By Jim Rossignol on October 14th, 2008 at 9:16 am.
It’d be fair to say that Fallout 3 is my… *counts on fingers*… fifth most anticipated game of the year, and I’ve actually largely been avoiding the coverage so that I can hit it fresh. Anyway, I couldn’t help but to have a look at this most recent trailer. I didn’t want to be disappointed: I know it’s the world and the RPGishness that will make it for me, but I am rather disappointed by the gunplay shown here. It’s the way the enemies do an “oh I’ve run out of hit-points” and fall over dead, that kills it for me. They need to be getting visibly battered by a torrent of lead, I need physics! Anyway, the environments look suitably derelict, and that missile-launcher is spectacular. Hopefully there will be enough awesome for this game to still be pleasing when we could to do that obligatory “games of 2008″ round-up in December.
14/10/2008 at 09:22 Meat Circus says:
So, Oblivion with Shit Guns then?
Quelle surprise.
14/10/2008 at 09:27 Silver says:
They need to be getting visibly battered by a torrent of lead, I need physics!
———
Amen brother, amen!
14/10/2008 at 09:29 Meat Circus says:
Also, as well as physics, I’d quite like shadows, good voice acting, well-designed missions, decently open roleplaying, a good story and a proper understanding of the Fallout Universe.
Well, a man can dream, I suppose.
14/10/2008 at 09:30 Mr_Day says:
Those weapons don’t seem to have much presence, do they? The chaingun barely registered hitting people until they fall down, and the rockets turn people into ragdolls rather than composite body parts.
But I feel better about the pausing to aim at body parts now I have seen it in action, not quite as jarring as I thought it would be.
14/10/2008 at 09:49 Ian says:
Despite the apparent lack of meatiness (is that a word?) to the guns I’m still quite looking forward to giving this a shot.
14/10/2008 at 09:55 Pavel says:
I was just playing Mafia the other day (yesterday), and even this 6 years old masterpiece had animations for walking diagonally, as well as for all the other directions.
WHY CAN’T BETHESDA HIRE BETTER ANIMATORS?
Also, I wonder why do the shell casings dissapear in mid-air? Is it too much for XCrap’s memory to handle it?
14/10/2008 at 09:55 Sartoris says:
Thank you for ruining one of my favorite games, Bethesda. This looks so awful and mainstream it makes me cry. Now please take Grim Fandango, Monkey Island, Planescape:Torment and Arcanum and administer the coup de grace to my childhood.
14/10/2008 at 10:03 pauleyc says:
Oh dear. Bethesda indeed seems to have missed the point.
By a few parsecs.
14/10/2008 at 10:11 Tei says:
* random comment about Bioshok “ocean vault” more fallout-ish than fallout3 *
14/10/2008 at 10:12 Owen says:
“oh I’ve run out of hit-points” and fall over dead, that kills it for me.
Hmm me too. That really does look pretty crap. I’ve still got hopes for this game, but they’re no longer high hopes.
*crosses fingers*
14/10/2008 at 10:15 Optimaximal says:
In their defence, at least they didn’t use the damn bloody mess perk for once…
14/10/2008 at 10:19 GibletHead2000 says:
I dunno. For me, Fallout was all about the story.
I mean… Coming back to play it now, it’s not as if the combat is exactly compelling, is it? (Or do we all enjoy chaingunning our teammates in the back all the time because they’re too stupid to move out the way?)
I’m much more interested in what other things there are to do, and how faithful the story & lore are to the original game. And I’m not going to find that out until I play it, because I’ve similarly been avoiding coverage of it, so I can play it untainted by hype.
14/10/2008 at 10:21 Gap Gen says:
Personally, I prefer the STALKER/Deus Ex model of RPG, with actual combat (even if Deus Ex wasn’t the best combat ever). Still, I guess we shall have to wait and see how the thing pans out.
14/10/2008 at 10:22 Ian says:
@ GibletHead2000: It has already been conclusively proven by Angry Internet Man that the story they haven’t played yet will be horrible. Please try to keep up. ;)
14/10/2008 at 10:23 Katsumoto says:
To be honest, this looks fun enough, but just nothing at all to do with Fallout. Why didn’t they create their own original IP? I really don’t know – it’s not like Fallout is a big enough name with the console crowd for it to boost sales.
