HAHA, the demo is queer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
As i expected, (and from the screenshots) you can see that this game is not fallout. It's TACTICS-AGAINST-"RAIDERS"-BOS.
That's what it is.
Maybe except for the music, and the fo-guy in the character screen pictures...

The game is GODDAMN CLEAN. It's so clean it shines.
Wasteland? Rust? Dirt? Rough Textures?
No.
Hi-resolutions of sharp images and thin fonts.
What the hell happened to the good bulky rough yellow lettering from Fo1 and 2?

Why can't i empty a weapons ammo?
Why does it take me about 3 minutes to take all my 6 men down a ladder.
Why the hell is this game so clean.
I hate the new interface.
AARGH

I think, anyone who saw the demo and DOESN'T THINK the game is gonna suck (or that the demo sucks) should load his Fo1 or 2 for a second, to see the difference between a Good Game, and a Commandos-in-"continious"-turn-based-and-in-a-place-with-alot-of-tribals-and-radiers.

This is serius bullshit.
I can't believe they failed in making the simple thing which is FALLOUT - only a Tactics game, and not an RPG.
It's so simple to maintain the good things which created the atmosphere of Fallout - but they simply discarded them.

Personally, i think Fallout looks much better in low resoulution and 256 colors.
Hi-Resoulution is not for a Wasteland.
BUT - if you DO make it hi-res and hi-color, at least KEEP THE RUSTY+DIRTY rough look.
The interface is so FAKE... brown/metal AS-IF rough texture which looks like crap.
And the thin fonts!!! GawD! what's up with that.
And it's so difficult to control everything!
6 Men in REAL TIME?
This is not continious or anything - this thing is LIMITED-REAL-TIME, that's what it is, and that is even worse than real-time.

My real fear is, actually, that this game will inflect (and infect) Fallout 3 - if it will exist.
I will cry if i will see fallout 3 with a crappy interface and a a clean+sharp world.

The armors there are COLORFUL... ugh...

And i hated the concept of A NAME THAT SUITES THE JOB.
This is so fucked up...
Shade, Ghost, Doc, Bullseye... common
You see things like that in CARTOONS or Kids' games.

Everything is very hard to control and i found myself saving and loading about every 15 seconds, because of how a tiny thing could have ruined the whole assault.

Then again, the tutorial in this demo, and THIS GAME, in general - makes you think in the direction of - MISSION -> PERFECTION -> FLAWLESS -> CLEVER...
But many times it's hard to bring your "plan" to action because it gets screwed so easily, and it's not like commandos where the mistake is very obvious and clear...

The GAME doesn't suit itself to the expectations it has fromt he player.
You CAN'T play this game right, because it's all like ONE-BIG-REAL-TIME-"FALLOUT"-BATTLE.
I found myself using the SMG-guy over and over, and using DOC as Decoy for almost any attack on one guy,
I found myself using 3 armed men standing crouched behind a low wall, and then making them all stand to slaughter whoever is in range - automatically.

Whoever made this game made a shitty job.
This may be a very functional and a very hi-res and hi-color and good-animations and well-planned game.
But
1. it's NOT fallout
2. it's NOT fun
3. it's NOT a good game to play
4. it's very self doesn't fit it's own idea
5. it's annoying and frustrating to control 6 men in real mode.
7. it's TOO CLEAN - TOO CLEAN - TOOOOO CLEEAAAAAN and sharp
8. it makes me miss Fo1 and 2, and crave more for 3.

The Fonts suck, there are BUGS, and there are FLAWS, and there are THINGS MISSING (like unload for weapons)...

I'm sure alot of things will change when the final game is done, but it's still gonna suck - IMHO.

I don't understand how people who played the previous fallouts AND PARTICIPATED IN THE CREATION OF FO-BOS could allow this to happen.

The IDEA of this game has such a good potential - it's EXACTLY what people kept talking about - a battle-based multiplayer - FALLOUT. So it also has Single Player, but that's cool.
The thing that ISN'T cool is that what was made - is NOT FALLOUT.
It's a different game that was made with the "inspiration" of fallout.
It's not even in Fallout Universe...


