Can DLCs save this one?

[Practicat]

Won't Obsidian be finished with PoE after the White March Part 2?There was a GoTY edition announced, so it doesn't seem to me there'll be any story expansion after TWM Part 2. That would leave room for an Obsidian Fallout, though it may not be free from Bethesda's touch, which is the common fear.

 

[MercenarySnake]

Now, I get what you're trying to say but that is a pretty horrible comparison. Far Cry 3 was already good! By standards for the genre, for the generation of graphics, for pretty much everything an FPS is supposed to have. Of course Blood Dragon would've done well regardless.

Then again, New Vegas was basically a very, very large standalone expansion to Fallout 3. I've been surprised before, it's possible I'll be again.

I wasn't doing any comparing nor did I say that Far Cry 3 was bad so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I was saying that they could make a good DLC standalone hybrid by letting Obsidian do it.

 

[Theinnerfish]

A DLC can make a ton of difference. As long as the core mechanics of the vanilla game are solid. X-Com Enemy Unknown felt like an empty shell untill Enemy Within came out. Same goes for Diablo 2 too; which was lacking a deep gameplay untill LoD came out.

However both games i mentioned were solid templates unlike Fallout 4. Fallout 4 is a mess when it comes gameplay: its leveling system is horrible, its resource mechanic(ammunition, caps etc.) is nothing but a chore, role playing a character is impossible, combat and skills are unbalanced as heck and its story and lore has no internal integrity.

DLCs don't "fix" they just add more and enrich.

 

[Dragula]

It's a piece of shit and if the DLC for Fallout 3 is any indication these ones will be just as awful.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

It's a piece of shit and if the DLC for Fallout 3 is any indication these ones will be just as awful.

Well... yeah. If DLCs are going to have any mere chance at saving Fallout 4, it can't be developed by Bethesda, at least not until they get their shit together in about eleventh million years. It has to be made by literally anyone else who has an idea of what they're doing.

 

[Millim]

To be fair, DLC seems to be where Bethesda shine.
Fallout 3, while enjoyable, lacked anything which made the originals good. But the DLC at least brought back some of that atmosphere (which pains me as to why they left that out of F4, Bethesda knew what they were doing with that game but... that's a rant for another time).

So I'm kind of hoping that Fallout 4 has DLC that outshines the main game.
The problem Bethesda has, outside of Morrowind, they aren't good at telling big stories, but they can write smaller, more personal stories pretty well. Some of the locations in F3 and even F4 which don't have any significance but are just there to tell a story not related to anything except the game's world, are pretty good. And they bring more to the world than the main story ever did.

The main story of Fallout 3 was pretty dry. There was no real depth, it was just "bring down the big evil and watch your father die for no reason" which sucks. But then when traveling the Wastes, you find a radio of a guy from the pre-war telling us about how him and his family are hiding in a sewer to look after their ill son. You find the source and see three skeletons on the floor.

Telling a story with showing the player the conclusion is a unique form of writing. I wish Bethesda would do more of this. There were some strong parts of Fallout 4 I admit with the Kellogg's history.
It's a shame that Bethesda prefers sales other writing a decent story. It actually doesn't make sense. New Vegas proved that you can make a good game, sell well and get good reviews. But people would rather collect power armour pieces than develop a decent story.
The amount of people who prefer New Vegas over 4 (and the amount of people who say Obsidian ruined Fallout for them, in which case I can't help but argue).

So for me, as long as the DLC plays to Bethesda's strengths, I mean The Pitt was a perfect example of showing us a glum World not just through environments, but through people's behaviour, then yes, DLC will save the game.

Otherwise... meh... I wasted £100.

 

[Lanfear]

I still remember when I first played The Pitt, reaching the point where you discover the cure is literally a fucking baby, and rolling my eyes so hard that another person in the room heard it. That ham handed moralising. So pure.

 

[TheSnake]

DLC will probably make it worse, honestly.

Can't wait to see DLC where we get to go to space or another country or whatever other garbage Bethesda's likely planning.

 

[Earth]

"Can DLCs save this one?"

Hopefully not. Anything that makes people hate Bethesda more can only be a positive.

 

[Big No]

"Can DLCs save this one?"

Hopefully not. Anything that makes people hate Bethesda more can only be a positive.

I honestly wouldn't wish for the DLCs to be bad out of spite, it would just result in a scenario where you'd be disappointed whether the DLC was good or not.

If the DLCs are Mothership Zeta style; as in nonsesical with zero impact on anything, then they'd fail in that department. However if the DLCs were more like The Pitt then I would welcome more DLCs from Bethesda as long as they are of that quality.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

I wasn't doing any comparing nor did I say that Far Cry 3 was bad so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I was saying that they could make a good DLC standalone hybrid by letting Obsidian do it.