If this has been something original I bet you the reaction to it would be a lot more positive.
14/10/2008 at 10:24 Katsumoto says:
had* been! Damnit.
14/10/2008 at 10:30 dartt says:
After watching this on the weekend I was compelled to go and have a run around in GTA IV. The euphoria animations give a fantastic feeling of your shots having an effect on your target; the enemies stumble and spin and fall over but keep on trying to keep their gun on you as they tumble.
I’m waiting on the reviews for Fallout 3 but if I get it I’ll probably spend most of the game in VATS.
14/10/2008 at 10:37 Quine says:
Just me who read that as French Warfare then?
It was creating interesting pictures in my head for a few moments…
14/10/2008 at 10:52 Owen says:
Oh yeah, the Euphoria physics are just incredible. Combat where your opponent stumbles, sways and falls as you expect just adds so much. Certainly the lack of it, or something similar, in FPS’s from this point will be very noticeable I feel.
When I first heard about Fallout 3 I would never have guessed it would look so much like a ‘standard FPS’ (within reason). Maybe they’re just choosing videos like this to demo it for crazed console kids, hell-bent on blowing shit up.
It just doesn’t feel right to me. but obviously there’s only so much you can base on a handful of videos. I’ll say one thing though. The vidoes put me off pre-ordering. I’ll instead wait to hear what RPS and PCG have to say.
14/10/2008 at 10:57 aldo_14 says:
This game seems to look worse and worse every time I see it… stilted animation, weedy weapons, slow gameplay (excluding the deliberately slow VATS stuff of course) and poor sound.
I realise it’s not a shooter, but surely if they’re going to do that view and that gameplay they can at least make it convincing-er?
14/10/2008 at 11:08 MacBeth says:
Disappointing, I have to say… the chaingun might as well be a death ray for all the impact it has.
If you want weapon impact physics on enemies, Left4Dead will bring you joy…
14/10/2008 at 11:13 Carra says:
Meh, games of the year should be in January when all games have actually been released and we’ve had some time to play them.
14/10/2008 at 11:20 yhancik says:
The lack of hit animation is terrible indeed. Now that kind of issue still plagues too many games.
It’s surely more unforgivable for a Big Budget Game with more than decent graphics and such nice environment.
So far it looks like I’ll probably prefer VATS to “real time” ;)
14/10/2008 at 11:20 Jason Lefkowitz says:
Man, that Halo IV video is awesome!
Wait, what do you mean it’s Fallout 3 and not Halo IV? Oh dear.
14/10/2008 at 11:21 StalinsGhost says:
It is a pretty dire trailer it has to be said. Combat has looked pretty interesting – thanks mostly to VATS – elsewhere, but the run and gun type action looks more than a little clunky. Still. Reserving judgement on it till I get my hands on it.
14/10/2008 at 11:25 SixStringSamurai says:
what are your other 4 anticipated games then?
shit, this is dissapointing
14/10/2008 at 11:41 Dominic White says:
This is one of those damned either way situations. Yeah, they could have gone for a more realistic tactical shooter style, with guys getting knocked around or outright flattened by weapons fire.
And then the ‘This isn’t an RPG anymore! It’s a retarded FPS!’ crew would move in and start setting fire to things.
Anyone remember Fallout 2? You could pile minigun fire into a super-mutant, and they’d flinch a little, but nothing else, then they’d return the same favour to you, and you’d continue until either of you ran out of hitpoints, or scored a magical ‘bypasses all armor’ critical and exploded the other guy instantly.
14/10/2008 at 11:41 yhancik says:
@Katsumoto :
But it goes for many sequels, especially when it’s done by other people. I’ve come to accept that sequels are “sequels” because of laziness & marketing, but basically they’re new games with big references to other game(s) and some trademarked name on the box.
