Twenty Sided hates Fallout 3...

[Amasius]

... like he hated Oblivion:

So, E3 is over. The gaming press has seen Fallout 3 and they’re all giddy with the pretty graphics and talking about how the game was one of the best in show. Everyone is excited and happy and looking forward to it, which means that now is the optimal time for me to kick the piss out of the thing.

I have other games here on my shelf. Games that are stupid, bland, boring, shallow or inane. Some of them were the most “exciting” titles in the E3’s of yesteryear. I know it’s easy to impress someone with a twenty-minute playthrough on a jumbo monitor at a convention when you can overwhelm them with spectacle and nobody has time to measure the depth of the gameplay. A good showing at E3 means your game doesn’t have any obvious fun-killing issues, but it doesn’t mean you’re ready to step into the shoes of a legendary franchise like Fallout.

The original Fallout wasn’t a sexy tech demo. It was an ass-ugly isometric game with cheap 2D sprites that offered incredible freedom, immersion, atmosphere, story, characters, and dialog. None of those attributes are things which can really be conveyed or measured within the ephemeral context of E3. I remember how things went with Oblivion, which was the last game Bethesda put out, and it’s only because of my great love for Fallout that I’m even entertaining the notion of paying attention to this game.

After that Shamus Young asks some questions that I'd like to be answered from Bethesda. Good read!

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

... like he hated Oblivion:

The link is broken.

EDIT: No wait, I think the site is down... or some other shit.

 

[Keldryn]

The original Fallout wasn’t a sexy tech demo. It was an ass-ugly isometric game with cheap 2D sprites that offered incredible freedom, immersion, atmosphere, story, characters, and dialog. None of those attributes are things which can really be conveyed or measured within the ephemeral context of E3. I remember how things went with Oblivion, which was the last game Bethesda put out, and it’s only because of my great love for Fallout that I’m even entertaining the notion of paying attention to this game.

I'll read the rest of the article when I get to work, but I have to point out that the original Fallout was not an "ugly-ass" isometric game when it came out in 1997. It hadn't been that long since we had left DOS-based 320x200 VGA games behind, and Fallout's graphics were rather reminiscent of a less colourful version of Origin's Crusader games from only a year or two earlier (I think No Regret was 1996). The animated heads (for the characters who had them) were also pretty decent-looking for its time.

So he doesn't get any points for that one. Fallout looked pretty decent for its time; consider a contemporary RPG like Daggerfall which could perhaps be given the label "ugly-ass." We were just starting to see hardware-based 3D acceleration hitting the mass market in 1997 with the 3Dfx Voodoo, and every RPG at the time was either 2D isometric or software-rasterized 3D (which was often pretty ugly even at the time).

 

[Kaiserin]

Uh...many of the questions he's asking have already been answered.

 

[Brother None]

Uh...many of the questions he's asking have already been answered.

They have indeed.

Nor are they particularly the most pertinent question.

Not the best of editorials.

 

[Mareus]

The guy is mostly bashing Oblivion and most of these questions have already been answered.

 

[DraQ]

I get 403.

 

[kingcomrade]

I had a Voodoo 4.
This was after the Geforce 2 had already come out.

 

[Caveman]

Ohhh, Voodoo. I remeber . That was best name of hardware ever.

 

[Keldryn]

Ohhh, Voodoo. I remeber . That was best name of hardware ever.

Yeah, it was a cool name. It was also, in my experience, the single most stunning hardware upgrade that I have ever made. Yes, subsequent generations of 3D hardware have added programmable shaders, bump mapping, support for new lighting models, and such, but the 3Dfx Voodoo absolutely blew away every other consumer-level graphics hardware available at the time. Before the Voodoo, we had the S3 Virge and the ATI Rage 3D, and that crappy Diamond Edge3D which was essentially a Win95-only card that only ever worked with ports of Sega Saturn games. Those other 3D cards -- and the Sony Playstation and Sega Saturn -- looked marginally better than software-rendered 3D, but weren't really anything to write home about.

The 3Dfx Voodoo card was what finally made 3D games stop looking like complete shit (or at least game them the potential not to).

 

[Zeros]

I had a Voodoo 4.
This was after the Geforce 2 had already come out.

No, the geforce2 was released on 2000. The Voodoo 5 and 4 were released around the same time.

And I've always thought that FO had very nice graphics, all in all. At least they had character and were very recognisable, so I don't know where mr "ugly-ass grapihcs" is coming from.

 

[Murk]

I think he's saying that he obtained a voodoo 4 and was using it even after the geforce 2 was out.

 

[racofer]

I had a Voodoo Banshee card back then. Great cards.
Then I sold it and got a GF3. A year ago I talked to the guy that bought that Voodoo card and he told me it was still kicking on his old computer, playing games and everything.

 

[Claw]

Shamus should go and make another screencap comic.
I still read TS ocasionally, usually because someone links a new article, but I don't really care.
I want more screencap comics. The only other one I know is Darths&Droids.

 

[Texas Red]

Shamus should go and make another screencap comic.
I still read TS ocasionally, usually because someone links a new article, but I don't really care.
I want more screencap comics. The only other one I know is Darths&Droids.

Have you read Concerned? It's about HL 2.

http://www.hlcomic.com/index.php?date=2005-05-01

 

[Brother None]

Shamus should go and make another screencap comic.

He's doing Stolen Pixels, though so far it's not very good.

Concerned is absolutely brilliant, must-read stuff.

 

[WalterKinde]

His questions are interesting and new to me because other than the articles or news released about the gameplay elements in FO3 i haven't really paid attention to the official Bethesda FAQ, i already plan not to get game, The Witcher Enhanced is getting that money instead.

 

[DoppelG]

The original Fallout wasn’t a sexy tech demo. It was an ass-ugly isometric game with cheap 2D sprites that offered incredible freedom, immersion, atmosphere, story, characters, and dialog. None of those attributes are things which can really be conveyed or measured within the ephemeral context of E3. I remember how things went with Oblivion, which was the last game Bethesda put out, and it’s only because of my great love for Fallout that I’m even entertaining the notion of paying attention to this game.

I'll read the rest of the article when I get to work, but I have to point out that the original Fallout was not an "ugly-ass" isometric game when it came out in 1997. It hadn't been that long since we had left DOS-based 320x200 VGA games behind, and Fallout's graphics were rather reminiscent of a less colourful version of Origin's Crusader games from only a year or two earlier (I think No Regret was 1996). The animated heads (for the characters who had them) were also pretty decent-looking for its time.

So he doesn't get any points for that one. Fallout looked pretty decent for its time; consider a contemporary RPG like Daggerfall which could perhaps be given the label "ugly-ass." We were just starting to see hardware-based 3D acceleration hitting the mass market in 1997 with the 3Dfx Voodoo, and every RPG at the time was either 2D isometric or software-rasterized 3D (which was often pretty ugly even at the time).

You have to understand he isn't only trying to communicate to us (would be kinda pointless) but more or less with all the Bethfanboys. Its hard to near impossible trying to make them understand that by the standards of back then, the game was graphically very crisp and sharp, not to mention having great artwork. So i'm guessing he only communicates the way he did because there's no use in saying the game actually looked pretty damn well back then (even from a technical viewpoint) and doing so would just draw focus on the wrong thing (howmuch of a graphically "sexy" game Fallout was) instead of what he's trying to battle (a bland game but sexy techdemo running away with "game of the year" prices) and thus undermine his statement. (or atleast according to the Bethfanboys). Atleast thats what i'm reading between the lines.

(No Regret, brings back memories)