Oh, and i hate the new weapons....
Well, for those of you who ENJOYED it and liked it, i would like to hear your excuse for that.
 
RE: I'm just hoping....

Yeah, but the combat engine sucks, Rosh. :)

TB is crippled by the lack of being able to tell how many action points it takes for moving from where you are to where you want to be. There's no "Group End Turn". There's no halos indicating friendly, neutral, or enemy statis.

CTB is basically "Real Time with Action Points". There's absolutely nothing about "Turn Based" involved in 'CTB' play. It's a freaking click fest. He who has the fastest mouse wins.

I do disagree with the orignal poster about it being "too clean" though. There's broken and rusted machine parts everywhere. The buildings all look run down. The trees all look dead. There's junked cars that are laying in ruin on the map.

As far as the "colorful" team look, I think that's because you get to pick the coloration of your team members when you create them. I don't know this for a fact, but it seems that is how they're doing it.

However, for a game all about tactics, the damned game just sucks at it.
 
Clean!

There is a clean way of making rough and broken stuff too.
CLEAN doesn't mean the cars and houses are nice and fixed and whole.
NOO.
clean means that everything LOOKS ARTIFICIAL AND PALSTIC-LIKE and ISN'T REALLY ROUGH.

in the original Fallouts things CAME OUT of the screen with their burning intensity of roughness and dirtiness - which gave it the feel of the Wasteland, and not the sharp hi-res hi-tec feel of the Tactics demo (and game)

The same way that you can make a GOOD-LOOKING-drawing of an ugly person, and an ugly drawing of a beautiful woman - so can you make a clean-sharp-and-artificial-wasteland, or a dirty-rough-unclean VAULT (which by definition is very clean) - like the ones in Fo 1 & 2.

I don't care how wrecked the cars or houses are.
They look like holywood props, unlike the original fallouts.
It's pretty funny....

It's very easy to make things look dirty, rough, and burning-with-intensity.
Maybe next post i'll bring in some PICTURES to demonstrate the difference between a clean wasteland to a real one.

I'm an artist and a designer, and I have an eye for those things.
Some people LIKE hi-res and hi-color and sharp images and hi-tec look.... but this are NOT THE THINGS which suit the post-apocalyptic, rough and fully-armed world of Fallout.
I want the pixels to come out out of the screen screaming the contrast and intensity of every metal piece and rust.

I definately will spend some time pointing out the difference using cropped screenshots....

Klayhamn
ThieFoRent!
 
RE: Clean!

Dammit, now I'm told there ISN'T a pause feature. Why not? They Key Help refers to one.. WHERE IS IT?
 
RE: Clean!

So you're complaining that FOT is high-resolution?! That's absurd!

Get a card with TV out and play it on a TV if your big beef is with the resolution. Sheesh.
 
AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! I COULDNT AGREE MORE!!! but?..BU

almost EXACTLY MY OPINION!!!

I REALLY hope that fallout 3 doesen't turn into another "baldur's gate/icewind dale" where you have direct control of more than one character instead of focusing on YOU as the main player"hero". i would begin to cry and savagely curse and lose all faith in the fallout series if FO3 gave direct control of multiple characters inventory/developement. This is exactly why i shied away from BG2.

i understand that this is only a demo but no matter how much you tweak/fix it, YOU CANT GET THE FEEL BACK!!!

here is my list of large and minor ANNOYANCES that i think really should be considered