Still, if Bethesda hadn’t licensed the rights to make a new Fallout, and if the game was called The Röntgen Chronicles instead of Fallout 3 (or Wasteland 2 ;p), the reaction wouldn’t be a lot more positive, juste slightly less negative, I’m afraid…
“Poor 3Ddumbedownconsoleyfps Fallout rip-off” instead of “BLASPHEMY!” ;)
14/10/2008 at 11:55 yhancik says:
Oh, btw, the sysreq have finally been released
http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/info/faq.html
14/10/2008 at 12:05 Lukasz says:
Dominic is right.
Did you see characters being visible battered in Baldur’s Gate? or in PS:T?
What about Might and Magic 6?
or more recent KOTORs and NWNs?
RPG is about story, about choice, about character development, about npcs, about the world.
Silly things like not seeing a person flinch after getting shot in the knee is not something important in that genre.
14/10/2008 at 12:08 AsubstanceD says:
WHY!? I don’t know whether its the fact that the shooting seems to be so uniteristing, and that tough mutants seem no challenge, or the fact that running and gunning, plowing down a load of enemies takes away the fallout atomsphere. Also the fact that the whole death-is-always-round-the-corner-for-everyone feeling is gone when you have mutants just falling infront of you as you run at them, wheres the tension!? Actually the list could go on…
Why couldn’t they have invented a new post apocalyptic world and left fallout as a dream for the fans of the original games.
And its not Halo IV, its clearly as someone said in another thread, Hellgate London.
14/10/2008 at 12:30 Squirrelking says:
My god, have all the haters come out to play or what? This is a freaking trailer, don’t base you opinions on how the whole game will be on it… You will need to actually play it for that.
I think the combat looks fun, especially the “low level” action, like in previous Fallouts. I always had less fun when I got into the power armor and had to use big guns/energy weapons.
People seem to forget that Fallout is (was) the game YOU make it out to be, while these trailers are what they are forcing you to see. Don’t like “plowing down a load of enemies”? Then don’t. Make it YOUR game. Like you could in Fallout 1 and 2.
I think that if Bethesda fails at letting us make it our game, then Fallout 3 will not be… well, Fallout. But let’s wait and see, shall we?
14/10/2008 at 12:36 Malagate says:
Quote Dominic:”Anyone remember Fallout 2? You could pile minigun fire into a super-mutant, and they’d flinch a little, but nothing else, then they’d return the same favour to you, and you’d continue until either of you ran out of hitpoints, or scored a magical ‘bypasses all armor’ critical and exploded the other guy instantly.”
I recreated that in the very first level of Fallout: Tactics, whereby my character and a bandit were standing about 50 cm apart shooting at each other, missing even with the burst fire option and taking a stupid amount of time to finish considering my sniper killed their target from about 10 times the distance with only 2 shots.
It does nark me that not every game has even slightly realistic character reactions to being hurt, but of course RPG’s have always taken the piss when it came to that. I remember Oblivion so well for my huge heavy hammer strikes not having any noticable effect on my enemy until he dropped down dead, similarly Kotor having the least satisfying lightsaber fights I’ve ever seen. RPGs do so well in other areas, it would be nice for once to see a part of the enemy being crippled or at least flinching in pain.
14/10/2008 at 12:40 drewski says:
Yeah, the Fallout franchise is totally all about realistic projectile impact physics.
I know I just won’t be able to enjoy a Fallout game unless every single bullet is impacted using it’s own core of the CPU. Have these guys not played the Fallout games at all? The combat is so realistic!
14/10/2008 at 12:51 phuzz says:
The bit that annoyed me the most was the waste of space demoing the game.
Now we’ve seen a lot of this guy playing on trailers recently, who ever they are they’ve obviously only been playing these new fangled computer game things for a little while, and they could really do with a bit more practise.
Specifically in this trailer, the bits where your screen is going red, and it sounds like you’re being shot, but there’s no enemies on screen?
That means there’s someone behind you mate, the bullets going past you from behind was the give away moment.
Honestly, can games companies find someone who knows how to play the bloody game to demo them please?
14/10/2008 at 12:59 Roy says:
They need to emphasise exploration and adventure over shooty-shooty in these videos, because taken solely as an FPS it looks pretty thin. But, as has been already said, it’s the Angry Internet Men who have missed the point of Fallout – the combat was always secondary to the setting, and the world Bethesda have made looks spectacular.
Opinion, away!
