A small mindless rant on games, graphics, brainwashed drones, and Fallout.

ThatZenoGuy

ThatZenoGuy

Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism
Hey, ZenoGuy here.

I hear this a lot, 'muh graphics'.

In particular, a large number of people were complaining about Fallout 4's graphics, which certainly aren't Crysis levels of amazing, but aren't particularly bad.

I'm young, I ain't a 30 year old who grew up with Doom and Wolfenstein, but I have played those games.

Even the original Doom, in my opinion, is a great game design wise. (Admittedly, its not a good RPG like fallout, but that's not my point)

Some of the older games I played include the original Half Life, AVP 1999, and Stalker Call of Pripyat (Well, this one is a little newer!)

None of these games are particularly nice looking, but they are praised at what they are good at, being GOOD GAMES!

I think too many people complained about how shiny Fallout 4, when they should have been questioning the internal mechanics of the game.

I will admit mechanics are hard to extrapolate, from mere trailers and previews, they never show off the whole game, which pisses me off.

I've had countless arguments with some 'modern' gamers, some of which are actually older than me! And they seem to show no interest in just what makes a game, work.

DT, for example.

I explain how it is easily the best armour system (Depending on the bleedthrough programmed...), and how DR is easily the laziest, and I get mere grunts in return!

How can people be so oblivious to how actual armour works, and how DT best simulates this without high tier programming?

I'm a little saddened that NV did not have plasma/laser/fire/etc DR/DT, although unless I am mistaken, it can actually be programmed in.

Another little rant I have is with dialogue.

Going to be honest here, I ain't a 'hardcore RPG player', I'd fail miserably with something like Morrowind, excluding the later journal update.

I skip a lot of dialogue, and overall skim through it rather quickly, I'm just a little impatient with that stuff, sorry!

But I still love it, I love the speech/skill checks, I love being able to talk people out of stuff, and gathering info from people.

Fallout 4 just failed on that aspect, and you know your RPG is fucked when STALKER beats it. (Going to be honest, STALKER is best as an RPG with the items you can pick up, not so much with dialogue...)

Lastly...Ammo choices...

Why for the love of fucking god did they add .38 special, but not any .357 guns?...

NV showed that vast amounts of ammo choices can make gunplay more interesting, slap on some hollowpoints to take out unarmoured mutants, and load AP for those combat armoured bufoons.

In 4? Just shoot them, and even then have fun with how much HP the fuckers have.

/ShittyRant.
 
All of this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I can think of so many more things that are mechanically broken.
 
JO'Geran said:
All of this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I can think of so many more things that are mechanically broken.
Click to expand...

Admittedly yeah, going to be honest and say my OP isn't top notch quality, mostly just an angry rant after I exploded in the Fallout 1 FEV vats...

There's so god damn many issues with FO4, which too many people ignore.
 
There's a difference between graphics and art design. A game with bad graphics and good art design will be remembered. A game with good graphics but poor/bad/nonexistant art design will be forgotten about the moment it is put down.

And Fallout 4 got pretty decent art design. Not amazing, but decent. It has pieces that are memorable and will always stick out among the rest. But the graphics are just godawful. When you decide to go first person and try to have realistic design to the world so that you can almost count the leaves on a tree then it pretty much 'needs' to have good graphics. You're going for realism then it needs to be as realistic as possible. And there is a lot of things in Fallout 4 that took me out of my immersion. The difference would be a game like Team Fortress or Overwatch which is a bit more cartoonish in its approach. It's okay for certain things to not be graphically impressive then. But Fallout 4 is designed to be like 'living in another world' and with that it fails if it has graphical inconsistency.

Point I'm getting at is that "muh graphics" is a valid argument when it comes to certain games. Fallout 4 is one of those games that 'should' be lambasted for its inconsistent graphical quality.
 
Mr Fish said:
There's a difference between graphics and art design. A game with bad graphics and good art design will be remembered. A game with good graphics but poor/bad/nonexistant art design will be forgotten about the moment it is put down.

