Bethesda’s Big Takeaways For Fallout 4

“Greatest lesson? Don’t let the game end, and don’t have a level cap,” said Howard.
Click to expand...

There are two ways to learn this lesson:

1) Making a great, ballanced rpg with an interesting story and a proper ending (VTMB for example)

2) Not letting the torment end after the main quest, and not having a level cap so to avoid all the work needed to ballance the game.

Now Todd's way of learning this lesson depends heavily on the perception of the new Fallout fanbase...... I guess they are not that perceptive....
 
Todd probably was responsible for the way answers around perception worked in Fallout 3. Explains everything I guess.

People complain about the ending in the game cause its bad.
[Perception] So they basicaly complain cause they cant continue the awesomeness!
[Intelligence] So you say they are complaining cause it ended?
 
Seems awfully premature to talk about Fallout 4. It probably won't even be for this gen of consoles either.
 
One thing that I think took away from the game was it was different than both Fallout and Fallout 2 in that your character officially is dead at the end of the game. That kind of set a mood for the ending that I did not really appreciate and had to overlook to see the remainder of the game as it was. Just my two cents, but I am looking forward to the option of continuing the game once the DLC becomes available.
 
Just pay Bethesda money and in March or April(?) you can get this feeling away ... is it not nice from them to offer you such a option that could be easily provided by a patch for free considering that already a lot of "modders" on the PC made it true ... yes they love you(r money)
 
Well, at least maybe this time they spend that little extra money to get a monkey with a typewriter - would be an expense, but yield better results than FO3 =))
 
it seems odd that
Bethesda is not talking about Fallout 5 !
They know how to butcher the best franchise ever !

:evil:
 
Krashkource said:
One thing that I think took away from the game was it was different than both Fallout and Fallout 2 in that your character officially is dead at the end of the game. That kind of set a mood for the ending that I did not really appreciate and had to overlook to see the remainder of the game as it was. Just my two cents, but I am looking forward to the option of continuing the game once the DLC becomes available.
Click to expand...

Probably some modders will do it soon for free...
 
That's it? Don't end the game after the mainquest and don't have a level cap?!

What about "Hire better writers", "Discard the clunky gamebryo engine" or even simplier things, like "Make combat better, more balanced and more like Deus Ex", or "Hire more animators", huh, bethesda, what about that?
 
You know, I didn't find combat too horribly difficult in the first Fallouts, either... as a matter of fact, a lot of the time it seemed to come down to whether or not the enemy got off a cheap crit. And we all know that, by the time Fallout II rolled around, the graphics weren't exactly cutting-edge anymore... F3 is a stark showcase of weakness, but the only reason it sags so hard is because it's weak where it counts. 1 & 2 managed to make most of their flaws almost charming.

Really, the only fix the game really and truly cries out for is better writing (and as a corollary, better voice acting). Just give me that one thing to hang the rest of the experience on. Give me that as a concession to growth in Fallout 4 and the game might just be worth my respect.
 
Personally, I don't find the combat in Fallout and Fallout 2 easy until the endgame. There are many very difficult fights in the beginning of both games: Killing the Khans, Metzer(sp?), etc. Fighting through deathclaws in the boneyard isn't too easy either with a mid-level character.

I will agree that the main char in Fallout 2 does get overpowered, but only for a fraction of the game.
 
Compared to Fallout 2, I do find combat in Fallout 1 too easy. Even on "wimpy combat" setting in FO2 I would get my ass kicked much more often than on "normal combat" in FO1. But first Fallout game is still much more challenging than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 even on "Very Hard" is a joke. Well.. it was a bit challenging in very early stages of the game, where I'd often find myself short on ammo, but somewhere past level 6 or so it stopped being the case and the only enemies I found a bit challenging in later parts of the game were deathclaws. Raven Rock was a complete joke, nothing like Navarro in FO2, where I spent about 3-4 hours battling these Enclave guys once.
 
Fallout 1 was too easy in the endgame, where nothing could penetrate your hardened power armor for some reason. And laser resistances were too high, which made most mutants, The Lieutenant and The Master less of a threat. That, and I think enemies had too few HP. 50 HP Super Mutants? That's something I always found kinda strange. Also, Fallout 1 had a lot of loot and you began with a good ammount of stuff, which made the gamer easier, although not to the degree that the vault bodyarmor you loot in FO3 mades the game easier.

