Fallout 4 DLC revealed

[CaptJ]

We have the ability to do research on products before we buy them, we can wait until a month after it has been released so we can get as many reviews and videos we need to research the product properly.

The reliability of reviews is questionable unless it warns against glaring flaws like with Street Fighter V. I played Bioshock 1 and I did not liked at all. There are a lot of flaws in the game that gets glossed over. Granted, I never bought it at full price but I expected a short casual fun like with Portal 2. Instead, I got a B-movie with boring FPS gameplay. This is why I'll never buy the Last of Us. I'm too suspicious on a game that gets almost universal acclaim but looks like a generic 3rd person shooter with minor stealth elements and zombies. The praise the game gets uses very vague language.

 

[Mr Fish]

I wasn't talking about "professional critics". I meant user reviews.

 

[Ragemage]

snip

Alright, you have a fair point. Especially after I went back and read your edit, I'd actually forgotten what was in that collector's edition. I can't believe people would pay 120 bucks for that. Even 80-90 is pushing it, since we now know that the Pipboy is literally just a hunk of plastic and none of the dials/buttons on the outside are even moveable/pressable. The rest of it was stuff that could have easily been a digital download like the Wasteland 2 collector's edition.

The only thing I would ask is, you say that if people paid attention they would know it was going to be bad from the start. How is that exactly? Bethesda didn't exactly reveal much in the trailers outside of a couple of combat scenes, the fact we'd be able to build settlements, and the unfortunate fact that the protag would be voiced. Is it the dialogue wheel? The fact that Emil was going to be the head writer?

 

[ZigzagPX4]

They loved [company name], they trusted [company name]. So what? Don't make them any less of a dumbass. I love [another company name] but I will never give them blind zealously loyal trust. No company deserves that kind of trust.

While I do agree with this statement completely, I just want to point out whether you all care or not (you don't) that this kind of attitude is why so many hate NMA.

Being cautious and careful with your decisions and not being completely devoted is really the best way to be branded as an asshole in most communities. Well, thankfully, not in this one.

 

[Mr Fish]

Alright, you have a fair point. Especially after I went back and read your edit, I'd actually forgotten what was in that collector's edition. I can't believe people would pay 120 bucks for that. Even 80-90 is pushing it, since we now know that the Pipboy is literally just a hunk of plastic and none of the dials/buttons on the outside are even moveable/pressable. The rest of it was stuff that could have easily been a digital download like the Wasteland 2 collector's edition.

The only thing I would ask is, you say that if people paid attention they would know it was going to be bad from the start. How is that exactly? Bethesda didn't exactly reveal much in the trailers outside of a couple of combat scenes, the fact we'd be able to build settlements, and the unfortunate fact that the protag would be voiced. Is it the dialogue wheel? The fact that Emil was going to be the head writer?

Guy smacks up his girlfriend.
Smacks up next girlfriend, worse this time.
Smacks up the next one so bad she's hospitalized.
Is it really a surprise he killed the fourth one?

Look at the stuff in Morrowind then look at the stuff they cut for Oblivion then the stuff they cut for Skyrim.
Then consider how Fallout 3 is a pale shadow of Fallout 2.
Now think back on the stuff that was revealed prior to it being released. Cross-dialogue tree, only perks, stats that average at 3 meaning that we're going to be able to level up the stats which means that they won't matter as much as they used to, voiced protagonist, fixed backstory, poor writing whenever we got the chance to see it, horrible draw distance, mediocre graphics, clunky animations, essential NPC's.

I don't think I ever said that people would know that it would be bad 'from the start'. No one could truly know that. But as more information revealed one would be able to connect the dots and see the pattern of Bethesda. This pattern should've been clear about what? 3 months prior to release? Any details we got after that would just reaffirm the suspicions and upon release it wasn't as much of a shock to a lot of us here just how badly Bethesda had butchered it.

Cynical assholes like some of us here on NMA had a strong feeling it'd be awful from the very start though. Prior to it even being announced. Because we're cynical assholes.