-- the game looks CARTOONISH..."too clean" SAYS IT ALL!
-- the buttons dont make that satisfying sound when clicked
-- when an object is clicked on in the inventory it doesent make that satisfying sound you got in FO1 and 2..its a MUST!!
-- they made it so all you have to do is leftclick on an obj. in the inventory to see the info about it..you have to pick it and then put it back..WTF??!? what happened to the "binocular icon" where you right-click to change the pointer mode ??
-- you cant even LOOK at things to see a description...(ok ok its a TACTICAL COMBAT GAME)
-- whats with the gay 2 handed 2 button interface!/! ?? it seems like a good idea to be able to see both hands at same time..it gets rid of the FEEL!!! if its not BROKEN DONT FIX IT PLEASE!!!!
-- i like the graphics...NICE work on the animations..BUT WTF! the guys look gay standing upright while running!! they stand UPRIGHT!! wtf??
-- YOU CANT DROP ITEMS!! they disappear half the time..i took off my armor and dragged it off of the inventory screen, released it, and *poof! gone!! bye!!
-- as mentioned earlier, you cant unload weapons!
-- add a little green to the menus! make them darker! add some TIME wear..not make it look like some one scratched them up on purpose ..thats the problem about the menus - they look like they have been scratched on purpose instead the "aged over time green rusted brown feel"
-- the buttons look too damn rounded like they are life-savers filled with liquid.. darken them! sharpen the edges! (photoshop?)
-- THE DOGS LOOK GAY!!
-- the game got screwed while i was messing with the inventory and prevented me from being able to scroll via mouse..only with keys..


I can imagine how much work was put into this in order to "recreate" many things and integrate them into a new engine..but most of the aspects of the old fallouts look to have been lost

i could care less about FO:T becoming gay, but what concerns me most is that the gayness could carry over to future FALLOUT 3.

MY FEARS:

1. Fallout Tactics' idea of controlling "Multiple characters" with the drag-select gayness will carry over to fallout3 and make it GAY just as GAY ad baldurs gate
2. Fallout 3 will have gay movement animations
3. Fallout 3 will have a crappy story, with the main focus going into making the game "look nice", and failing to do even that



this is sad indeed

the way i see it:

By developing Fallout Tactics, Interplay is attempting to make some money while trying to appeal to a different group of gamers and trying to introduce more of them to fallout, luring them to be potential Fallout 3 customers. (little might they know that the BEEF of the game has been lost after the release of Fallout Tactics)
The developement of FO:T, in my opinion, seems to be a logical step in the ongoing fallout series...it will attract more gamers due to its differing genre, while developers dont need to spend as much time on storyline and can focus on the interface.
To tell the truth, we all need to be GLAD that Fallout tactics is being released..it will serve not only as a fun(not NEAR as good as its predecessors) game to keep fallout alive, but more importantly to reveal the countless "do's and dont's" that will surface since developement of a new engine. (btw is this a new engine?) I really cant blame the developers..all the new shit thats been changed, im not surprised that its so buggy.

what i think should have been done:

Keep it more the same, UPGRADE THE GRAPHICS, not the game! (that rhymes)

that way more focus would be put into refining it and not adding too much crap so you cant keep it good.

any way, after playing this demo, im just sad as hell to see what has happened to the game i once enjoyed

LET THIS SERVE AS A LESSON to be learned from in the creation of Fallout 3...any half-wit can see that the the game has been messed up with all the new "features"..

my main complaing is that the game LOOKS LIKE A CARTOON!!
the damn raider houes looked like the Flintstones' home

it looks sweet, but too cartoonish..we need the Desolate feel...not bright colors..we need good graphics and worn-down greens and greys not pink and yellow!

my fingers hurt i think ill go play Fallout 2 over again


kill me
 
RE: AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! I COULDNT AGREE MORE!!! but?

That "two hand" interface is straight from Fallout and Fallout 2. It's a misleading name for it, but it works exactly like it did in the RPGs. Think of it as two quick-use items, that's basically what it is.

As far as the coloration of the squad members, I'm betting you get to pick their color schemes kind of like Baldur's Gate. At least, I *seriously* hope you can pick your own schemes and not some sort of half assed default color scheme.

I have to agree with the button coloration thing. They look pink to me. The buttons in Fallout and Fallout 2 were a medium to bright red, like a fire truck.

I've said it before, I really think they designed this game to be a real time game. Only after people started asking, "Will it be turn based like Fallout?" did they think about adding in the Turn Based mode. From what it sounds like to me, they were going to make this game play exactly like Baldur's Gate, real time with pauses.

When you look at the turn based part of the game, it's apparent that most of the features of the real time mode screw up the turn based aspect.

There's no way to tell how many APs it takes to move. Why is that? All turn based squad games have that! The only reason I can think of that it's not in there is the fact you don't need to know this in real time!

