Destructoid wonders why Bethesda hasn't announced Fallout 4 yet

This kids are funny, they all spout the exact same shit but they act like they are saying something new and revealing. I guess that's why they though Fallout 3 was a good game lol.
 
joffrey said:
At least have some integrity and own up to what your community is saying:

Marionettetc said:
"People who liked Fallout 3 are the lowest common denominator."
Click to expand...

This shite is so ridiculously common on here it's frankly absurd that you are feigning obliviousness. I don't like fallout 3, and I don't like opera. But I also don't make blanket bigoted comments about the artform, and especially not about people who enjoy it.
Click to expand...


I probably played Fallout 3 much longer than you did, so what's your point? The writing is really bad and the action isn't thrilling. The game panders to people who didn't play the original fallout games, and that crowd is much different than the fans of the original Fallouts.

I dont think there's anything wrong with saying people who loved 3 have low standards.

Also, your stance on "blanket" comments doesn't have anything to do with me personally. Congratulations, you disagree with how someone conducts themselves on the internet. Want me to throw you a party?
 
Last edited:
Own up to what the community is saying? What does the NMA hive-mind have to say on this?:


FALLOUT 3 WAS NOT A GOOD RPG. EVEN RPG CODEX SAYS SO. IT OFFERED VERY LITTLE CHOICE, VERY LITTLE CONSEQUENCES, IT WAS A VAPID WASTE OF A SEQUEL TO ONE OF THE GREATEST RPG'S OF ALL TIME. IT WAS ONLY REDEEMED BY IT SAVING THE FRANCHISE FROM DEATH. THANKFULLY WE GOT NEW VEGAS OUT OF THE DEAL. THIS IS THE NMA COMMUNITY HIVE-MIND SPEAKING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INSIGHTFUL COMMENTARY ON HOW WE JUST DON'T GET IT.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it really telling that all of us Fallout 3 "haters" are the only ones giving actual reasons behind our stances.

what does that say about the supporters?
 
TorontRayne said:
Also, I'm not pissed in the least bit. I am more than willing to debate, although I'm not sure what all the harsh talk about Obsidian is about. They are a far better developer than Bethesda, as far as RPG's go. Do their games sometimes feature a number of bugs? Sure, as do most Bethesda games. Alpha Protocol is often praised as a flawed gem. Tread lightly before badmouthing a game that far exceeds the one you are attempting to defend. Knights of the Old Republic 2 was superior to the first, bugs and all, in my humble opinion. I had a blast with it and I played it on the Xbox, without all the badass restoration content/bugfixes...
Click to expand...

For those who want to avoid reading a few paragraphs, this review of Pillars of Eternity encapsulates the spirit of what I'm about to say: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=9867

For me my critiques of Obsidian are mostly based on the fact that they continually make rookie mistakes in many of their games. For young group, this is forgive-able, for designers with such a pedigree, my patience has run out. As mentioned above, the goddamn New Vegas strip. But its more than just that, in many Obsidian games I play, I feel a strong disconnect between the designer's world and story vision, the programmers and the gameplay designers. The first is always strong. Dear God they do a fantastic job of creating stories and worlds. Even when its not their IP, the atmosphere they make is amazing. Vampire the Masquerade is fucking cool. Hell, the pause screen music is so badass I occasionally paused the game just to enjoy it. Hell, for at least 3 years barely a day has gone by without an hour hitting the heavy bag and blaring the soundtrack. The gameplay itself was fun too, but in part that's because its basically a straight translation of the tabletop rules into the game. Plus, it did a great job keeping the player from being overleveled, despite being a quest only xp system. However, it was completely unplayable on launch.

Now, you could say that Obsidian is always buggy or broken because they were forced to release the game early. To which I would reply, if every game they make requires more time than they have to complete, why the hell haven't they learned to readjust what they want to do to fit the time they have? This is what I mean by rookie mistakes, time and time again Obsidian just doesn't learn from their lesson. The worst examples of this (remember, talking the Obsidian "family" here) are Arcanum and Alpha Protocol. Great atmosphere, story and design. Clear disconnect between the lead team and the programmers. And, worst of all, disconnect between gameplay and story. Compare Torment to Arcanum. Story focused, text heavy RPG's with bad combat systems. Mind you, combat systems that were worse than Fallout 1 and 2's, which while passable, weren't that awesome. As in, the gameplay regressed. In Torment, there is no disconnect because the Story has a much greater impact on the gameplay. Very few of the fights are mandatory and as such you can use the good parts of the game to avoid the bad. Meanwhile, Arcanum's gameplay is brutally bad whilst also being omni present. Then comes Alpha Protocol, which would have been an amazing game had they just taken the story and game designers of Protocol and banned them from influencing how the combat gameplay worked. Also, broken as fuck on launch. Mind you, Bethesda has a crapton of bugs in its games too, but very rarely am I playing a Bethesda game on launch and a bug completely prevents me from enjoying the game. And now Pillars of Eternity is forcing players to manually change the text file of their save logs to avoid certain total game crashing bugs.

