Zygoptera on 20/4/2009 at 23:25
Well. That's a surprise, I'd presumed Obsidian's new game would be 'BG3' or another Icewind Dale based on both those trademarks getting activated (well, grabbed off pseudo squatters Iply and Bioware, at least) recently.
Needless to say I have far more faith in Obsidian being able to put together a worthwhile Fallout title than Bethesda. Still, kudos to the Beth for being willing to use 3rd parties, if it were EA we'd be getting Fallout 2010 from the makers of Madden or SSX Tricky or something. Some genuinely good news.
I'd hope that they aren't using Gamebryo though, it's really rather crap- no proper lighting in 2008?
NB: MCA is not the head of Obsidian, he's their creative director and a part owner.
Renzatic on 20/4/2009 at 23:44
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
I'd hope that they aren't using Gamebryo though, it's really rather crap- no proper lighting in
2008?
I think they are. They way I've read it, Bethesda is handing FO3, engine and all, over to Obsidian to do their thing.
EvaUnit02 on 21/4/2009 at 00:16
Quote Posted by Digital Nightfall
How is Fallout 3 a sequel to Fallout 2 but this won't be? Just because there won't be a 4 at the end?
Three words:
Standalone Expansion Pack.
Zygoptera on 21/4/2009 at 00:55
Quote Posted by Renzatic
I think they are. They way I've read it, Bethesda is handing FO3, engine and all, over to Obsidian to do their thing.
Oh yes, I'm expecting it to be Gamebryo, if for no other reason than the relatively short dev cycle suggested requires savings on time and assets, and it will be what F3 fans expect. Plus Obsid's own engine, Onyx, has yet to be used for a completed title. I just don't like Gamebryo much- F3 does have rather nice art direction but the engine itself has some fairly significant and obvious flaws.
Striker on 21/4/2009 at 03:18
Quote Posted by steo
...combat was pretty poor...
Because we all know the combat in Fallout 1 and 2 were just excellent.
PeeperStorm on 21/4/2009 at 04:07
Quote Posted by steo
Far too many chems floating about, far too easy, combat was pretty poor, voice acting was annoying in a lot of places, quests were frequently dull and tedious, game balance was atrocious, the settlements were crap compared to the earlier fallout games and it lacked a lot of a the little things that set fallout aside from other rpgs and made it excellent.
You forgot to mention the way that skills and SPECIAL stats got marginalized. You really don't need either one to play through the game.
As an experiment I made a new character with straight "5"s in all stats (except for strength and charisma, just because those points have to go somewhere), tagged only skills that I wouldn't use (Big Guns, Melee, Energy Weapons), and then assigned all skill points at level-up to the useless skills. I also only took perks that didn't increase skills or stats. I had no trouble at all playing the character, I just used more ammo than I otherwise might have. Once the useless skills got maxed out I terminated the experiment. Maybe I'll do it again using console cheats at the start to lower all stats to 1 and all skills to 5%, but I doubt it'll make much difference.
Koki on 21/4/2009 at 06:07
Quote Posted by Striker
Because we all know the combat in Fallout 1 and 2 were just excellent.
Yes they were. Thank you for your contribution.
Striker on 21/4/2009 at 07:00
Oh, you're one of those guys.
Judith on 21/4/2009 at 08:15
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
I'd hope that they aren't using Gamebryo though, it's really rather crap- no proper lighting in
2008?
I was hoping for that too - lightning and textures with artifacts, because those guys still didn't learn how to compress normalmaps :/
Toxicfluff on 21/4/2009 at 09:20
Classic Fallout combat stinks. The combat is the only improvement in F3, and that's saying something.