My point was Far Cry 3 was already good and DLC didn't need to be much more to be just as good, but they went and made it better anyways.

With Fallout 4, it's the opposite. The main game is a shitstorm and short of pulling the standalone expansion route, they're going to have to do nothing short of a miracle to make the gameplay seem even halfway decent.

A better comparison would be a game where the main game is infinitely more crap than the expansion.

 

[joevonzombie]

Now, I get what you're trying to say but that is a pretty horrible comparison. Far Cry 3 was already good! By standards for the genre, for the generation of graphics, for pretty much everything an FPS is supposed to have. Of course Blood Dragon would've done well regardless.

Then again, New Vegas was basically a very, very large standalone expansion to Fallout 3. I've been surprised before, it's possible I'll be again.

Calling New Vegas a stand alone expansion to Fallout 3 is a disservice to that game. The changes made in New Vegas are far more substantial than any of the changes made in Fallout 4.

 

[Chromevod]

IF they overhaul the dialogue menu to beyond just the cross, then maybe. Also through in an option IN GAME to mute the voiced protagonist. That would also open up a lot of possibilities in the mod department, putting quest mods back on the table, or just adding new characters to talk to with their own dialogue trees. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would go a long way in my books.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Calling New Vegas a stand alone expansion to Fallout 3 is a disservice to that game. The changes made in New Vegas are far more substantial than any of the changes made in Fallout 4.

Agreed. It overhauled a lot of the game to make a far better and balanced experience.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

And the New Vegas DLC are, at least for me, almost a must-have, except maybe for LR and DM for some people. Discovering a lot of new interesting characters and seeing varied new lands and loot has no price! While in FO3 there were yet more pukegreen mounds and grey buildings, except for MZeta, and that is BAD variety. Also, most big mods use the Dlc as master files, so if you are into modfing the game...

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Calling New Vegas a stand alone expansion to Fallout 3 is a disservice to that game. The changes made in New Vegas are far more substantial than any of the changes made in Fallout 4.

Despite the fact that I liked New Vegas far more than I liked Fallout 3, what apart from the hardcore mode, iron sights and crafting system did it really add to the gameplay formula?

Take away all of the plot, the background, and anything that constitutes writing in the game, and Fallout 4 does end up having more new features than New Vegas did. Which is sort of good - it does add to the pile of messages that the developer should start reading that new features doesn't always means better game. But "better writing" is not a gameplay addition. Personally, if that's the only major thing it adds, then I would still consider it a massive and superior expansion but not a sequel.

I don't see either how considering New Vegas as an expansion to Fallout 3 is a disservice to it. On the contrary actually, I feel like considering it a sequel is a disservice to it. A sequel is supposed to improve upon the previous game in all ways, which New Vegas doesn't do, while an expansion is supposed to add more content to an existing game (standalone or not), which New Vegas does beyond perfectly.

I did like New Vegas much more than Fallout 4, but in my opinion, I find it more accurate and not insulting or offensive in the least to consider New Vegas a standalone expansion to Fallout 3. In fact, I find it more positive towards Obsidian to consider the game an expansion.

 

[Lanfear]

I wouldn't call NV a sequel to Fallout 3 at all, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that game story wise. It's more appropriate to call it a sequel to Fallout 2.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

I wouldn't call NV a sequel to Fallout 3 at all, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that game story wise. It's more appropriate to call it a sequel to Fallout 2.

When we're talking about modern games, for the sake of the argument I intentionally forget the first two games exist just because I discuss things as they are rather than how we would like it to be. From what we know the first two games in the Fallout series are regarded fuck all, so speaking of Fallout New Vegas in sole relation to Fallout 3, it's either a sequel or an expansion. I believe it's better for it to call it an expansion.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with that game story wise

Didn't I just make the point that story doesn't matter with this?

 

[Lanfear]

Yeah, but I don't agree with you. In my opinion following up on a game's story is the ONLY thing that really matters when it comes to making a sequel. Or prefacing a game's story, in the case of a prequel. Technical innovations are largely irrelevant. Many of the best sequels/prequels I can think of employed virtually identical technology to their predecessor.

NV uses the same technology and many of the same assets Fallout 3 uses. That's where the relationship between the two games ends as far as I'm concerned. NV isn't an expansion (the strictest definition of which involves something that isn't a standalone game, which NV is) and it isn't a sequel to Fallout 3.

 

[MercenarySnake]

I think at this point Fallout is just "A man/woman with a Dogmeat in a wasteland" like that Bioshock Infinite bullshit. Maybe atleast one DLC will spawn that we can all enjoy but with the way the base game is, I just have a hard time believing a good DLC could be made. If the game was good that'd be different but since they couldn't make the base game any good I have little hope.