14/10/2008 at 13:08 Big D says:
Lets just hope that the Mod community mod it to feck and make it a bit better, i still going to get this game but I do fear for the combat. I would not mind using VATS for it all to be honest!
I think it will be ok in the end, lets just get the game and play it first!
14/10/2008 at 13:08 UncleLou says:
“Silly things like not seeing a person flinch after getting shot in the knee is not something important in that genre.
”
It is, if you decide to go full 3D with a non-isometric perspective. Because there’s no room left for your mind to fill the gaps, so inconsitencies that don’t matter one bit in a slightly more abstract, isometric game stand out like sore thumbs all of a sudden.
Either make an isometric game, or make a proper first-person/third-person game. What Bethesda are doing just looks half-arsed at the moment, and dated.
14/10/2008 at 13:16 Calabi says:
That does look awful, it looks more and more like it will bare no resemblance to the originals, which if it doesnt then why the feck did they choose the IP.
But I’m sure it will be hailed as the second coming when it is released, even as people turn away from games because of it and others. Then eventually the whole industry is dragged into the bottom level of hell where they weep and it is cold. And Bethesda would be stuck in the coldest bit, where they are hit whenever anyone walks past. But that isnt often, because the smell and it is very cold. After a time they get to a stage where they welcome the hitting as its the only contact they ever get.
14/10/2008 at 13:18 citizen kobzon says:
Oh, so you can shoot off limbs in real time mode as well. Good news. As long as there are cold hard numbers behind the shooting, I won’t care about the animation (much). It’s all terribly formal anyway, your damage modifier against enemy’s armour bonus, that’s what you’ll think of, no time for evaluating animator’s work. But that’s only if there are cold hard numbers and not oblivious treacherous treachery of oblivion. Oh no!
14/10/2008 at 13:19 coreyw says:
Yeah… Bethesda’s marketing strategy seems to be, “We know that most likely, AT LEAST the majority of the core Fallout audience will be buying this game already. Therefore, we should probably just focus on selling it to people who like to shoot things.”
To me, it seems to be working for them. I’ve noticed a lot of hype surrounding this game. As for the rest of us, it just comes down to whether or not you have faith that all the RPG stuff we’ve been promised is actually in the game. I’ve thrown my money down already.
14/10/2008 at 13:21 ZeroByte says:
Watched all three gameplay trailers on GameTrailers and yeah… we need something other than a combat trailer. Nothing really interesting there, then again a story trailer would be pretty spoiler-ific. I actually quite dug the trailers where they demoed how you could blow up the city with the nuke, that at least felt RPG-ish. So, meh combat trailers, bring on the real meat of Fallout gameplay, come on Bethesda! You’ve played to the “gunz-lol” crowd enough, show whats in store for the old school fans! Unless of course, there isn’t diddly squat all in the RPG side of gameplay.
14/10/2008 at 13:30 mpk says:
Part of me is beginning to hate Fallout fanboys. I’m actually glad I haven’t played a Fallout game, so that I can go into number three with an open mind and no canonical expectations.
14/10/2008 at 13:34 Paul Moloney says:
I agree with the “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” comment above. Mods for Oblivion were created because people thought the physics was overdone – enemies flying backwards from weapons hits. The physics in this trailer seemed more realistic; a portable minigun isn’t going to knock someone over. Hopefully Bethesda will bring out the construction kit so that people can have the physics any way they want.
Looks good to me, but then I’m an Oblivion nut and have never finished the original Fallout games, so I’m a stumble-minded heretic; one of the first things I did with my new XPS laptop was to load up Oblivion so I can place a nasty khajiit thief character and finally do the Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood quest lines. Roll on Oct 31st.
P.
14/10/2008 at 13:40 Turin Turambar says:
Mpk said: “Part of me is beginning to hate Fallout fanboys. I’m actually glad I haven’t played a Fallout game, so that I can go into number three with an open mind and no canonical expectations.”
Uh? I don’t think the Fallout fans are worried about the canon universe, how the plot and characters are translated from the odl games to the new game. They (me included) are worried about the gameplay itself, not the canon.
14/10/2008 at 13:48 coreyw says:
To be fair, if NMA is any indication, it seems to me that Fallout fanboys are worried about everything in this game. Not that I’m not one.
