Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Putnam]

...Skyrim released with HD textures, or at least had them available after only a few months.

Also, have you seen the trailer without the shitty Youtube compression? The textures are fairly nice.

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, I was exaggerating a mite bit there. My bad. I'm not really inclined to give them a by for the Skyrim HD either, considering that a) it didn't ship at launch and b) only released months after the best HD texture overhaul mod was released. Not to mention that the official HD DLC was uncompressed, took longer to download than every graphics mod you needed put together, and still managed to look worse. I mean, I appreciate that they did it, but like many things Bethesda does it was half-assed and overshadowed by things made before it released.

That said, they're still not great, and well below the average set by similar games that have launched in the last five years or so. So reduce that to mehworthy graphics that shouldn't be looked at too closely... and a mountain of bugs.

[ShoesandHats]

You have to admit, though, it only would've compounded the issue if they went for the same art style as 3 and NV. The graphics are plenty good and any shortcomings are mostly covered up by the fact that it looks a little cartoony. Either way, I'm pretty sure no one plays Fallout for the graphics.

[Flying Dice]

No, no, don't get me wrong, it's a huge fucking improvement over 3 and NV. It's just also sort of disappointing that it's still effectively Skyrim with Guns.

[ShoesandHats]

What makes it Skyrim with Guns? What would make it not Skyrim with Guns beyond going back to turn-based isometric gameplay? Don't get me wrong, I immensely enjoyed the first two games as well, it just doesn't seem likely that Bethesda or anyone else who might hold the rights in the future would go back.

[Wysthric]

What makes it Skyrim with Guns? What would make it not Skyrim with Guns beyond going back to turn-based isometric gameplay? Don't get me wrong, I immensely enjoyed the first two games as well, it just doesn't seem likely that Bethesda or anyone else who might hold the rights in the future would go back.

They'd lose a ton of their playerbase if they went back to that.

[ShoesandHats]

Which is what I was saying.

I'd say the differences in gameplay and setting are different enough that it's an unfair comparison. If we call Fallout 3 "Oblivion with Guns" or Fallout 4 "Skyrim with Guns", we might as well call Thomas was Alone "VVVVVV with Quadrilaterals".

[Rakonas]

...Skyrim released with HD textures, or at least had them available after only a few months.

Also, have you seen the trailer without the shitty Youtube compression? The textures are fairly nice.

Where is the uncompressed trailer? Really wish they had used it in the first place if it's actually that big of a difference.

[Flying Dice]

Which is what I was saying.

I'd say the differences in gameplay and setting are different enough that it's an unfair comparison. If we call Fallout 3 "Oblivion with Guns" or Fallout 4 "Skyrim with Guns", we might as well call Thomas was Alone "VVVVVV with Quadrilaterals".

It's because it's the same engine and mechanics that feel almost identical arranged in the shape of a post-apoc shooter sandbox RPG instead of a fantasy slasher sandbox RPG.

Geez, next you'll be arguing that Mass Effect and Dragon Age are completely unrelated. I'm not talking about superficial content, I'm talking about the underlying framework.

Granted, "Skyrim with Guns" doesn't equate to bad as you seem to be suggesting, but it is lazy. At least we can hope that the slightly more complex faction shift from Oblivion -> Skyrim will be paralleled here.

[Teneb]

I think it boils down to the fact that Bethesda really only makes games in a single "style". RPGs with an open world, usually pretty good and solid lore, but, among other things, horrid animations.

[ShoesandHats]

I am probably pretty biased given that I'm a fan of both Fallout and The Elder Scrolls. I recognize there are some pretty glaring similarities, but there're always going to be glaring similarities within genres. Sure, Bethesda makes a lot of open world RPGs, but I happen to like that genre so all I need is enough variation to make me feel like I'm not playing the exact same game.

[KingofstarrySkies]

This thread is far too negative for me. I'm outie. See you all when we get more info on the game or something.

[Neonivek]

Or better yet they could for example... do away with the whole faction system altogether and not have "Grey Monster" versus "Satan"

Kind of reminds me of Skyrim where they botch the storyline so badly that honestly the Imperials, in spite being coded evil, were in fact the good guys.

Don't get me wrong the previous Fallouts had factions but they weren't all encompassing factions... they were groups and cliques of various levels of resources and powers.

Heck they shouldn't be afraid to just have a bad guy. The WEAKNEST part of New Vegas was how they weren't sure if they wanted the Legion to be a legitimate faction with their own way of doing things, or the villains (The NCR are a compromise).

But they should make the villain interesting. The Master of Fallout 1 was a much more interesting villain then the bozo from Fallout 2 who is so uninteresting I can never remember his name.

Heck they NEED to start making up their own mythology, bestiary, creatures, people, history now. We had the nostalgia filled punch to the guy which was Fallout 3 and New Vegas which feel like they were created from cribs notes from previous games (and in some cases... that is exactly what happened)

[forsaken1111]

Posting to hype

[Putnam]

Kind of reminds me of Skyrim where they botch the storyline so badly that honestly the Imperials, in spite being coded evil, were in fact the good guys.

I am 90% sure the Imperials are not "coded evil"...