I feel Fallout 4 will be a rude awakening

TransgenderVaultDeweller

TransgenderVaultDeweller

"Fallout 4 adds to the lore"
As everyone is quite aware and familiar with. Bethesda is notorious for making bland pesudo action games. I vomit at the notion of calling it an RPG. Regardless. The title of this thread i will explain.

Ever sense Fallout 4 has been release. Compared to other games Bethesda has made and their really really dumbing down of skills/traits/perks and voice protagonist, And dialogue wheel. The fact they also REFUSE to outright even mention or hint at the main story at all. What they pretty much showed was the prologue, If that. They know for a fact their story is going to be either really really really bland or not worth mentioning. Face it, Any RPG devloper who gives a damn about the story they make and adherence to genre always markets their game. Bioware does this, CD projekt RED does this. Bethesda did this for oblivion to an extent. With it's hinting at assassination of the emperor and spooky stuff. You know.

This time, Dead silence, Nothing but hidden walls upon walls. They are going full retard with their marketing turn and back-peddling when asked story questions. Never mind the fact Emil is a hack writer. This is coming from someone who actually goes to WRITING school. Aka college and with lots of time working on my own world. Regardless. All these things even to people who may not even care much about the plot. Or whatever this monstrosity is in fallout 4 will be. Spooker Andriods and Ayy lmaos zaping your ass. Minutemen because why not? I don't think Bethesda understands that pre-war american historical events that incorporate for some reason a cult following now in their series of games. Makes no sense. The Enclave feels like it's trying way to be 50's government. When in reality in other games. It never was this. It never looked like this or felt like this. Yeah, They lied and manipulated to the public. But the founding fathers ideals, Liberty, The government for the people by the people. Wouldn't have been marketed in such a way. Regardless, I'm on a tanget. People cared a lot about the stats and traits. I know personally a lot of fallout 3 fans that conceded to the fact fallout new vegas was a superior game in terms of gameplay. Which lets be honest it was better in everything and by a significant margin. It wasn't even a fair playing field. Regardless i feel once this game comes out. People will play it. Maybe get stuck in the hype and then perhaps a few weeks later. People start making videos on how they were lied to again by todd howard. But this time it will go so bad for Bethesda and end up losing that respect from their general public.

What do you all think? Am i the only that thinks the lack of story marketing is intentional and to masquerade the bad story telling/choice/consequences for sales?
 
Nope. People don't give a shit about the story at all. FO3 wouldn't have the constant unwarranted praise it still gets today if that wasn't the case. Hell, most people will just skip the dialogue regardless of how well/shitty it is written. Beth knows this and that is why they aren't marketing the story. Give people bigger explosions and power armor and people will line up to buy your shit.
 
I think they think that the story is actually super awesome and they don't want to spoil the epicness. Considering people found Fallout 3's story to be actually good and original even though it was a very weak mix of Fallout 1 and 2 (because Fallout needs to be about water and a McGuffin, right?) they just don't need to try very hard to appeal to their fans in terms of storytelling...
 
People were going to buy Fallout 4 in droves if they didn't do anything except play some old-timey music, show the logo, the release date, then ask for $60. People have been so thirsty for this game that there have been multiple hoaxes about its announcement. They pretty much don't have to do any marketing, so they're not, really (at least not yet.) I mean, if you haven't already preordered Fallout 4, you probably won't be preordering Fallout 4.

Regarding the game itself? Of course it's going to be a standard Bethesda power fantasy loot cave depletion simulator in which you are the most important person in the world and everything in the game caters to your whim. It will probably be incrementally better in a bunch of ways compared to the last one of those. But I wouldn't expect much in the way of roleplaying besides you figuring out what your character looks like and how they're going to fight, and probably choosing whether or not you're nice over and over again in dialogue (of the four buttons on the dialogue wheel, three are likely mapped to "nice"/"neutral"/"mean"). Nothing you do will prevent you from being able to do anything else, so you'll be able to do everything in one playthrough, too.
 
Skyrim got multiple "game of thee year" praises, and that game was about the shallowest piece of crap yo ucould ever play. I doubt Fallout 4 will catch much flack for following in it's footsteps. But who knows, "gamuhrs" sometimes have pushed back against bad sequels that bastardize the franchise, but it works at random, depends on how much traction the sentiment gets and how many people ride on it just to fill their need to belong. One can dream.
 
I'm fairly convinced that it's not a lack of ability on their part. I think it's a calculated understanding of their intended market. IE. making the story too good, and the game too in depth, could cut a sizable chunk out of their bottom line. :(

This is what happens when you try to sell 'The Fountain Head' to Harry Potter fans. :cry:

What they've made is a Farcry from Fallout; and it's most certainly intentional deformation. It's been practically expurgated of anything distasteful to the action-fps fan, who just wants to shoot first and ask ~nothing... (nothing but "where's the loot?")

