMB got to do with Fallout’s design? So some of the same devs made that also, it doesn’t mean that’s the type of game they wanted to make all along but couldn’t because of the technology limitations. They did go onto make Temple of Elemental Evil afterwards, which I haven’t played to my regret, as it’s regarded by many to be the best example of turnbased combat going.
“but I’m still going to judge this game on it’s own merits.” Well forgive me if I judge the game compared to the two games it’s meant to be a sequel for. I shall, and so probably will many others, just as likely judge Half Life 2 Ep 3 against the early games in that series, the same with Half Life 3 if Valve ever make one. Likewise Baldur’s Gate 3, KotOR 3, Jagged Alliance 3 etc if they ever get made, that’s what people tend to do when a game is touted as part of a series. If the game is just going to be judged on it’s own merits there wasn’t much point in them making it Fallout 3 in the first place.
@sinister agent, Deus Ex I can play that without putting skill points into the weapon skills, thanks in part to the weapon mods. Likewise with Mass Effect the only weapon you need training in is the sniper rifle, since the game won’t let you use the scope without it. All the other weapons can be used untrained (if you don’t care about the power attacks) allowing you to put your points in the non combat skills. That makes action rpgs unbalanced depending on how good the player is. Low character skills only hinder those who can’t compensate for them. In pen and paper games reactions don’t come into it, it’s purely down to rolling the dice and the formulas based off your stats and skills and no decent GM will allow a player to role play their character beyond the character’s abilities.
If you make a dumb decision in an action rpg and run straight into a trap then how many character points you have won’t really get you out of trouble, if you have slow reactions your character will probably end up dead. In the same scenario in turnbased then if you send your highly skilled character into the same trap then it comes down to their skills and the roll of the dice as to whether they survive.
You make the decisions but the outcomes are purely down to the numbers that is the heart of pen and paper mechanics.
As for the graphics, I haven’t been changing my reasons, though somebody is certainly changing their arguments, but my comment about decent graphics was to Metal Circus who said what do fans want Fallout 3 with the same graphics engine? Did I really need to say I want decent graphics on an updated engine that follow the same design style as the originals (when I had already mentioned that earlier in the same post)?
You make the decisions but the outcomes are purely down to the numbers that is the heart of pen and paper mechanics.
Sorry, but that’s utter bollocks. If it’s purely down to the numbers, you may as well just literally roll dice and declare yourself the winner if you get a six. See, I love strategy and tactical combat games, but this “even if I’m a total cretin, my super-hard mega-soldiers should magically survive any of my stupid decisions anyway!” approach sounds hideously dull and pointless.
no decent GM will allow a player to role play their character beyond the character’s abilities.
Sorry, what? We’re not supposed to be “allowed” to play a game the way we want now? X-COM Apocalypse had a lot of people whinging because it included a real-time mode. But you know what those whingers could have done instead of crying out for it to be removed? They could, y’know, just play it the way they wanted to, and let the other people play it in real time. Why cry for something to be removed if you can just choose not to use it instead? All that does is ruins it for everyone else.
There’s nothing stopping people from roleplaying and forcing themselves to abide by their own restrictions – just look at the guy who’s playing Oblivion as an NPC – and that a game can allow you to do that is great. But what you’re proposing is effectively forcing everyone who plays to play to your own personal rule set. If you don’t like it in real-time, don’t play it in real-time – your reflexes can’t be so bad that you can’t even press (say) the space bar to activate VATS when you suspect an enemy is nearby. That, in fact, is precisely what the first two games did, and there are plenty of cases where your reflexes and timing in initiating combat are of paramount importance – sniping and sneaking, for a start.
It’s true that the demos focused mostly on the real-time combat, but hey, it’s E3. They were playing to that crowd on that day. I very much doubt there’s any reason you couldn’t just activate VATS anytime an enemy approached (and I’d imagine there’ll be an option in a menu somewhere to have it pause automatically a lá X-COM Apocalypse. Another game, incidentally, in which player skills and character skills were blended superbly in real-time mode), and that’s what happened in Fallout anyway. real time wandering with automatic pauses for combat.
Besides which, you were complaining about turn-based mode a minute ago – now you’re banging on about stats. What evidence is there, exactly, that character stats aren’t every bit as important as they were in Fallout? The bloke playing the demo clearly had souped-up skills to make the demo easier and more instantly obvious, but I’m sure that won’t be the case, and there’s nothing stopping Bethesda from copying Mount and Blade for combat skills – you might aim your crosshair directly at the other guy’s temple, but if youre character shoots like a plant, you’ll still miss.
Sure, queueing moves isn’t literally the same as taking turns, but it effectively plays in the same way because the ‘queue’ is basically a series of turns.
Okay, fine, I get it, you wanted shiny graphics in the same style. I was just pointing out that earlier you said you just wanted decent graphics, when what you actually want is decent graphics in a specific style. Fine if that’s what you’d like, but is it really that big a deal? It’s an aesthetic quibble. Was the 50s-esque style of the tat you could pick up really something you even noticed after the first couple of hours of Fallout? It’s a loss, perhaps, but hardly a dealbreaker. I’d be content if they just gave the place a bit of colour and life – given current fashions, their using more than three colours in the entire game would be a bold gesture.
This little demo looks pretty sweet.