ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
NMAdmission - and a call- no, a plea for compromise and discussion
Admission of guilt, people: I am a fan of Bethesda Fallout games. When the original Fallouts came out I was still too young to have ever experienced gaming. I grew up on modern games that you see everyday - well early 2000 ones anyways. Believe it or not, a Call of Duty game was among some of my most memorable first games - the fourth one, anyways. Playstations used to be my favourite consoles, before too much problem with PSN quite some time after the PS3 came out made me realise that if I wanted a hassle, I might as well have graphics and performance to go with it. So I became a Steam PC gamer.
When DLC and Microtransaction culture started out - I simply assumed it was normal, and went on with how it was, though rarely purchased them. I later gained the opinion after studying the game industry a bit (I'm an aspiring developer) that it feels like a cost the game industry has to take for a larger crowd to appreciate it (so that by the time it enters mainstream culture like movies, simplification for target audiences, DLC, and AAA hyping would be standard fare). I don't know how I feel about the game industry now, but Overkill Software's management of PAYDAY 2 has made me seriously reconsider my passive opinion.
Anyways, I was going off track. My first Fallout game was the third one, actually. New Vegas being the second, the first being the third, and the second being the fourth (confused yet?). Which means, despite it being blatant blasphemy here, it's psychologically ingrained into my head that Fallout has always been a Borderlands-like shooter, but with a more serious storyline and choice and consequence (I know, I know). So despite the classic ones having richer lore and storytelling, my subconscious will never accept that as "Fallout". It's like how most of the modern generation will think the prequels were the flagship of Star Wars rather than the originals. Hilariously, Elder Scrolls and Fallout were the games to bring me into being interested in gaming at a higher scale in the first place, so it's hard for me to tear away from Bethesda.
Now, with that in mind, I was on the hype train to Fallout 4. Keep in mind that character customisation plus open world is usually an instant go for me, so Fallout 4 would've drawn me in like a drooling slack-jawed wide-eyed enthusiast even if it didn't have my favourite brand slapped on it. I was in the frontlines of defending the graphics by boasting open world immersion (please, don't start). I only discovered this site recently, by the way. I sort of stalked it with an alternate account first.
A whole lotta FO4 spoilers from this point, I suppose.
So when Fallout 4 came out, guess what? I loved it! Character creation went exactly as perfect as I imagined it. The intro pre-war sequence was a tight, enclosed complete crap of a scripted sequence that forced a personality into my character, but never mind that. The nuclear detonation was actually epic (keep in mind that I found Skyrim's intro cliche and dreary), and scary. And when I later realised that Vault-Tec had tricked me into entering the pods (acting like optimistic, badly-written standard fare), I was actually surprised. A good intro, all in all. And when I left the vault, the gameplay didn't disappoint! And - please accept this without bias - I experienced less bugs with Fallout 4 than with New Vegas, honest of honesty. Or previous Bethesda games for that matter.
So what I'm saying is- wait, not finished.
First thing I found annoying immediately was speaking to Codsworth. I found that the preplaced personality from the intro was still there in my character - the loving, sarcastic, panicky family person. Why? Ah, nevermind. The building mechanics were fine, apart from that tiny snap annoyance.
Then going on to Concord, I heard the commotion. The promoted hype scene with laser muskets and Preston and power armors and deathclaws. But I hate rail stories, so I head in the complete other direction. Long story short, I found that dialogue started to become wonky, sometimes anachronistic (as if we were supposed to meet that NPC later, so now I was discussing something I haven't even asked about before). Reactions to ghouls were weak. The complete lack of skill checks, I did not notice until long later. But they showed. The lack showed, and the game suffered for it.
The orchestral soundtrack was good. The radio track was tiny, and I could tell early into the game, from songs already repeating. Then I started to realise that Bethesda had put all the effort into the beginning, so that SPECIAL and choice felt like it mattered. It did a lot less as it went on. In the end, as I've come so far, the only moral choices I faced were at Vault 81 (poorly handled in a bugged quest) and the USS Constitution (potential dropped like a hot potato). The main quest - for the Institute anyways - was so lazily handled that I finished the game and cut to the ending slide by freakin accident, thinking the so-called final battle was a side quest in the second out of three acts in the main questline. That's how bad the writing and setup was. That's how little questions they allowed you to ask.