14/10/2008 at 13:54 mpk says:
Uh? I don’t think the Fallout fans are worried about the canon universe, how the plot and characters are translated from the odl games to the new game. They (me included) are worried about the gameplay itself, not the canon.
I can see that, and can understand it. But it’s a transition from a 2D isometric turn based game into a real time 3D combat mechanic; it was never going to be the same unless Bethesda cribbed the Final Fantasy method and made every combat a kind of instance where the rules changed and everyone waits kindly for their turn. What, really, were the expectations?
Comments about physics not being good enough, guns not being meaty enough, animation not being animaty enough… it’s nitpicking, it’s Angry Internet Man thinking and it just annoys me.
14/10/2008 at 13:58 mrrobsa says:
@Dominic White:
Just wanted to agree with you sir. I literally finished Fallout 1&2 over the weekend for the first time and the fights look about the same, minus the turn based aspect.
All the ‘hit’ animations were little flinches, ’til the guy falls over dead.
I’m not saying they couldn’t have improved it, but at least it’s not got any worse.
(Hope the combat still has a tactical bent though)
14/10/2008 at 14:10 garren says:
What, now people are saying that because ten year old games didn’t have realistic physics engines and smooth 3d animations, Fallout 3 doesn’t need them either?
With all the emphasis put on 1st/3rd person shooting (judging from the videos), yeah, they could do better.
14/10/2008 at 14:17 n3utr0n says:
UncleLou: Surely by that argument all fp games released before a certain stage are no longer effictive at drawing you compared to modern games because they lacked the tech for Realistic getting shot flinching or Realistic physicslol.
14/10/2008 at 14:19 tukken says:
The funny thing is.. with Fallout and Fallout 2 the text descriptions of the combats actually fill in the details that the animations could not provide at the time. “You hit MOB131_X in the face for 121 points of damage, gouging out its eyes,” was strangley statisfying. Fallout 3 seems to be pointed at the illiterate market, and the combat seems sterile as it lacks either descriptive text, or entertaining physics.
14/10/2008 at 14:24 Paul Moloney says:
Presumably you think combat descriptions should be auto-generated and displayed above your enemies’ heads? It’s a pity we have to lose out on the Wildean wit of “gouging out its eyes”.
We should keep a run list of examples of Fallout 3 Derangement Syndrome.
P.
14/10/2008 at 14:28 macc says:
I don’t see a problem with the physics. In reality guns don’t make people fly backwards either (only in bad western films).
I’m also more interested in the story/characters. But I do agree the character animation lacks behind, which also was the case with Oblivion.
But Oblivion did have a lot of good quests which kept it interesting even after 200 hours. Unlike Mass Effect which had totally uninteresting sidequests.
14/10/2008 at 14:34 Dominic White says:
garren: My point is that the Angry Internet Men (NMA division) are so desperate to find things to hate about Fallout 3, that instead of providing huge itemized lists of things not exactly the same as Fallouts 1 & 2, they’re complaining about things that are actually the same. Ironically, often the exact same things that they were claiming were changed/ruined previously.
Anyway, while the game is first-person, it’s definitely more of an RPG than it is FPS. A lot of the combat is meant to be played in pseudo-turnbased formate (see VATS), which does provide a lot of the visceral impact of the original games.
For those who want to wander the post-apocalyptic wastes, and fight battles that end the moment one side scores a single solid hit, there’s always STALKER and its prequel. This is something else, though.
I know it’s common enough knowledge that the 360 version has leaked out into nefarious piratey hands, and while I haven’t played it myself (the thought of chipping my thrice-replaced-already 360 fills me with terrible dread… plus, I’m not the piratey sort), the general response from those who *have* is positive.
It ain’t an amazing looker, but neither were the first two for their time. What I have heard is that it’s a very solid ‘proper’ RPG under that externally actiony shell.
14/10/2008 at 14:46 tukken says:
“Presumably you think combat descriptions should be auto-generated and displayed above your enemies’ heads? It’s a pity we have to lose out on the Wildean wit of “gouging out its eyes”.”
I wasn’t implying high wit, simply text filling in detail. Yes I rather liked the little text display in the corner in Fallout 2, it reinforces the RPG ness of the game.