Also, lets not get even into the brutally antiquated inventory management system of Wasteland 2 and Pillars of Eternity. Or some of terrible design decisions of Wasteland 2. From the stale, repetitive combat, having the same damn soundtrack play during combat in a game where almost all of the time you are in combat, chance based skills which just make you save scum, WTF happend to Angela Deth, goats. Or, the fact that despite having 25 years of game design experience, they still haven't been able to figure out the concept of a difficulty curve. The hardest part of Fallout 2 is going from Arroyo to the Den. This is not atmospheric, its fucking annoying. Just got Pillars of Eternity and I'm hitting the same issue. Wasteland 2 was brutal about it too. Character creation is a gamelong process that should be about freedom, not "spend 45 minutes puzzling out the right way to do things and then give up and just go on the wiki because you don't want to waste 3-4 hours before realizing your party is focused on useless skills that you didn't know were useless because you hadn't played the Goddamn game yet and so hit a giant wall of "fuck you, you played wrong, start from scratch again"". Okay, sorry about that rant but that's 10 years of anger at antiquated game design bubbling outwards. Fallout New Vegas got character creation right because the early choices mattered relatively little and so you increased the skills that you learned you liked using and were necessary for your choice of gameplay. They did this while also tying it into the gunfight with the powder gangers, no matter what you focused on, there was a chance the game would reward you with some help, acknowledging your choices without punishing you. SPECIAL was relatively downplayed, which is a godsend for new players because its not totally clear how it impacts you and new players aren't necessarily going to know what they want. What Fallout 3 did right was that it let you play the game for a bit and then gave you a chance to redesign things. You got a chance to play a bit and feel how SPECIAL changed things up for your PC and then readjust based on what you learned instead of going through character creation all over again.

While Skyrim is flawed, this is actually an area which Bethesda really got right. Instead of abstract trait numbers that aren't that clear about how they impact your character, they refined it to the core three areas people actually cared about. Do I increase my HP and carrying capabilities (strength and endurance), do I increase my ability to sprint, change things up in combat and stealth about (dexterity) or do I increase my ability to do magic (int and willpower). In combat focused RPG's, not one gives a damn about INT expect for mana anyway, so its nice that they tailored the leveling system around how even hardcore players would play anyway. The same goes for the perk tree, which still has its flaws in terms of useless skills, but allows players to tailor how they level around their play style, unlike many old school rpgs where its the opposite. "I need melee to survive to the den, x perception because I need perk a (like awareness) early on, ect). Instead of punishing you for lacking prescience (or a wiki), it gives you the lay of the land before making you make decisions. More importantly, instead of trying to shoehorn pnp style character creation into the game, they designed it around computer game rpg mechanics. In pnp games, the DM adapts the story around the characters and the mechanics of player design as well the perk equivalents are highly visible from the start, so bad early game decisions aren't as punishing. Meanwhile, old school rpg design is often like designing a pc without the player handbook.

I guess the shorter form of what I am thinking is this. Obsidian gets the Role Playing aspect of Role Playing Games down pat. Best in the business at it. The problem is the games aspect, and a lot of times this area can be painfully bad. This is then compounded by the fact that they repeat the same errors over and over.
 
Last edited:
joffrey said:
At least have some integrity and own up to what your community is saying:
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I don't believe in principles of collective responsibility in the real life at all, so calling out for collective guilt on some website in virtual space seems to be pointless to me.
 
TheNotoriousAMP >

As said before, the combat system has a bit more depth, more options for you and enemies, more challenge and more intensity.
Still, you don't have to like it. That doesn't mean it is bad because you don't like it.
Also, you might want to min/max all your chars and play on hard. But personnally, i almost never min/max and i certainly don't do it on first playthrough.
Most of those games can be won, at least on normal (which is the default difficulty level to any game you try the first time), without much pre-knowledge about those stats. Fortunately, most of those games are pretty forgiving and offer you enough options to temporary avoid some dangerous fight and learn what skills are the most usefull to increase next. I always end up finishing the game no matter if my skills were supposed to be the best or the worst, and there is enough time to adapt before you reach max level. There is always some optionnal low-level dungeons that you can go back for extra-level once you figured out things.

Also, figuring out things is something that was a bit lost the last few years because of clone games, but as long as there is diversity of games, you can't master all at once. If you discover a genre or some mechanics you never tried before, sure there is a few hours to adapt, but once you past the initiation, there is nothing preventing you to win, by going straight, taking your time, or avoiding some obstacles.


TorontRayne said:
FALLOUT 3 WAS NOT A GOOD RPG. EVEN RPG CODEX SAYS SO.
Click to expand...

As much as i love the Codex, they tend to say it about 99% of RPG at some point...
 
Te strip wasn't segmented up because of rookie design, as many modders have found out both Freeside and the Strip were designed without the gates, the only reason why the retail game came with those gates was because consoles suck way too much and they had to segment up the place so the dumb things wouldn't catch on flames also you seem to be mixing them up with Troika for some weird reason....


I mean seriously, why in the fuck are you complaining about Arcanum to Obsidian? They didn't even do that game nor Vampire the Masquerade....