And in between - Kellogg was almost well-written, but came off as an elaborate cookie cutter of a "took the wrong job" neutral kind of guy. The Glowing Sea journey, supposed to be fantastic, ended up a chore. Early BoS quests and all Minutemen quests became grinds - even more so than Borderlands, which at least had humour and fancy guns to make up for it. I realise that even in the age of shooters and remakes, and I come to Fallout for the choice and consequence. New Vegas opened it up. Classic FOs opened a small window too, but as a modern gamer, sprite based isometrics to me are a relic of bygone age (even with Pillars of Eternity). I couldn't return to those even if I could get pass my modern generation graphics complex. Ugh. I envy those able to get to good games because they can ignore the lack of graphical fidelity.
But FO4, a good game in mechanics, drops entirely in story and choice. Even all the companions feel like they had massive potential, but got dropped. I like to imagine they worked hard, learnt from FO3 mistakes, but then dropped everything to help the hype team. In the end, I guess my message is - as a longtime Bethfan (I defended the graphics, remember), the cracks are showing. Even as a shooter fan, the cracks in Fallout are showing. I don't come to it for a lootfest, I come to make a character, grab a companion, and change the world. Or what's left of it. And Wasteland 2 blew open the doors of opportunity to what an AAA developer could create. Witcher 3 blew an entire wall. What if we could combine the two? Is that what Fallout 4 was doing?
Bethesda answered that question with a soft, subtle no.
The cracks are showing.
Now when I first discovered this place, I saw old timers who were clinging onto relics of the past. They made good points, very good points, and were dedicated fans of some excellent pieces of entertainment. But then I saw the hate towards Bethesda and the close-minded analysis of life changes, and I closed myself off to this community. And even till today, I admit I'm still very prejudiced against the "Interplay-styled Fallout or DEATH" attitude.
But I want to say I very much understand the plight of something you loved being turned into a husk of what it once was. Me, that which you call a husk was my the spark of my entire gaming history and my career inspiration. But I know, if one of my favourites games were completely taken apart and only had the sticker in common, I would be extremely upset, too, to put that mildly. And my other two points:
First, I know it pains you to hear this again, but that which you call rabid Bethfans do not mean you spite. The fierce minority is what you hear on this forum, and ironically, it's why both sides generalise each other in single phrases. "No Mutants Allowed" is collection of differing opinions with one in common, at least.
Bethesda's community is no different, and I really feel that more communication could be made if neither sides were to free fire at each other. Bethesda itself as a company aren't evil, either. They're clearly not in possession of the "love and homemade pastry" attitude that made the original Fallout and modern indie games great, but they're not close to EA. Though I have to say they are falling into the same slot as Overkill, where if they feel like they are gaining too much by doing nothing, they will ruin the franchise, since they feel like they will lose nothing. To today's crowd anyways.
My second point is that the lore changes are not something I find that impactful. And truth be told - after careful comparisons and observations of your conversations, I still find changes of Nuka Cola bottle and T60 power armors to not be a big deal. (I get the issue with pre-war Jet and FEV super mutants, though). I feel like compromises would really help get your opinion further out there rather than torn apart as "fanatics", which I know you aren't. I believe Bethesda aren't outright disrespecting the older games, but rather not understanding what to do with it. They're doing what they think is a good game - and from evidence of my childhood, they're not botching the job. But the game they're makin isn't your game, and I realise that.
I've also realised I've lost what my main point was supposed to be, here. Ha ha.
But here, at this point, I'm just here to admit - I'm doubting Bethesda. And so are the other "Bethfans" from the opinions of many subreddits, forums, social networks and real friend circles I know of, Bethesda's Fallout is beginning to fall apart. And even though I believe it is a great thing for a game to simplify itself for a larger crowd (so many new friends I have playing Fallout now, that don't usually play RPGs), I believe that Fallout is heading down a path of decay. I believe the next Elder Scrolls will tell us where they are going with it.
