[Don Garcia]

404: Post not found

This post has been edited by Don Garcia on Thursday, Apr 25 2013, 19:20

[The General]

QUOTE (oysterbarron @ Wednesday, Mar 21 2012, 16:13)

You say that but take MC for example, if it had no multiplayer whatsoever would it still be as rewarding to create a mega build and have no one to share it with? i for one get really board with the single player experience whereas i can play MP for hours on end, These devs put so much time into crafting these immersive experiences for a single player, whats the point in finding this really rare weapon in a crate or an awesome underground bunker if your the only one there to enjoy it. I will rephrase it no its not lack of multiplayer that is holding back games its the lack of thought and the DEVs inability to do a successful multiplayer and single player game thats holding games back thats why games like borederlands that bring the 2 together successfully is good in-between ground, Adding the ability to have a friend jump in and out of the main single player game would not effect the people that want to play single player and those who wish to play multiplayer.

But why can't there be games that are targeted at people who don't want multiplayer? Fallout is an RPG and RPGs have been traditionally single player. The moment you add multiplayer, the dynamic of the game changes. Borderlands is more of a Shooter with some RPG elments. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are RPGs that happened to have shooting in them. Yeah not a really good way to explain it, but that's the best I can come up with, right now.

Minecraft doesn't have an engaging story or characters or anything like that. The game is fun because of the multiplayer. RPGs are fun because they allow you to be the hero, the moment you add more people sharing the hero title, it becomes less meaningful.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (oysterbarron @ Wednesday, Mar 21 2012, 14:39)

recent itterations of fallout have borrowed so many features from MMO's like questing, crafting, rare items

again to be fair... Fallout 1 and 2 also used questing and rare items.

it wasn't only the "recent" Fallout's that started using those features.
they've always been a part of the franchise.

crafting was the only "new" or recently added feature.

[oysterbarron]

Didnt realize that but like myself they also have never played the originals. So the newer itterations is what they judge the franchise on. They can see its a good game but dont fancy the concept of putting 50 -120 hours into a game on there own! But they will quiet happily do that on games like rift a wow. Its just so setup for mutiplayer leveling up skills abilities that it seems silly to me that they havent made the jump yet! Having another player with varing abilities and skills different from what you have would open up so many new doors and missions in game it would be a more rich experience for you.

[The Killa]

I think the common precedent among game developers that multiplayer should be a fundamental part of the game itself nowadays is the wrong direction. Especially for games like TES or Fallout - they're huge gigantic games that are meant to be played for an obscene amount of hours by yourself. And for the most part they do a fantastic job immersing the player into the world. Can you imagine if they tacked on a shoddy multiplayer version, thus having the core singleplayer aspect at the risk of being lesser quality? It would be sh*t.

If anything, they should dedicate a single game to multiplayer, and a single game to singleplayer, not 2 in 1. And it appears to be that way, as they're apparently pursuing an "MMO" with TES series.

QUOTE

SOOO, Fallout 4, huh? I really do hope it's on the next-generation consoles. It kinda feels guaranteed at this point. The 360/PS3's been around for over six years, and new consoles are coming. If not 2013, definitely by 2014 we're gonna see a new one. It's time for the next leap. And that's just what Bethesda needs to shack 'em from the norm. They're very complacent on the 360/PS3. It's time for them to create a drastically new engine and overhaul the way they do animations and sh*t. For reals.

It surely has to be I'd imagine. The current-gen consoles have been on their last legs for a long time now. It's getting to the point developers are using "tricks" like reduced FoV and bloom just to ensure the game isn't a gigantic slideshow on the outdated hardware. But do they really have to "create a drastically new engine" when they've essentially done so with Skyrim? I would think it would at least be improved upon, not a new gigantic engine?

[Don Garcia]

404: Post not found

This post has been edited by Don Garcia on Thursday, Apr 25 2013, 19:20

[The Killa]

QUOTE (Don Garcia @ Thursday, Mar 22 2012, 01:46)

QUOTE (The Killa @ Thursday, Mar 22 2012, 01:46) But do they really have to "create a drastically new engine" when they've essentially done so with Skyrim? I would think it would at least be improved upon, not a new gigantic engine? So you really think the Creation engine is a drastically different engine from Gamebryo? Really?

Im speaking more of a sense of using the current engine and using it as a fundamental base for improvement towards, possibly, the "next-gen" console. A long train of improvement, ie Valves Source engine. I don't really see a urgent need for a completely new engine, and rather taking advantages of current possible improvements, but we'll see what road they take.

This post has been edited by The Killa on Thursday, Mar 22 2012, 08:53

[Pat]

QUOTE (Don Garcia @ Wednesday, Mar 21 2012, 16:46)

It's time for them to create a drastically new engine and overhaul the way they do animations and sh*t. For reals.