Secondly, there's no hostility halos around the bad guys, good guys, and the guys that don't care. Why is that? Fallout and Fallout 2 had it. It worked well in both games. The only reason I can think of as to why it's not in FOT is because you don't need it in real time, you can just set your guys to aggressive and they'll shoot what they can see automatically.

Third, he turn based AI is incredibly stupid. It's no where near as good as it was in Fallout and Fallout 2. However, when you switch it to real time, it's actually fairly smart. At least, it seems smarter because you have less time to react.

Forth, Chris Taylor keeps pounding the mantra, "It's Fallout.", but the default is real time. Fallout and Fallout 2 weren't real time, they were turn based when it came to combat.

Maybe I'm being picky, but Fallout and Fallout 2 had the best darn turn based tactical engine for their time. It seems to me that Fallout Tactics should be building on that legacy instead of turning their back on it.
 
RE: Clean!

If you have all these complaints, then you and a bunch of your buddies should go to the message board and tell them what you think needs to be implemented instead of whining about it. Right now Interplay is looking for feedback, both good and bad. You have to remember that this is a demo, and they're trying to figure put what needs to be changed and added and all that shit, so why don't you give them your thoughts on what they should do?
 
RE: Clean!

There should be a 'pause' key on your keyboard, thats the ticket to stopping action stuff.

"Three guns are better than two."
 
RE: Clean!

No, I think it's more of an attempt to see if the community would accept a half assed product. That's why they called it "demo" and not "test" or "public beta".

Also, I have mentioned all my complaints on the Interplay message board.
 
RE: AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! I COULDNT AGREE MORE!!! but?

>Forth, Chris Taylor keeps pounding the
>mantra, "It's Fallout.", but the
>default is real time. Fallout
>and Fallout 2 weren't real
>time, they were turn based
>when it came to combat.
>
>
>Maybe I'm being picky, but Fallout
>and Fallout 2 had the
>best darn turn based tactical
>engine for their time. It
>seems to me that Fallout
>Tactics should be building on
>that legacy instead of turning
>their back on it.

You guys do know that you can choose Turn-based combat right?

I feel that the game is good in its own right, though I have not played Jagged Alience or similare Combat games. The graphics are supperior to FO1/FO2 in every way, if I want grainy 8 bit color I will go back to 1997 (personaly I would have liked it to be 3D)

Though this is a demo and I assume they are just showcasing the cobat (hence the main design of the game) I am hopping there will be some RPG elements as I know I will quickly tire if every mission is "Bad guys have attacked such and such, eliminate all of the bad guys"

I too am having trouble controling all of the characters, it gets rather troublesome with 6 characters, and in turn based it just takes so damn long.

Well I can only wait hope for the best.
 
RE: AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! I COULDNT AGREE MORE!!! but?

> You guys do know that you can choose Turn-based combat right?


Obviously you have not tried TB mode.
 
True, the game look cleaner than it should, but as a designer I think you would understand why. You see Fallout 1&2 were both, which I believe you know, 2D games. This meant that every pixel, every character, every piece of brahmin crap is drawn by a human hand. Maybe with the aid of a mouse, but with the human hand never the less. The new Fallout Tactics on the other hand is 3D rendered, which means designer draw certain portions of the graphic themselves and leave the rest up to the computer. This has been considered a great advance in graphic due to the shorter development time required, greater flexibility of the images, and the saving in harddrive memory space required. What they don't consider are "us", the Fallout community. We, unlike first person shooters who are too busy clicking away at the mouse to notice anything else, like to sometimes sit back and enjoy the view (correct me if I'm wrong). While the 2D images are hand drawn, the 3D images are "chip drawn," and if you ask me the computer chip is currently no where near the ability of an good artist. Plus, people have practiced drawing with their hand for centuries. How long have we rendered an image on a computer? Not that long. With all the defects of FOT, this may be one of the only few I do not blame the developers. Computers are just too dumb to know good art, or their programs are at least.
Bums never take pictures of themselves. Only idiots take pictures of bums.
 
RE: AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! I COULDNT AGREE MORE!!! but?

>> You guys do know that you can choose Turn-based combat right?
>
>
>Obviously you have not tried TB
>mode.