I want to see Fallout thrive. In my eyes, it was always an FPSRPG. Blasphemy, I know. And most think of it that way now. I theorised the best course of action was that the next game needed to reimplement skill checks - and skills, by any other name - into the game. Start reimplementing Obsidian's writing - the general consensus on Fallout 4 is the story was sh*t overall, even if it was interesting on the surface. Trust me on this, it is the general consensus, not "wow, Bethesda awesum, giv dem moar moneh".
I want to help bring the two Fallouts together anyway I can. Fallout 4 proved the gameplay is what brings the majority. Witcher 3 proved AAA games can have deep stories. I do understand that W3 had a central character and role, which made it easier for that, but still.
Fallout will become a cult indie hit as isometric. But it will stay accessible to many of my known friends as an FPSRPG. All I want is Obsidian's writing and lore - completely, no compromises on that - on the stern base that is Fallout 4's gameplay. That's all it needs to stay alive, and for you, at least if not in gameplay, the old Fallout lives on in the writing.
Dang, this was long. I probably made spelling mistakes. Not my first language (common excuse, it's true here). Might even be too long. Many of you might completely ignore what I just said. That's okay. Your Fallout was taken from you. I understand if some views you need to block out, because that's normal. No condescending, it really is. This took hours to write. It was worth it.
But here I am, trying to give you hope that "the other side" is just like you. That there are people like me rooting for the other Fallout, but in favour of the survival of the original's spirit. I may have missed the point in some parts here, but all in all it was to make everyone realise - we're all in favour of an Obsidian's Fallout, and I hope to see the community working together to make sure Bethesda realises that.
Tl;Dr? Sigh, fine. Some of us like FPSRPG Fallout, some like isometric RPG Fallout. We all want the old writing back. Let's work together to make this happen, rather than fight until Bethesda makes the mistake of ruining it for all of us.
The end.
Admission of guilt, people: I am a fan of Bethesda Fallout games. When the original Fallouts came out I was still too young to have ever experienced gaming. I grew up on modern games that you see everyday - well early 2000 ones anyways. Believe it or not, a Call of Duty game was among some of my most memorable first games - the fourth one, anyways. Playstations used to be my favourite consoles, before too much problem with PSN quite some time after the PS3 came out made me realise that if I wanted a hassle, I might as well have graphics and performance to go with it. So I became a Steam PC gamer.
When DLC and Microtransaction culture started out - I simply assumed it was normal, and went on with how it was, though rarely purchased them. I later gained the opinion after studying the game industry a bit (I'm an aspiring developer) that it feels like a cost the game industry has to take for a larger crowd to appreciate it (so that by the time it enters mainstream culture like movies, simplification for target audiences, DLC, and AAA hyping would be standard fare). I don't know how I feel about the game industry now, but Overkill Software's management of PAYDAY 2 has made me seriously reconsider my passive opinion.
Anyways, I was going off track. My first Fallout game was the third one, actually. New Vegas being the second, the first being the third, and the second being the fourth (confused yet?). Which means, despite it being blatant blasphemy here, it's psychologically ingrained into my head that Fallout has always been a Borderlands-like shooter, but with a more serious storyline and choice and consequence (I know, I know). So despite the classic ones having richer lore and storytelling, my subconscious will never accept that as "Fallout". It's like how most of the modern generation will think the prequels were the flagship of Star Wars rather than the originals. Hilariously, Elder Scrolls and Fallout were the games to bring me into being interested in gaming at a higher scale in the first place, so it's hard for me to tear away from Bethesda.
Now, with that in mind, I was on the hype train to Fallout 4. Keep in mind that character customisation plus open world is usually an instant go for me, so Fallout 4 would've drawn me in like a drooling slack-jawed wide-eyed enthusiast even if it didn't have my favourite brand slapped on it. I was in the frontlines of defending the graphics by boasting open world immersion (please, don't start). I only discovered this site recently, by the way. I sort of stalked it with an alternate account first.