Also Calling Skyrim an rpg is reaaaaaaly stretching it. It's even less of an RPG than Fallout 3 was. Without Modding Skyrim is a hot mess of bugs, bad ai, terrible companion path finding, completely barebones combat, generic perks, limited character construction (you only level up 3 stats....) level scaling, completely generic perks and just a complete lack of though put into mechanics, food crafting is just there to be there and there is no reason to partake on it when you can get potions, hell they didn't even include a Needs system... When you remove consequence from Character creation you are just entertaining the player with pretty numbers they just need to increase to get more pretty numbers, not to build an actual character. Kind of like the same principle behind those "EPIC LOOTZ" games, they are completely built around pleasing people with sparkles and numbers.This is not an evolution of the genre is just simplification to appeal to a wider demographic, the aforementioned lowest common denominator. And I sure hope that kind of mentality stays the fuck away from any future Fallouts, but I doubt we'll have such luck....
 
Last edited:
joffrey said:
At least have some integrity and own up to what your community is saying:

Marionettetc said:
"People who liked Fallout 3 are the lowest common denominator."
Click to expand...

This shite is so ridiculously common on here it's frankly absurd that you are feigning obliviousness. I don't like fallout 3, and I don't like opera. But I also don't make blanket bigoted comments about the artform, and especially not about people who enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Oh, Joff, Joff (and friends). This discussion is really not for the specalized internet boards, but instead for a wine and dine and a consecutive outing to a drunken match of fisticuffs! There you can make your word count (or guarantee a visit to the dentist's). You seem to be well acquainted with what's going on on these forums, so why the fuck would you dweebs light up another thread? Your comments have the same effect as a PC-enthusiast's trip to the Mac troubleshooting boards to help out by saying "You'll solve the problem by buying a PC, her her"

:falloutonline:
 
Walpknut said:
.. the only reason why the retail game came with those gates was because consoles suck way too much
Click to expand...
Yup, that's the reason why I call it a bethesdian consoletardeous crap. Bethesda has modified Gamebryo this way due to console memory limits, so all the maps are split to small separate cells fitting the hardware limitations. The same goes for UI and controls optimised for gamepad. This has nothing to do with content created by Obsidian, I think the quest structure and lore in FNV was pretty good.

BIS Fallouts are both good RPG wearing stylish and masterfully handcrafted outfit.
FNV is just good RPG hidden behind thick layer of disgusting and cheap bethesdian shit.
 
How dare you...? His tears cure cancer. And the sun is only rising every day because his voice is narrating it!
 
Well we all hope it turns out good but it's much safer your one's mind to remain cautiously pessimistic until something proves you can move up to optimistic. And there is literally nothing about the game (we don't even know if they will announce it this year or if they are even working on it at all).
 
Walpknut said:
Well we all hope it turns out good but it's much safer your one's mind to remain cautiously pessimistic until something proves you can move up to optimistic. And there is literally nothing about the game (we don't even know if they will announce it this year or if they are even working on it at all).
Click to expand...

What do you mean nothing? We can be sure there will be deathclaws, ghouls and mutants :grin: There will probably be Brotherhood and perhaps a smattering of Enclave. With the Legion fankids roaming the Web there'll probably some aspect of that present as well + any region specific factions (which Fallout 3 lacked in my opinion. Aside from the mercenaries)

As to hope: by the time it comes out it doesn't really matter anymore how good it is. I'll definitely throw in some six to seven hours of playtime no matter what and then quit because I have more important stuff to do ​or the game isn't actually as entertaining as it could be
 
Rule of thumb for the future: it'd be great if obviously inflammatory and insulting posts were reported. I've been busy lately, and the only reason I've noticed stuff like open insults was because I opened the NMA page to quickly give it a check and was perplexed to see the number of comments for this thread swell from a respectable 68 to a humongous 110+.

Discussions of the quality of Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas and Skyrim are tangential to the topic, given Rowen brings them up in his editorial, but to be rather honest, I'd appreciate if they didn't spill into every single thread and they were conducted in a less adversarial manner. Yes, I understand this board has a pretty bad history with inflammatory trolls coming in to get a rise out of old-school Fallout fans, and yes, I understand we've had these discussions a thousand times, but this doesn't give anyone the right to insult users based on their perception of intent. If you feel people are trolling, let the mods check. We do, after all, already have a rules thread that spells that out rather clearly.
 
What I liked in fallout 3 werent the RPG aspects at all mainly.
I loved the atmosphere and the immersion of the game . You had this huge sprawling wasteland that you could explore every nook and cranny of and that game really rewarded exploration by giving you items to craft new weapons , by finding new and exciting places in every turn , by the sidequests and unmarked quests and general craziness and unscripted moments that could happen in the world.
I still remeber the first time I went to an abandoned church on that game and saw supermutants keeping humans hostage , and seeing cruel shackles and torture devices sprawled all around . The environments told a tale on that game , better than the mediocre writing.
It it a good RPG game? Probably not , I mean fallout new vegas was much better . Fallout 3 was just too shallow and small , a huge world with not enough quests and paths.
Was it a enjoyable game for me nonwithstanding ? Yes it was and i enjoyed a lot of things that it did.
You wanted reasons , there we go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top