Combat still looks lame. Small FOV, huge weapons, and the same crappy blur effect when getting hit as in FO3
I would look past it if the story and the world was good (like New Vegas for me) but it's unknown right now.
sar·casm | \ ˈsär-ˌka-zəm \
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
b: the use or language of sarcasm
I like that they finally managed to have pretty faces and not mr potato character creation system.
sar·casm | \ ˈsär-ˌka-zəm \
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
b: the use or language of sarcasm
Yeah right. This is Bethesda and their infamous "OMG ZOING RADIANT AI IS BEST AI EVER BUILT" and it ended up a pile of turd.
A pile of turd in comparison to exactly what? I much rather have their radiant NPC AI than the non-existant AI that 99% of all RPG's have, where NPC's are standing in one place day and night.
Even in comparison to Witcher 3 the NPC AI from Oblivion is far superior, at least from what i've seen.
Last edited by vurt on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 10:09; edited 1 time in total
Don' t recall them talking about mods. Wonder if some of the journalists will bother to ask them about them. Surprised Todd Howard didn't say anything about them since they're what makes their games so long-lived.
Actually the lighting is one of few things (if not the only) that saves the technical aspect of the game. I won't mind as long as the gameplay is as feature rich as showed in last night's presentation.
Don' t recall them talking about mods. Wonder if some of the journalists will bother to ask them about them. Surprised Todd Howard didn't say anything about them since they're what makes their games so long-lived.
Why have a new platform (bethesda.net) built around the few games they have that aren't even online?
Yeah right. This is Bethesda and their infamous "OMG ZOING RADIANT AI IS BEST AI EVER BUILT" and it ended up a pile of turd.
A pile of turd in comparison to exactly what? I much rather have their radiant NPC AI than the non-existant AI that 99% of all RPG's have, where NPC's are standing in one place day and night.
Even in comparison to Witcher 3 the NPC AI from Oblivion is far superior, at least from what i've seen.
While overall the game looks good enough the character animations seem to be as bad as in any Bethesda game. After so many years one would think they at least make the attempt to improve...
But the biggest concern gameplay-wise is that there is some strong evidence that they chose to ditch the skill system entirely, going instead for XP+perk trees.. Imageboards are going mental over this. Some screenshots from previews:
1. Note that there is no "SKILLS" tab in stats, just SPECIAL for attributes and PERKS.
2. Crafting screens have requirements marked as "rank" instead of skill values. Furthermore, no where is there any mention of skill progression.
I understand that this is not 100% conclusive, but this points to a further streamlining of RPG elements, below even what Skyrim had. If this is indeed the way it seems then we can expect FarCry3 with VATS...
Eh. FO4 left me lukewarm. There are some nice ideas, the graphics are nice and all, but there is so much shit that seems tacked on....
Like the base building. Sure, it might be fun one or two times, and I'm sure modders or creative people will create truly amazing structures, but how many of you build a house in Hearthfire? And if you did, did you really spend hours manipulating objects just to make it your dream house?
Same with gun upgrades and armor crafting. Sure, you'll make a rocket launcher that uses toasters as ammo. But how many times are you really going to go to the crafting table to add a scope to a weapon? Or how many times are you going to make an armor...
Instead of focusing on showing what's important in an RPG game (like dialogues, how AI populates the world, quests etc.) they showed tacked-on gimmicks (IMOO) that only the most insane of the fans will actually care about after trying the new mechanics once or twice.
Also the UI sucks balls, it's amazing how they could make your stats and inventory even clunkier and less slick than in Skyrim.
Fallout Shelter left a better impression on me than Fallout 4.
I'll probably play it, but if it's as bland as FO3 was (IMOOOO), than I don't think I'll even bother finishing it.
So it's a "turd" since 1 game does it better (in your opinion)? Wow! I'd say Gothic's AI is not as advanced as the one for the later TES or FO's, especially when you start adding mods that takes advantage of it, but even vanilla often does a better job and with more reactions than what Gothic has.
Is it the same for graphics and gameplay? Let's say a game is ever so slightly worse then the best game ever created, in your opinion that game would be described as a "turd"?
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Hopefully they allow us to change it..