A whole lotta FO4 spoilers from this point, I suppose.
So when Fallout 4 came out, guess what? I loved it! Character creation went exactly as perfect as I imagined it. The intro pre-war sequence was a tight, enclosed complete crap of a scripted sequence that forced a personality into my character, but never mind that. The nuclear detonation was actually epic (keep in mind that I found Skyrim's intro cliche and dreary), and scary. And when I later realised that Vault-Tec had tricked me into entering the pods (acting like optimistic, badly-written standard fare), I was actually surprised. A good intro, all in all. And when I left the vault, the gameplay didn't disappoint! And - please accept this without bias - I experienced less bugs with Fallout 4 than with New Vegas, honest of honesty. Or previous Bethesda games for that matter.
So what I'm saying is- wait, not finished.
First thing I found annoying immediately was speaking to Codsworth. I found that the preplaced personality from the intro was still there in my character - the loving, sarcastic, panicky family person. Why? Ah, nevermind. The building mechanics were fine, apart from that tiny snap annoyance.
Then going on to Concord, I heard the commotion. The promoted hype scene with laser muskets and Preston and power armors and deathclaws. But I hate rail stories, so I head in the complete other direction. Long story short, I found that dialogue started to become wonky, sometimes anachronistic (as if we were supposed to meet that NPC later, so now I was discussing something I haven't even asked about before). Reactions to ghouls were weak. The complete lack of skill checks, I did not notice until long later. But they showed. The lack showed, and the game suffered for it.
The orchestral soundtrack was good. The radio track was tiny, and I could tell early into the game, from songs already repeating. Then I started to realise that Bethesda had put all the effort into the beginning, so that SPECIAL and choice felt like it mattered. It did a lot less as it went on. In the end, as I've come so far, the only moral choices I faced were at Vault 81 (poorly handled in a bugged quest) and the USS Constitution (potential dropped like a hot potato). The main quest - for the Institute anyways - was so lazily handled that I finished the game and cut to the ending slide by freakin accident, thinking the so-called final battle was a side quest in the second out of three acts in the main questline. That's how bad the writing and setup was. That's how little questions they allowed you to ask.
And in between - Kellogg was almost well-written, but came off as an elaborate cookie cutter of a "took the wrong job" neutral kind of guy. The Glowing Sea journey, supposed to be fantastic, ended up a chore. Early BoS quests and all Minutemen quests became grinds - even more so than Borderlands, which at least had humour and fancy guns to make up for it. I realise that even in the age of shooters and remakes, and I come to Fallout for the choice and consequence. New Vegas opened it up. Classic FOs opened a small window too, but as a modern gamer, sprite based isometrics to me are a relic of bygone age (even with Pillars of Eternity). I couldn't return to those even if I could get pass my modern generation graphics complex. Ugh. I envy those able to get to good games because they can ignore the lack of graphical fidelity.
But FO4, a good game in mechanics, drops entirely in story and choice. Even all the companions feel like they had massive potential, but got dropped. I like to imagine they worked hard, learnt from FO3 mistakes, but then dropped everything to help the hype team. In the end, I guess my message is - as a longtime Bethfan (I defended the graphics, remember), the cracks are showing. Even as a shooter fan, the cracks in Fallout are showing. I don't come to it for a lootfest, I come to make a character, grab a companion, and change the world. Or what's left of it. And Wasteland 2 blew open the doors of opportunity to what an AAA developer could create. Witcher 3 blew an entire wall. What if we could combine the two? Is that what Fallout 4 was doing?
Bethesda answered that question with a soft, subtle no.
The cracks are showing.
Now when I first discovered this place, I saw old timers who were clinging onto relics of the past. They made good points, very good points, and were dedicated fans of some excellent pieces of entertainment. But then I saw the hate towards Bethesda and the close-minded analysis of life changes, and I closed myself off to this community. And even till today, I admit I'm still very prejudiced against the "Interplay-styled Fallout or DEATH" attitude.
