some things i enjoyed about the trailer:
1. graphics. not terrible, but not great. no jaggies, pop in baddies, and the textures on the environment look good. really impressive draw distance. this is not in regards to the style, just the graphics.
things i noticed about the trailer:
1. Todd was obviously using cheats. he was level 8 and had 990 hp, uncanny aim regardless of percentages, and unlimited ammo for all weapons.
2. every time VATS was used, whatever body part was struck was "crippled" even the torso. think what you want about that one.
3. we won't know if we CAN dismember people without the bloody mess perk until we play for ourselves. that's a little shady. every demo so far has necessarily had the perk.
Other thoughts/criticism:
1. people saying "it's good to have perks every level" fail to see the ORIGINAL reason for having perks every three levels. THERE WASN'T A RIDICULOUSLY LOW LEVEL CAP. in FO2 the cap was 99, and you could still earn exp after that. so that allows for at LEAST 32-33 perks, more than FO3 will ever allow, plus 2 traits, which modified the gameplay by having downsides. now, perks are all positive, and that means everyone who plays will always start with a clean slate. if you want immersion, wouldn't it be wiser to make people choose to be different from the beginning? or are we all clone babies?
2. the death "animations" are really not animations at all, and the ragdoll engine is falling behind. to the person who mentioned SOF1/2/3 as a reference, you are spot-on. i was trying to think of what it reminded me of, and SOF3 is exactly it. and even then reviewers said it was an engine that "bordered on the ludicrous"
3. lack of text is a huge issue for me. Being able to READ descriptions of the landscape, especially since digital graphics are a long way from appearing realistic, is ESSENTIAL to a GURPS-based game like FO1/2. so removing those text descriptions and just relying purely on the graphics leaves MUCH to be desired. and it obviously shows that the designers aren't very imaginative or creative when it comes to the English Language. (something i'm sure Leo B or Jason A are known for)
4. IF the devkits DO become available, the FIRST thing to do would be to make the game in 3rd person. i don't even care if its ISO, it doesn't have to be anymore. what watching this video showed me was that the 3rd person could work, but the came needs to be SERIOUSLY pulled back. My idea for an FO3 with imp graphics and everything would basically be like this:
you control the PC, during non-combat, much like a regular FPS/WoW with WASD inpit or click-to-move input. There is an underlying grid on everything.
during combat, it would be TB, and the grid would show up. hexes, or squares (preferably squares) would equate to 1 move each, with height modifiers like FFtactics.
AIMED SHOTS would be like VATS. thats what i like about it. VATS captures the feel of the aimed shots of the old school days, but it's too limited. but the style and the feel is close. as for the cinematic shots, THEY ONLY OCCUR ON KILL SHOTS. so when it happens, you know they're dead. if it doesn't, you're not wasting your time with a cinematic shot that doesn't resolve.
you have a TRUE inventory system. not this stupid number=weapon and usable-item list. if you want to switch weapons, open your inv and SWITCH. not just pull out your other gun which was holstered around your waist with your 17 other guns.
what's been lost from this iteration (if it can be called that) of FO is the personality which NPCS have. i know we haven't seen any character interaction, but judging from the combat, raiders may as well be animals. in the original FOs, even those you went up against in combat had PERSONALITY. they had charm. even if they had "kill the scraggin' bastard!" charm, they had charm. these raiders or whatever the hell they are have nothing. not even a taunt, not even a desire to live. they rush you and then they die. useless.