*The profit they made by this was no accident.
 
Last edited:
Gizmojunk said:
I'm fairly convinced that it's not a lack of ability on their part. I think it's a calculated understanding of their intended market. IE. making the story too good, and the game too in depth, could cut a sizable chunk out of their bottom line. :(

This is what happens when you try to sell 'The Fountain Head' to Harry Potter fans. :cry:

What they've made is a Farcry from Fallout; and it's most certainly intentional deformation. It's been practically expurgated of anything distasteful to the action-fps fan, who just wants to shoot first and ask ~nothing... (nothing but "where's the loot?")

*The profit they made by this was no accident.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing two meanings in this, intentional?
 
TransgenderVaultDeweller said:
Sad, But true. But why? Why do people have to ruin the RPG genre with their incessant nonsense.
Click to expand...

I don't see active malevolence or even passive malevolence, rather ignorance and incompetence.
It feels rather the same way with Hollywood these days, most writers for lack of better words (sorry my English is insufficient) no longer seem to have a classic grasp understanding about writing, literature and so on; what makes a story, what drives a protagonist, what constitutes character development.

Oh they have a gist of it (again perhaps I write this wrong) but not from looking at books or thinking deep and hard about it themselves, but from looking at other movies.
A sort of "Hey if it works for them it will work for my creation."

I understand it is difficult to come up with something new and creative people will probably always be inspired by what happens around them or what they have read or seen on tv, a movie, or a video game.

But the push to try to do something new or different should always be undertaken, even if it comes with many difficulties and bumps on the road. Even if if the result is somewhat a failure the effort to do something different will be recognized if a writer does his or her best.

Stupid comparison perhaps but take Forbidden Planet, it was based on William Shakespeare's The Tempest but not in an attempt to copy it but because the movie makers needed a template for a more 'thinking man's science fiction' (I think that was their goal, I know for sure Kubrick tried it with 2001 - A space odyssey)
Sure it has some older science fiction clichés like the love interest female who screams a lot when in distress and a robot.

But attempts were made to make this more than yet another 'space monster movie', the main space explorers were not out to wage conquest or expansion but are on a mission of exploration and discovery, representing a human civilization that has focused most of its energy onto bettering itself and progress and advancement for all.
The robot had personality, tries to be helpful, and stays true to its programming at all time, not going on a killing rampage at some point but rather shutting down when it is forced in a situation that it may have to kill a living being in order to protect other living beings, something it isn't allowed to do.
The 'villain' rather than being secretly or openly evil rather is a misguided and tragic one, his biggest failure that he was blind to his arrogance and to his own darker impulses, wishing to redeem himself in the end.

There were no other sci fi movies to turn to for this, so instead the writers turned to literature and classic story writing.

I feel the new Fallouts are to much made according to the 'How to write a Fallout campaign story' guide containing lists on what the game should include, what elements the plot should contain and how it should play out, the character types, the quest types, and etcetera. With at the end the text 'success guaranteed'.

The problem is, you should not stuck to the same mold, especially when it becomes comfortable. That should be the first warning sign that it is time to do something new and different or that it is time to move on.

Perhaps I am going somewhere with this or perhaps this is just a big pile of nonsense.
 
Well they keep peddling out buggy as fuck games, I think incompentent is not an irrational thing to call them.
 
Hassknecht said:
I think they think that the story is actually super awesome and they don't want to spoil the epicness. Considering people found Fallout 3's story to be actually good and original even though it was a very weak mix of Fallout 1 and 2 (because Fallout needs to be about water and a McGuffin, right?) they just don't need to try very hard to appeal to their fans in terms of storytelling...
Click to expand...

And any possible criticism was countered with "we know it was shitty, it killed the story, but we felt it was still good, so screw you!" - See companions like Fawkes giving you the middle finger in the purifier.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Hassknecht said:
I think they think that the story is actually super awesome and they don't want to spoil the epicness. Considering people found Fallout 3's story to be actually good and original even though it was a very weak mix of Fallout 1 and 2 (because Fallout needs to be about water and a McGuffin, right?) they just don't need to try very hard to appeal to their fans in terms of storytelling...
Click to expand...

And any possible criticism was countered with "we know it was shitty, it killed the story, but we felt it was still good, so screw you!" - See companions like Fawkes giving you the middle finger in the purifier.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. They actually said it (in a way) 'we're too fucking lazy to give you good shit... so we give you bad shit because it means less brain work for us.'
 