But I want to say I very much understand the plight of something you loved being turned into a husk of what it once was. Me, that which you call a husk was my the spark of my entire gaming history and my career inspiration. But I know, if one of my favourites games were completely taken apart and only had the sticker in common, I would be extremely upset, too, to put that mildly. And my other two points:
First, I know it pains you to hear this again, but that which you call rabid Bethfans do not mean you spite. The fierce minority is what you hear on this forum, and ironically, it's why both sides generalise each other in single phrases. "No Mutants Allowed" is collection of differing opinions with one in common, at least.
Bethesda's community is no different, and I really feel that more communication could be made if neither sides were to free fire at each other. Bethesda itself as a company aren't evil, either. They're clearly not in possession of the "love and homemade pastry" attitude that made the original Fallout and modern indie games great, but they're not close to EA. Though I have to say they are falling into the same slot as Overkill, where if they feel like they are gaining too much by doing nothing, they will ruin the franchise, since they feel like they will lose nothing. To today's crowd anyways.
My second point is that the lore changes are not something I find that impactful. And truth be told - after careful comparisons and observations of your conversations, I still find changes of Nuka Cola bottle and T60 power armors to not be a big deal. (I get the issue with pre-war Jet and FEV super mutants, though). I feel like compromises would really help get your opinion further out there rather than torn apart as "fanatics", which I know you aren't. I believe Bethesda aren't outright disrespecting the older games, but rather not understanding what to do with it. They're doing what they think is a good game - and from evidence of my childhood, they're not botching the job. But the game they're makin isn't your game, and I realise that.
I've also realised I've lost what my main point was supposed to be, here. Ha ha.
But here, at this point, I'm just here to admit - I'm doubting Bethesda. And so are the other "Bethfans" from the opinions of many subreddits, forums, social networks and real friend circles I know of, Bethesda's Fallout is beginning to fall apart. And even though I believe it is a great thing for a game to simplify itself for a larger crowd (so many new friends I have playing Fallout now, that don't usually play RPGs), I believe that Fallout is heading down a path of decay. I believe the next Elder Scrolls will tell us where they are going with it.
I want to see Fallout thrive. In my eyes, it was always an FPSRPG. Blasphemy, I know. And most think of it that way now. I theorised the best course of action was that the next game needed to reimplement skill checks - and skills, by any other name - into the game. Start reimplementing Obsidian's writing - the general consensus on Fallout 4 is the story was sh*t overall, even if it was interesting on the surface. Trust me on this, it is the general consensus, not "wow, Bethesda awesum, giv dem moar moneh".
I want to help bring the two Fallouts together anyway I can. Fallout 4 proved the gameplay is what brings the majority. Witcher 3 proved AAA games can have deep stories. I do understand that W3 had a central character and role, which made it easier for that, but still.
Fallout will become a cult indie hit as isometric. But it will stay accessible to many of my known friends as an FPSRPG. All I want is Obsidian's writing and lore - completely, no compromises on that - on the stern base that is Fallout 4's gameplay. That's all it needs to stay alive, and for you, at least if not in gameplay, the old Fallout lives on in the writing.
Dang, this was long. I probably made spelling mistakes. Not my first language (common excuse, it's true here). Might even be too long. Many of you might completely ignore what I just said. That's okay. Your Fallout was taken from you. I understand if some views you need to block out, because that's normal. No condescending, it really is. This took hours to write. It was worth it.
But here I am, trying to give you hope that "the other side" is just like you. That there are people like me rooting for the other Fallout, but in favour of the survival of the original's spirit. I may have missed the point in some parts here, but all in all it was to make everyone realise - we're all in favour of an Obsidian's Fallout, and I hope to see the community working together to make sure Bethesda realises that.
Tl;Dr? Sigh, fine. Some of us like FPSRPG Fallout, some like isometric RPG Fallout. We all want the old writing back. Let's work together to make this happen, rather than fight until Bethesda makes the mistake of ruining it for all of us.
The end.
)