You are hopelessly optimistic, Don, if you think they aren't going to milk the "Creation" engine (aka Gamebryo with a facelift) for as long as they can.

[Supreme.]

Like so many, FO3 was my first taste, hadn't even heard of Fallout before 2008. Back then I got sucked into the DC wasteland and thought it was all 'awesome'. The previous year I'd switched to PC gaming and was catching up with all the classics I'd been completely oblivious of as an exclusive console player. Naturally FO3 piqued my curiosity about the earlier games in the series.

So I bought the white-label dvd and followed what Reconite posted here. As I fired up FO1 the opening cinematic was very impressive, since dated graphics don't bother me in the slightest. Still, I was skeptical of the gameplay, standing outside Vault 13 killing rats at the start of the journey to the outside world. But I'm glad I kept at it as it bloomed into one of the greatest gaming experiences I've ever had the pleasure of. Despite discovering it eleven years later, it easily rocketed to my top ATG list. Then went on to FO2, which has loads more content, but lacks consistency. I don't much mind the silliness and understand their development problems...a flawed gem and best with killap's Restoration Project.

My stock for FO3 subsequently plummeted. Honestly, after playing 1 & 2, my rating of FO3 dropped from 9/10 to 5-6/10. Bethesduh did a ridiculously poor, juvenile job of their story, factions, quests, etc. and how it all worked together when compared to the rich foundation they were clearly fumbling from. Thankfully Obsidian being led by a few people who worked on the old Fallouts really did shine through. New Vegas is thoroughly superior and really puts Beth's efforts to shame, especially when considering Obsidian had far less development time (just about one year compared to FO3's four) and were inexperienced with pooey Gamebryo.

So if Bethesda are making FO4, well, maybe I'll pick it up from the bargain bin...

- http://i.imgur.com/fdhJb.jpg

- http://i.imgur.com/2unv9.jpg

- http://i.imgur.com/mh3op.png


This post has been edited by Supreme. on Saturday, Jan 12 2013, 08:25

[Tycek]

Finally I've seen some interesting and smart post in this topic. My story is different, because I started my FO adventures back in 1999, when friend brought me these games (both parts at the same time), but I agree completely about FO3. I completed it two times and I still want to complete it once more( mostly to get all the achievements), but every time I think about it and of lack of features from NV, I just can't start it. Currently I'm playing NV for forth time and I will probably complete it at least once more.

I hope Obsidian will make FO4, at least write story and quests for it, so we can have as great and interesting game as F:NV, which is for me one of the best games of this generation. If not, I will wait for some time, read all the reviews and think before getting it. I don't want another story with paper characters and boring quests.

Engine used in the game doesn't bother me much. They can use Creation Engine as long as they will give me game that I can play for months and maybe even years.

This post has been edited by Tycek on Monday, Mar 26 2012, 20:39

[Dragonjack]

*EDIT* important message (if it is) i don't how this topic will last long!? OT: Does anybody think that Fallout 4 will get announced at E3 this year? and it seems that Bestesda games studio & Bethesda Softworks are attending at E3 this year just to let you know. but i think its too early to announce fallout 4 this year, because we haven't heard about Fallout 4 so Far. Could be Next-Gen (likely) Could be Current-Gen "Maybe" anyway i just saw some the games that been developed by Bethesda Game studios (this one is ages ago)First its The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim & Unannounced game? by Bethesda Game studios And a few Unannounced titles. So far Nothing

This post has been edited by Dragonjack on Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 13:23

[Dragonjack]

Sry for double post. check out the "EDIT POST" i made thx

[ccrogers15]

Id like to bump this. Fallout 4 dont need to be on future consoles. Many people will most likely stick to the current consoles. How far can consoles REALLY go next? there already very far. Whats next? Cords that go into your brain and suck your soul into the console to play?

And to the above who say it needs a new engine: I highly dought that will happen due to bethesda using a heavy modified engine for skyrim of gamebryo under a new name for future bethesda products. skyrim was the first game the heavy modified engine was used on, so fallout 4 is most likely the next.

[Warlord.]

There's no way I'm buying it if its produced by Bethesda AND runs on Gamebryo. No chance. Nada. Zilch.

[ccrogers15]

QUOTE (Warlord. @ Monday, Jul 30 2012, 09:59)

There's no way I'm buying it if its produced by Bethesda AND runs on Gamebryo. No chance. Nada. Zilch.

Then i guess your not buying it. Cause most likely bethesdas making it, and using the engine. trust me, id love to see obsidian do it under a new engine, but its not likely. The old engine was ok but it froze and glitched WAY to much.