And Fallout 4 got pretty decent art design. Not amazing, but decent. It has pieces that are memorable and will always stick out among the rest. But the graphics are just godawful. When you decide to go first person and try to have realistic design to the world so that you can almost count the leaves on a tree then it pretty much 'needs' to have good graphics. You're going for realism then it needs to be as realistic as possible. And there is a lot of things in Fallout 4 that took me out of my immersion. The difference would be a game like Team Fortress or Overwatch which is a bit more cartoonish in its approach. It's okay for certain things to not be graphically impressive then. But Fallout 4 is designed to be like 'living in another world' and with that it fails if it has graphical inconsistency.

Point I'm getting at is that "muh graphics" is a valid argument when it comes to certain games. Fallout 4 is one of those games that 'should' be lambasted for its inconsistent graphical quality.
Click to expand...

Calling FO4's graphics 'godawful' is IMO a stupid thing to say.

They're better than STALKER, they're better than NV, they're better than Doom, they're better than...(Etc)

I find that FO4's ART DESIGN is the downside.

Deathclaws are now dragons without wings (I prefer 1-2-NV's 'sleek skin' design more).

Guns are now pathetic exuses of weaponry.

Etc.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Calling FO4's graphics 'godawful' is IMO a stupid thing to say.

They're better than STALKER, they're better than NV, they're better than Doom, they're better than...(Etc)

I find that FO4's ART DESIGN is the downside.

Deathclaws are now dragons without wings (I prefer 1-2-NV's 'sleek skin' design more).

Guns are now pathetic exuses of weaponry.

Etc.
Click to expand...
They are godawful though. Look at the windows and how they pixelate. Look at the hair of characters. Look at the glossy skin. Look at the textures popping in and out. I'm not talking about 'graphics period' I'm talking about it's 'graphical consistency'. It's like in Fallout Online when they added new creatures who used new sprites. The new creatures moved way too fluidly and it looked off. It just screamed "this is a mod". It breaks the immersion when there is inconsistency for me. And Fallout 4 is littered with this stuff. From bad draw distance to feral ghoul textures looking smeared to windows looking pixelated to textures popping in and out.

If you aim to create a game that is meant to go for as much realism as possible with its graphics then it needs to be consistent. Fallout 4's is 'not'.
 
Mr Fish said:
They are godawful though. Look at the windows and how they pixelate. Look at the hair of characters. Look at the glossy skin. Look at the textures popping in and out. I'm not talking about 'graphics period' I'm talking about it's 'graphical consistency'. It's like in Fallout Online when they added new creatures who used new sprites. The new creatures moved way too fluidly and it looked off. It just screamed "this is a mod". It breaks the immersion when there is inconsistency for me. And Fallout 4 is littered with this stuff. From bad draw distance to feral ghoul textures looking smeared to windows looking pixelated to textures popping in and out.

If you aim to create a game that is meant to go for as much realism as possible with its graphics then it needs to be consistent. Fallout 4's is 'not'.
Click to expand...

You have a point with graphics consistency, but you really cannot deny that many aspects of fallout 4 is certainly 'okay' at least.

Again though, nothing like Crysis or stuff.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
You have a point with graphics consistency, but you really cannot deny that many aspects of fallout 4 is certainly 'okay' at least.

Again though, nothing like Crysis or stuff.
Click to expand...
When the 'okay' graphics comes with graphical inconsistency then they stop being 'okay' to me.

I don't really give a shit about graphics but what I do care about is whether or not there are things that will break my immersion and take me out of the experience. And one of those things in Fallout 4 for me was graphical inconsistency. It does not matter how "okay" the rest of the textures and models and particle effects are if there are other things that just breaks the immersion completely for me.