The point is, if the detail isn’t there visually, the text helps you imagine the combat, and gave you a reason, beyond simply killing the enemy, to use the targeting system.
But, hey, simplicity has its place too. I was just hoping for an RPG.
Who knows, maybe the game will be the best thing since sliced bread. Unfortunatley, its just looking a bit thin at this point.
14/10/2008 at 14:51 plant42 says:
Well, to be fair here ‘realistic’ physics would be pretty close to what you’re seeing here. Getting hit by a bullet produces almost no visible reaction in people. The ‘equal and opposite force’ is the recoil of the handgun, which simply knocks your hand back a few inches – that’s the equivalent force that the target ‘feels’. You guys have bought into Hollywood effects where someone is hit by a bullet and flies back 10 ft and does a flip. :)
That said, these animations and physics are horrible. I’ll wait to see the reviews hit the net before deciding to buy.
:/
And what happened the the shadows? Are they turned off on the 360 version because it can’t handle it? Please tell me the PC has shadows at least.
14/10/2008 at 14:59 Dominic White says:
Oh, a related little fact: The game was originally going to have a Deus Ex style skill/accuracy system, where the higher your skill in a given weapon, the tighter your aiming reticule and the less recoil you get.
Unfortunately, this meant that when you were untrained in a weapon, you’d pick it up and bullets went everywhere but where you’re pointing, which made people whine and throw tantrums, so they’ve changed it to only having a partial effect on accuracy (although more pronounced when using VATS targetting), but lower skill in a weapon will affect your damage output.
Hence, if you pick up something like a minigun without any Big Guns skill, you’re going to be making a lot of sound and fury, but signifiying nothing – or at least, signifiying that you’re about to get your face eaten by a post-apocalyptic mutant superbear as your woefully underpowered shots ping harmlessly off its hide.
Oh, and from watching (unofficial) videos, I can safely say that the game DOES have superpowered mutant bears, and they can and will mess you up terribly. I’ve seen players torn down in two hits by them.
14/10/2008 at 15:46 unclelou says:
“UncleLou: Surely by that argument all fp games released before a certain stage are no longer effictive at drawing you compared to modern games because they lacked the tech for Realistic getting shot flinching or Realistic physicslol”
No, not at all. But that things in the past were different doesn’t mean developers should ignore the progress. If they try to sell me the game as some sort of FPS/RPG-hybrid, it better look like one, and don’t have animations and AI of yesteryear.
All I am doing is measuring the footage by the standard Bethesda have chosen for themselves. If they insist on showing me first- and third-person sequences again and again to market it, I am not going to compare these sequences to Fallout 1.
14/10/2008 at 15:55 unclelou says:
I just realised your post might have actually referred to the part of my post you didn’t quote. :)
It’s my “level of abstraction” theory, basically. Old games still can be absolutely immersive, I am not saying each game must look like Crysis, far from it – it’s the incosistencies that worry me. On the one hand, you have a very detailed, modern 3D environement, on the other hand, animations and AI look severly lacking.
It’s a bit like voice-acting. A game with hardly any voice-acting and a few repeating speech-bubbles for NPCs like, say, Fallout 1 , is fine. As is a game with full voice-acting and a presentation like Mass Effect.
It becomes a problem if you mix different degrees of abstraction – say, a character in a detailed first-person game with voice-acting, who stands there and repeats the same line again and again, just like NPCs of old repeated the same speech-bubble appearing over their head. The latter is ok, the former is an immersion-killer, as it doesn’t fit the world.
Compromises have to be made, of course, but that’s essentially what I meant when I said FO3 looks a bit half-arsed to me.
14/10/2008 at 16:14 coreyw says:
@tukken
I’m confused. It clearly states ” is crippled” a number of times in that video. Do you wish it said something more specific? ” was gouged”?
14/10/2008 at 16:16 coreyw says:
That didn’t come out right. Should say “ some body part is crippled.” Also, I said a number of times but it seems to just happen once.
14/10/2008 at 16:24 cyrenic says:
Can we please call a moratorium on the “blood spatter on camera” effect? It’s getting a bit old.
