Author Topic: Bethesda at E3 for the first time*  (Read 7554 times)

I'm going to have to say that Fallout NV was vastly superior to 3 in almost every aspect.

Only thing that was weak about it was the actual world. Considering the fact that Bethesda jewed them out of development time, Obsidian actually planned on expanding past the Colorado river to make way for Legion towns and stuff. But because of bullstuff time constraints from the publishers, the had to make cuts on the world-building to meet the release deadline. That explains why there's a huge chunk of nothing to the west of the map, you think they would just set that up for no reason? That would also explain why the actual town of Las Vegas and surrounding areas were super tiny.

The Legion and NCR were going to more be alot more grey too. Would have made it more viable to join the Legion instead of making them out as pure slave rapists but Bethesda wanted a generic "GOOD Vs BAD" thing to go on instead to make it more mundane. They managed to make a pretty good game with a small budget and only 18 months of development.
Seriously. Have you seen all the stuff they had to cut for release?

There are tons of restoration mods that try to bring back Obsidians original vision, though.

This is honest to god the only priority I am concerned with in regards to them making/using a new engine.

I NEED to be able to properly move items around.
I spent so long turning my Megaton house into a museum of my adventures.
And it's just so terrible when you're moving one little bottle over, and suddenly everything shoots up into the air.
Oh god yes.

loving handicapped publishing decisions are the reason why the game is buggy. Had they been given the problem development cycle, New Vegas would have been the highest rated Fallout in the series.

Just my 2c.
agreed


Anyone remember Survivor 2299?

Anyone remember Survivor 2299?
Yeah. I was one of the sad people that jumped on the bandwagon.

Fallout 4 or Elder scrolls 6 (forget ESO )

Fallout 4 or Elder scrolls 6 (forget ESO )
Really doubt they'd do another Elder Scrolls right now, we havent seen a fallout game for too long.

Really doubt they'd do another Elder Scrolls right now, we havent seen a fallout game for too long.
It'd be nice if they don't make FO4 loving next gen only because I hate my Xbox one, it is a piece of stuff.

It'd be nice if they don't make FO4 loving next gen only because I hate my Xbox one, it is a piece of stuff.
forget that. I dont want old ass consoles dragging the game down any.

Honestly id rather them just make it a PC exclusive (which i know they never will) so we can get the forget away from consoles limitations.

It isn't another Elder Scrolls title. That isn't going to be announced for at least another year.

forget that. I dont want old ass consoles dragging the game down any.
Honestly id rather them just make it a PC exclusive (which i know they never will) so we can get the forget away from consoles limitations.
People who play PC games are so weird. I mean, you genuinely believe that it being on consoles will make the PC version look worse. That's really something.

I mean, you genuinely believe that it being on consoles will make the PC version look worse. That's really something.
In terms of large-scale development, it can have an impact.

2/3 of the platforms they're developing for are under-powered APUs, but they have the exact specs on those machines and therefore testing is easier since there's no variables as far as hardware and software. It's likely most developers therefore target lower-spec machines first and try to create models and textures with low enough draw-calls inengine in order for those machines to run.

Creating high detail requires more artists, more money and more time. It's easier for a publisher/developer to target mid-range and lower their losses and then have everything touched up during trailers than it is to spend years making everything beautiful and optimised for PC, and then scale it down for console.

2/3 of the platforms they're developing for are under-powered APUs, but they have the exact specs on those machines and therefore testing is easier since there's no variables as far as hardware and software. It's likely most developers therefore target lower-spec machines first and try to create models and textures with low enough draw-calls inengine in order for those machines to run.
That isn't how art works, in the first place. You don't go through all of the trouble of creating high-quality models or textures, only to have to basically start over to create better ones. You start with the better ones, because it's very easy at that point to reduce the number of faces or lower the resolution. I know it's very common to start by making models that actually have so many faces it would be absurd in any game, which is used to make normal maps so that the lower-polygon version you'll be making will still have all those nice details. I'm not sure exactly how it works when it comes to textures, but I imagine they just go ahead and make the biggest version of it they'll possibly need.
Creating high detail requires more artists, more money and more time. It's easier for a publisher/developer to target mid-range and lower their losses and then have everything touched up during trailers than it is to spend years making everything beautiful and optimised for PC, and then scale it down for console.
That's kind of irrelevant. If they weren't going to spend the money and time on making it look great, anyway, then the fact that it was also released on consoles didn't change anything.

People who play PC games are so weird. I mean, you genuinely believe that it being on consoles will make the PC version look worse. That's really something.
Its not exactly about having it look worse though. Actually, I wasnt even thinking about graphics too much when I posted that. Its that consoles have limitations, and the developers have to work around this limitations to get the game to run smoothly. While developers COULD beef up the game for pc users, they usually dont.