So while I'm not a "muh graphics" I can certainly understand where they are coming from because Fallout 4, while it does have some good art design when it comes to architecture, is either mediocre or just bad. And personally I find it godawful simply for the feral ghoul textures. Whoever did that over at Bethesda should be ashamed of themselves.
 
In retrospect, I have to admit the blood effects are fucking terrible.

You know your 2010+ game is fucked when Brutal Doom beats it.
 
I find it embarrassing that Fallout 3 and NV have more impressive blood/gore than 4 does. 4's version just feels empty, and the blood splatter is hardly there. Probably the main reason I picked up KF1 and 2 again just to satisfy that shooty shooty bang bang part in me. Hell, I think that Mutilation mod for Skyrim is more impressive than 4's shit.

as for DR vs DT, I agree.

Personally, I enjoyed NV's method of adding both into their own territory of protection, with DR being uber powerful, but extremely hard to make if the person is not being smart. DT is great as it allows for simpler calculations, allowing a huge variety of balances and combinations through armor and pros and cons to them. 4's and Skyrim's method are fucking terrible. it's all "BIGGER NUMBERS MEAN BETTER, RIGHT!?", and it's worst for skyrim, because there's an actual limit before the rest is useless. Fallout 4 on the other hand is just bad design, both gameplay-wise and mechanics wise.

it's sad, because I really tried to get into 4 and shoot shit up, enjoy the scenery...but then it all comes crashing down by how boring the areas are, and how poorly optimized the city region is.
 
Zerginfestor said:
I find it embarrassing that Fallout 3 and NV have more impressive blood/gore than 4 does. 4's version just feels empty, and the blood splatter is hardly there.
Click to expand...
Yeah. As childish as it is, I must say it's fairly amusing to shoot someone with a pistol and they explode with parts flying everywhere. In Fallout 4 it's more like the persons pops rather than explodes.
 
Also, does anyone find it a little ridiculous that bloody mess now damages enemies caught in the..."Pop"?
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
I explain how it is easily the best armour system (Depending on the bleedthrough programmed...), and how DR is easily the laziest, and I get mere grunts in return!
Click to expand...
OFC you do.

The problem is that DT isn't a good armor system, regardless of the bleedthrough programmed, which is why no one uses it, and why basically every game made uses a % based damage reduction system.

The problem with DT is that
A. If its don't like in New Vegas, there is no curve, and thus, no progression. You quickly max out the maximum amount of damage negateable by getting light armor, making medium and heavy armors worthless, and requiring that DR be added in(as Sawyer did in his mod) in order to make medium and heavy armors actually negate more damage.

B. If its done like in Fallout 1/2, DT quickly and easily negates effectively all damage, making you invulnerable, and ruining any sort of game balance. Which was a big criticism of Fallout 1/2, the whole reason why everyone tells you to get Enclave APA via the shortcut, and then go back and play the game, and the likely reason why they added the cap in New Vegas.

Its objectively broken no matter how you do it, and easily proveable via basic math.
 
Greed said:
OFC you do.

The problem is that DT isn't a good armor system, regardless of the bleedthrough programmed, which is why no one uses it, and why basically every game made uses a % based damage reduction system.

The problem with DT is that
A. If its don't like in New Vegas, there is no curve, and thus, no progression. You quickly max out the maximum amount of damage negateable by getting light armor, making medium and heavy armors worthless, and requiring that DR be added in(as Sawyer did in his mod) in order to make medium and heavy armors actually negate more damage.

B. If its done like in Fallout 1/2, DT quickly and easily negates effectively all damage, making you invulnerable, and ruining any sort of game balance. Which was a big criticism of Fallout 1/2, the whole reason why everyone tells you to get Enclave APA via the shortcut, and then go back and play the game, and the likely reason why they added the cap in New Vegas.

Its objectively broken no matter how you do it, and easily proveable via basic math.
Click to expand...

so basically: either do it like NV or don't do it at all, except DR is just as bad, it's mostly an over-inflated mess that has a shitty calculation to it that ends up giving people headaches.