14/10/2008 at 16:29 Dominic White says:
coreyw: On top of that, there is a clear animation/response when enemies suffer critical hits. They do get knocked around by them. Fatal critical hits tear off/shatter whatever body part it was, or (in the case of more exotic weapons) melt, dissolve or vaporize the target.
14/10/2008 at 16:44 Butcher Pete says:
I have been watching streams of people playing the game (after the leak some time ago) for more hours than I care to admit, and the broad picture it has given me has taken me from quite warily looking forward to the game to putting in a preorder. And it is that same long view that makes the gripes expressed in these comments entirely inconsequential in my opinion; when you are actually playing the game (or watching someone else in my case) the fun of it all is such that you won’t stop to think about whether or not someone fell back realistically because you are still trying to get over how the guy’s head exploded. And just to speak to the “Oblivion with gun” comments; I found it somewhat amusing how similar it seemed to be to Oblivion at first, but that feeling wears off quickly and it really has a feeling all its own. The animations aren’t the greatest, but they’re more quirky than they are irritating and you eventually stop notice that about them as well.
14/10/2008 at 16:50 Chis says:
Have Bethesda attempted an FPS before? No? Would explain much. ‘Tis a shame, because Clear Sky was ultimately a minor disappointment… and much as I love Stalker SoC, I’m near the end of my third full playthrough, and likely won’t touch it again for a while.
14/10/2008 at 17:14 yhancik says:
@Chis :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyNET#SkyNET ? :p
14/10/2008 at 19:15 Bema says:
Doesn’t look like much to be honest. The mechanics behind it look like they’ll just serve to frustrate and annoy me.
14/10/2008 at 19:43 suibhne says:
@plant42: There’s a difference between asking that enemies (unrealistically) fly across the room due to the impact of (unrealistic) ballistics, and asking that enemies actually respond to being riddled with gunfire – like, in pain or something, anything. I mean, Uncharted approximates enemy response so much that it just seems like cosmetics most of the time, and it still looks far, far better than this.
Of course, enemies didn’t react at all in Oblivion, so why should they here?
14/10/2008 at 20:11 Dominic White says:
But they DO react! I’ve seen several hours worth of gameplay, and there are very distinct pain animation reactions to being hit in any of the key body-parts. There’s no physical response to general impacts, but criticals are pretty damn common, especially with automatic weapons. I’ve seldom seen an enemy survive an entire fight without taking one crit, which usually has enough of a stunning effect to let you deal the killing blow.
The Trench Warfare video is pretty bad for anything other than ‘Here’s a power-armor/minigun rampage’ purposes anyway. Check out the other ones on Gametrailers.
14/10/2008 at 23:55 Willem says:
Wait, a handgun can blow away your enemy’s face, but a rocket just makes them fall down? Something is amiss!
15/10/2008 at 00:20 thom says:
You guys oughta buy tissues or something, all i heard is tears from you. Since when does aesthetics matter? So what if it doesn’t have this or that engine.. Fucking just play it and stop expecting the next coming out off all the games. I think this is a very fine game. And the fall lineup still looks amazing. Far Cry is going to be really well made as is Fable, left 4 dead, and dead space.
15/10/2008 at 00:35 Grey_Ghost says:
One of my favorite things in Fallout 1&2 was the animation & sounds for burst firing someone to death… Which appears to be very blah in this video. I guess “immersion” killed it. Unless some modders are able to do some amazing shit with this game, I’m not even gonna touch it with a fucking 10-foot pole.
15/10/2008 at 03:00 Dracko says:
This game looking like a walking abortion surprises absolutely no-one.
15/10/2008 at 07:24 Champagne O'Leary says:
I don’t know if I’m watching the same video as other people, and when other people talk about what is and isn’t Fallout, I wonder if I’ve played the same game as these people as well.
All the FO3 threads on RPS have brought back strong memories of schoolyard arguements about how many colours the Mega Drive and SNES could display at once.
15/10/2008 at 10:38 MonkeyMonster says:
For those who haven’t seen… http://prepareforthefuture.com/
15/10/2008 at 12:49 Chis says:
@yhancik:
I remember both Terminator FPSs and enjoyed them a lot. But have Bethesda made an FPS since then?? Future Shock – good though it was – was released thirteen years ago!