Obviously you did not read all of my post.

>>...it gets rather troublesome with 6 characters, and in turn based it just takes so damn long.
 
RE: AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! I COULDNT AGREE MORE!!! but?

Yeah, I read your post. I'm questioning why you didn't notice all the problems with the turn based mode that everyone else seems to have noticed.
 
Tru...

True.
You don't really think they PIXELED the Frank armor, do you?
Or pixeled the death animations...

I'm sure that some pixel editing or something like that was used to fix/correct or give some animations/things a nice finish.

But everything was made with 3D rendering, and textures...
 
LOL - complain?

You can complain about the buttons, you can complain about the number of characters in ur squad, you can complain about some of the interface-features... and so on.

You CAN'T complain about the game being in hi-res , hi-color and looking TOO CLEAN.
They won't even understand what you're talking about.

Which makes me believe that Fallout 1 and 2 Good atmoshpere and GREAT LOW-RES 8BIT COLORS Was an ACCIDENT...
They didn't REALIZE how good it looks when they did it...
same goes for the rest... (roughness, dirtiness, textures, buttons and GRAPHICS)

Get this - "Virtual Reality" (as the indsutry hopes it to become in the future) and REALISTIC-GRAPHICS , look like real life, or supposed to look like them.
The future of Virtual Reality is to look exactly like you see it in MOVIES (like in that episode of superman) - A WORLD THAT LOOKS EXACLTY LIKE THE ONE U LIVE IN.

Games - most of the time, are NOT MENT to look like real-life.
They can look cartoonish, they can look realistic, they can look odd and they can look rough and dirty - but they never look REAL.
Which is the good thing.
Imagine what Fallout 1 and 2 would have looked like if they looked exactly like Real Life.
FALLOUT by nature - is "cartoonishly" realistic - and very rough, dirty, and rusty.

Take that out - it's not fallout.

YES - there are times when 3D, Hi-Res and Hi-Color are just NOT GOOD.
3D is obviously - best for First Person Shooters, and with it comes the hi-res and hi-color.
Strategy games can have hi-res and hi-color and it will look great, but they can be in either 3D or 2D.
AN RPG LIKE FALLOUT - is best with a "fake 3D" - which is actually a 2D presentation of a 3D world.
It's roughness, dirtiness and UNCLEAN nature is BEST PRESENTED WITH SOMETHING THAT ISN'T CLEAN AND SHARP - LIKE 640X480 8BIT.
800x600 is sharp.
Hi color is CLEAN - because the CONTRAST IS LOW.
The contrast in an 8 bit Wasteland IS BURNING OUT OF THE SCREEN


This is Fallout.

Interplay or anyone else - WON'T change the resolution and color depth and the graphics+textures in the last minute, when the game is almost done.

And obviously - as we can see, many people are GLAD about the hi-resolution and hi-color... Apparently they didn't FEEL the true Fallout atmosphere - and i feel sorry for that.


Because i was addicted, and still am - to the mere ATMOSHPERE of the 640x480x8 game.

Same thing, by the way, goes for ADVENTURE GAMES, if any of you play them.
Remember the classics?
Monkey Island 1&2? Sam and Max hit the road?
Day of the tentacle ?
Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlnatis?
Goblins 1,2 and 3?
Space Quest?

ALL OF THEM WERE 2D, and Sam and Max and Day of the Tentacle were the Cartoonish ones.

THOSE GAMES LOOKED GOOD.
Now see what happened as "future" came.
Monkey Island 3 was somewhate OKAY, yet still lacked many times the artistic feel of 2...
Monkey island 4 - THE 3D NEW one - is DISGUSTING.
Indiana Jones - did u see what happend when they made an action 3D game out of it? Bwwwach... Looks like crap.
Space Quest 6? Where's the pixelish-heaven of the previous 5?
6 Looks like colorful gum on my screen....


SAME THING NOW HAPPENED TO FALLOUT.

"Video killed the Radio Star..." , but video is cool.
Hi-graphics killed Fallout... , but nothing.

-------------------------------------------------------

Klayhamn - ThieFoRent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top