I don't understand the lack of progression, that sounds like bullshit to me. Light armor at it's maximum was 13 DT, which is NOT the maximum amount of damage negated, especially when enemies do use high-grade weapons against you (Brush Gun, Minigun, Trail Carbine, Sniper Rifle, AMR, Ballistic Fist, etc.), and no, you can actually encounter some of those weapons pretty damn early in the game (lvl.20, actually), so more armor is definitely a better option, especially when explosives are added into the damage. The only benefit I see in Light Armor is through the perk, Light Touch, which is only good on automatics and possibly shotguns, as well as making the enemy crits not as much as a headache in-game. Medium Armor had some end-game bonuses that made them popular, and Heavy Armor is still a must-have for explosive users.
 
Zerginfestor said:
1. So basically: either do it like NV or don't do it at all,
2. Except DR is just as bad, it's mostly an over-inflated mess that has a shitty calculation to it that ends up giving people headaches.
Click to expand...
1. No, its more like. "Don't do it like NV, since medium and heavy armors don't mean jack. And don't do it like Fallout 1/2, since that just breaks game balance by making you invulnerable"
2. How does a basic % based system, which most games use, give people headaches?

Zerginfestor said:
I don't understand the lack of progression, that sounds like bullshit to me..
Click to expand...
The lack of progression in NV comes from the fact that DT has a cap on it that makes it impossible to reduce damage below 20% of its original value. So, if something did 100 damage, it wouldn't matter if you had 80DT, or 300 DT, you would always take 20 damage regardless. Compounded with the fact that a straight subtraction system means such low damage removed that high end weaponry still does basically the same amount of damage regardless.

The best light armor in vanilla New Vegas(according to the wiki), was Vault 34 security armor, which had a total of 19DT.
The best heavy armor in vanilla New Vegas(according to the wiki) was the Remnants Power Armor, which had a total of 38 DT.
The max HP one can get in the vanilla game(according to the wiki), just from endurance, was 445hp.

If you got hit by something like a plasma grenade, thrown by you with a max explosives skill, thus doing 271 damage(without any perks boosting explosives damage), it would take
-1.7 hits with 19DT to be killed
-1.9 hits with 38DT to be killed
So you doubled the amount of DT you have, and it still takes two hits to kill you with plasma grenades. And this is at the maximum health from endurance possible in vanilla.

For dynamite(91 damage at 100 skill) it would be
-6.1 hits at 19
-8.3 hits at 38
So a gain of surviving two more hits(7 compared to 9)

For a frag grenade(151 damage at 100 skill) it would be
-3.3 hits at 19DT
-3.9 hits at 38DT
So a gain of surviving 0 more hits(4 compared to 4)

On the other hand, that Remnants Power armor slows your movement down by 20%(like all heavy armors do), costs many times more to repair, takes up more carry weight, and reduces you sneaking chances since it makes more noise.

You are objectively worse off using heavy armor as an explosives character in New Vegas, as you get basically zero actual increase in damage resistance from most kinds of explosives. And this is at basically the max HP possible. If you dont have a 10 END character, it will be even smaller returns.

Saywer gave medium and heavy armors DR in his mod for reason. Even he has talked about the failings of DT several times. I am honestly surprised you don't know this. Its pretty well known, and been talked about everywhere else I can think of.
 
Walpknut said:
Wow, so you mean there are effects on your build from armor choices? Such bullshit, that has no place on an RPG.
Click to expand...
No?

Zerg said heavy armor was required for explosive characters, and that he didn't understand where the idea of lack of progression came from. I pointed out why heavy armor is, in fact, bad for explosive users, and were the lack of progression came from.

What are you even talking about?
 
Your example just takes into account getting fragged in the face.

You also seemed to have forgotten the existence of perks

Hit the Deck 12 Explosives 70 1 +25 DT against explosives.

Getting +25 DT with Heavy Armor is worthless I am guessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top