Fallout 2 got it right. You begin with meager belongings, hell, you don't even begin with a gun. Enemies are pretty sturdy and need a good shooting until they fall down. Aimed shots are more important than ever. Fighting more than five people usually is pretty fucking hard. And energy weapons aren't as absurdly powerful as before. NPCs are better, (generally) competent companions with great personality. And the endgame is fucking hard, specially compared to Fallout 1 and 3.

Raven Rock was a complete joke, nothing like Navarro in FO2, where I spent about 3-4 hours battling these Enclave guys once.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I remember taking a good time fighting in Navarro because those plasma turrets were super-powerful and the Enclave had a lot of troops. Invading Navarro actually felt like you were actually invading, y'know, A Military Base Full of Soldiers in Advanced Power Armor armed with Futuristic Rayguns. Raven Rock has, what, a dozen weak guards with sad laser and plasma rifles that are in bad condition for NO REASON AT ALL?

And the ending of Fallout 3 is just sadly easy. I like Liberty Prime, but really, why he always has to go with us? I would't mind if a sciency character had the option of repairing Prime, though, just like a sciency character can blow the bomb in FO1 without the key, or just like someone who offed the president could turn the turrets against Horrigan in FO2. The ending battle would play much better without Prime. I also would't mind if there was another way to take down the forcefield, or just sneaking though the Enclave lines by diguising myself as a Enclave soldier and using my diplo skills to bluff my way into the purifier, where I would take on Colonel Autumn and his elite using either my wits or my guns. Hell, I could've even avoided the whole "advance though the Enclave's lines" thing by simply using the Taft Tunnels to pop into the memorial and then use my wits or guns to take care of things.

Bethesda's problem is that they're too uncreative, too small-minded and try to be "cool."
 
Multidirectional said:
Compared to Fallout 2, I do find combat in Fallout 1 too easy. Even on "wimpy combat" setting in FO2 I would get my ass kicked much more often than on "normal combat" in FO1.
Click to expand...

FO1/2 is only really fun with the battle difficulty maxed out.

Slaughter Manslaught said:
Fallout 1 was too easy in the endgame, where nothing could penetrate your hardened power armor for some reason. And laser resistances were too high, which made most mutants, The Lieutenant and The Master less of a threat. That, and I think enemies had too few HP. 50 HP Super Mutants? That's something I always found kinda strange. Also, Fallout 1 had a lot of loot and you began with a good ammount of stuff, which made the gamer easier, although not to the degree that the vault bodyarmor you loot in FO3 mades the game easier.
Click to expand...

I agree that Fo1 gives you more of a headstart. However, the ending is not necessarily easy. For example, the super mutants guarding the elevator to the Nuke in the Cathedral will kill you in 1 shot if they land a critical - and there's at least 10 of them there, so they will, unless you destroy them in a few turns. HPA may make it easier to deal with machineguns and like, but it has weaker energy protection than, say, Tesla.
 
That's true, but FO1 endgame problem is that Super Mutants aren't super, kinda like Fallout 3. As soon as you get Hardened Power Armor, only flamers, rockets and plasma are going to kill you. If they had something like a single-shot Bozar (some mods turn it into what its supposed to be, a powerful anti-material rifle), FO1's endgame would be much harder. And that 50 HP is a bit ridiculous for Super Mutants, hell, Kane and Garl had more HP than that, and they were strong humans. The average Super Mutant grunt should have more HP than either of them.

Fallout 2's Super Mutants were actually SUPER, as they had 100 or 150 HP (which means that they can take a rocket and survive, even) and they were powerful enough in the right phrase of the game (New Reno-NCR) that they actually felt like you were fighting super soldiers with heavy weapons. That's why Fallout 2 is a good example of dificulty in the series, although improvements would be nice.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
FO1/2 is only really fun with the battle difficulty maxed out.
Click to expand...

Of course I did that on later playthroughs, but I have to disagree.. I thought FO1/2 was really fun even on easier difficulty. Hell, I had to turn down combat difficulty to "wimpy" on my first time with FO2 cause I downright sucked at it.. :) Only other game I remember kicking my ass so hard was Serious Sam series. Oh, and Battletoads of course, that game is fucking insane..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top