The main story is probably the BoS going to war with the Institute over their technology, and using the negligence of the Institute toward the rest of the wasteland as their reason for attacking. Even though I would have preferred someone new in place of the BoS, it sounds like a good place to start. The concept is good, but the execution has a good chance of falling flat with Emil.
 
Gizmojunk is right on the money here, you all have to stop seeing shitty story, bad dialogue, etc, as Beth stumbling around, doing something wrong.

They even gave "more story and dialogue" a shot, with FONV - and they learned from it - it sold less than FO3. Had it sold more, they would have gone "au-fuckin-reka!" and pumped out more of it. It didn't, so they won't. They learned their lesson - stick to FO3, put that green Matrix tint right back in there, and hey - let's voice the protagonist, and give him even more established backstory!
You know what I suspect, for example? Unlike boring, old boring New Vegas, there will be gunfire from the very start of FO4, who wants to wait, right? Like in Skyrim, weapons of massive quality will litter the ground around you, and you'll probably collect that "awesome power armor" right-a-fuckin-way, or as soon as humanly possible.

Those "places you can build", guess what, same shit as in skyrim, you go to some vendor, buy 100 "scrap metal" and 100 "plastic pieces" and 100 "leather strips" or whatever the stupid, and you build your little bases *clink, clink, clink*

People will LOVE it! Most people, anyway.
 
You know the ironic thing of this issue to me is the fact that the elder scrolls games has made it much easier to get people into the weekly D&D game I play in. Although I'm sure the popularity of LoTR and GOT might help with that too on a macro level. But specifically, Skyrim was the reason we got a few guys into playing in a 5.0 Forgotten Realms/Spelljammer campaign.
 
If I remember correctly, FONV sold more than FO3 in the opening weeks. But you're probably right about Bethesda's approach to Fallout in Fallout 4. All the marketing I've seen so far has been geared toward the rule of cool approach, with disregard for the core of Fallout - you know, things like complex, interesting storytelling. It's possible they know the story sucks, so they're going to avoid talking about it. Or it actually is surprisingly great, so they have nothing to lose by staying quiet.
 
We can hope the public will wise up about Bethesda's tactics, but it took years for the general gaming media to entertain the thought that Skyrim was less than subpar as an Elder Scrolls game, precisely because of the cult-like admiration Bethesda gets from their nu-fans; Angry Joe, Pewdiepie, and others like them, don't help matters. The folks with fewer followers, like Razorfist, get it though.

As for hiding the story, this could mean they know the story will get picked apart by "curmudgeons" like us, that the story is not much improved from the F3 narrative, or any number of things marketing-based. (The 200-year-old Vault survivor they've talked about is far-fetched enough, even with what we know about Vault 112 and Mr. House.) However, being clever about detailing bits of a story early is not hard. Remember the actions and consequences trailers for Heavy Rain with the detective in the convenience store? Quantic Dream made a point to play multiple scenarios to show off how things would change.

If Bethesda can't do something like this, a thing which came from a game that never changed its ending based on who lived and died, but did shut out parts of the game if one of the four did, they're likely hinting that there is little consequence to what you do in the game.

Doctor 0 said:
Gizmojunk said:
I'm fairly convinced that it's not a lack of ability on their part. I think it's a calculated understanding of their intended market. IE. making the story too good, and the game too in depth, could cut a sizable chunk out of their bottom line. :(

This is what happens when you try to sell 'The Fountain Head' to Harry Potter fans. :cry:

What they've made is a Farcry from Fallout; and it's most certainly intentional deformation. It's been practically expurgated of anything distasteful to the action-fps fan, who just wants to shoot first and ask ~nothing... (nothing but "where's the loot?")

*The profit they made by this was no accident.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing two meanings in this, intentional?
Click to expand...

Probably so. Farcry has moved deeply into open-world murder and loot fest with 3 and 4 from 2's open-world mission based, loot-lite, setting and 1's linear island exploration design.
 
Doctor 0 said:
Nope. People don't give a shit about the story at all. FO3 wouldn't have the constant unwarranted praise it still gets today if that wasn't the case. Hell, most people will just skip the dialogue regardless of how well/shitty it is written. Beth knows this and that is why they aren't marketing the story. Give people bigger explosions and power armor and people will line up to buy your shit.
Click to expand...

This.

Bethesda caters for casual players that don't care about storytelling or roleplaying and just skip every single dialogue to get back into the 'action part'. It's not without a reason that they actually made it a marketing point on their presentations for both Skyrim and Fallout 4 that you can quickly interrupt any conversation and 'get back to playing'.

And it works, I'm boggled by how the gaming prez and most players in general are completely blind to how stupid the dialogue in F3 and Skyrim are. They didn't realize it because they either didn't pay attention to it, skipped all of it or simply are too stupid themselves to realize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top