I must confess I forgot that Beth made them. Been a looong time since I’ve played them…
15/10/2008 at 13:28 Bhazor says:
Reply to Chris
Call of Cthulhu Dark Corners of the Earth
Reply to people talking about animation
Sure they could have spent an extra six monthes on the human animation. But this is a game where that same level of detail would have to be given eleventy hundred types of mutants, giant scorpions, tanks with humanoid torsos, bugs, children and so forth. It would have taken another six years of development.
Yes the engine isn’t the best, but do you know what’s more jarring than a duff animation? Frame rate stutters at a crucial moment.
Also I only just played Fallout 1 and 2. Did nae fancy it, repetitive and over simpliefied combat, no meaningful party control in battle, highly disposable characters (the only reason you can do what you do to them is that there’s no real depth or consequence), illogical puzzles (buying the one rope from a guy in a village you aren’t meant to have been to yet in order to climb into a hole), average music and no real atmosphere. Compared to Baldurs or Anachranox it doesn’t come out too well.
Stop being so precious and let the game stand on it’s own legs. If those legs are crap then by all means rip it apart, but at least try letting it walk.
15/10/2008 at 19:09 suibhne says:
@Bhazor: Bethesda didn’t make CoC:DCotE; they only published it.
Also, “buying the one rope from a guy in a village you aren’t meant to have been to yet in order to climb into a hole”? There is no “you aren’t meant to have been to yet” in Fallout…and one might have the logical response that, if you encounter a hole into which you can’t safely descend, it might be time to go look for rope.
16/10/2008 at 04:57 hyperion2010 says:
I have yet to experience an event in gaming more satisfying than a critical bloody mess in fallout1/2, and that is some tiny isomorphic 2d sprite. 3d is supposed to be better, but a fallout that changes a fundamental feature of the gameplay and takes itself WAY too seriously, cannot really be part of the “legacy.” F3 will still be a good game, but it saddens me when I have to advise people not to ruin it for themselves by playing fallout1/2 before hand (play them after). I will return again and say: if I get more satisfaction out of blasting a 2d sprite into a bloody rib cage than I get out of 3d fps like combat, something has gone terribly wrong (consoles maybe?).
16/10/2008 at 05:52 Butcher Pete says:
“takes itself WAY too seriously”
So it is not you or the NMA-aligned crowd, but rather the game, that is taking things too seriously? Gotcha.
16/10/2008 at 17:44 Grey_Ghost says:
Bhazor: “illogical puzzles, average music and no real atmosphere”
Are you fucking serious? Especially those latter 2 damned points just boggle my mind!
19/10/2008 at 17:44 downz says:
ahh i preordered this, tis looks rather. err rubbish. il wait for pc gamers review, than cancel my order only if they say it isnt very good,hmm my high hopes are dropping.
20/10/2008 at 23:58 The Tick says:
Hehe, don’t worry overly much guys. I’ve been playing that leaked 360 version of the game for two weekends now. Lemme tell you a story. I came over to my friend at 2pm this saturday, and excluding a break for pizza we played straight until 5:30am.
Now, first worry you all seem to have, story and characters. Yes, animation is so-so. Voice work is top notch, as is the writing. We laughed out loud on many, many occasions. Quests are far more than the old fetch-quests, and they’re rarely as simple as they first seem.
Case in point, at one time you’re investigating the deaths of two people in a small town besieged by a gang of criminals. I won’t get into details, but it turns out they have kidnapped the victims’ son. We were playing a speech-heavy character, and managed to talk our way past the gang guards, finding out as we went along that there was more than meets the eye.
After talking to the leader for a while I literally told my friend, this evil bastard needs to die. Let’s rescue the kid and go home. Then it all turned around, and we ended up happily allying with (and becoming a part of) the gang.
Sound evil? Not in the least, let’s just say we got a lot of good karma.
Now, VATS. It’s not a gimmick, it’s a resource. Using it sparingly and strategically is key to winning without taking too much damage. The enemies move around far too much to effectively be put down in real-time.
Any other questions, post em and I’ll gladly do my best to answer. =)