But anyway, regardless of whether or not we could see the signs; No one should ever have pre-ordered any game in the first place. Doesn't matter how the game looks like, how sure of it you are, how much you trust the developers; Don't pre-order.

The signs were there, you just had to look. You didn't need to go over everything with a comb. You just had to pay attention and look back at Bethesda's history of cutting down RPG elements to see it.

 

[Ragemage]

snip

I'm actually curious now as to what all they cut from Oblivion and Skyrim. Time to google!

Honestly, I wish they'd go back to their Morrowind mindset. Factions that actually matter and have a point (The 3 Houses are all very different from one another, have their own goals, their own ideologies, etc), the main quest is actually enjoyable and the final boss has some great build up to him. I love Dagoth Ur. The dialogue was plentiful and actually meaningful rather than NPCs repeating the same 2 rumors over and over again. They actually did Faction reputations right in the fact that it takes a long time to rise through the ranks and in order to become the leader you have to do pretty much everything for them, unlike in Skyrim where after 3 missions you're magically Archmage of Winterhold, Leader of the Companions, Listener for the Dark Brotherhood, etc etc. Let's also not forget that everyone is killable in that game. You can even kill people associated with the main quest, and there's still a way to finish the game even if you fucked up the main quest through a secret back door. I loved that. Nowadays instead of something clever like being able to kill everyone but having a backdoor for the main quest in case you fuck up (much like Yes Man in New Vegas), it's all about "Oh, well, we can't let them fuck up the main quest. Make anyone slightly associated with it immortal instead of thinking of a clever way around it that will make players think!"

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Going slightly off-topic, but when NMA discussions include the word "Bethesda", are we referring to "Bethesda Game Studios" or "Bethesda Softworks"?

 

[Hassknecht]

Going far off-topic, but when NMA discussions include the word "Bethesda", are we referring to "Bethesda Game Studios" or "Bethesda Softworks"?

I think it's usually Game Studios. Nobody really cares about Softworks, although they did release some good games in the recent past.

 

[Mr Fish]

Going far off-topic, but when NMA discussions include the word "Bethesda", are we referring to "Bethesda Game Studios" or "Bethesda Softworks"?

Well, for me it is referring to "the people in charge who ruined the series I love the most out of any gaming series out there, Fallout".
Bethesda, either of them, answer to Zenimax but I don't really know how much of a hand Zenimax has in it.
Softworks is the publishing company right? They're pretty much in charge of marketing and shit right?
...
Marketing does have a hand in how a game turns out, if they go X is popular right now then that's what Game Studios will go for.

So either? Both?

For me it is a select few, the ones in power, the ones ultimately responsible for what direction their games take that I loathe.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Nobody really cares about Softworks, although they did release some good games in the recent past.

Well, so did EA, Ubisoft, Square Enix, and several other countless ones, all before they became major publishers. I wasn't in gaming at the time yet but I know that several people here at NMA actually got to see the developers become faceless corporate entities personally.

Well, for me it is referring to "the people in charge who ruined the series I love the most out of any gaming series out there, Fallout".
Bethesda, either of them, answer to Zenimax but I don't really know how much of a hand Zenimax has in it.
Softworks is the publishing company right? They're pretty much in charge of marketing and shit right?
...
Marketing does have a hand in how a game turns out, if they go X is popular right now then that's what Game Studios will go for.

So either? Both?

For me it is a select few, the ones in power, the ones ultimately responsible for what direction their games take that I loathe.

Unlike how most publishers take control of companies below them by takeovers, Bethesda Softworks' founder was the one who founded ZeniMax, along with a lawyer, presumably as a shell company. At this point, the blurry line between Bethesda Softworks is ZeniMax is blurry enough to just consider them both the same thing.

As for Bethesda Game Studios, I know that BioWare was good before EA got hold of it too. Not so much anymore now that the original founders and several writers have left one-by-one to either move on to new career options or to work with new developers. Make of that what you will.

Bethesda Softworks/ZeniMax is the entity that makes the decisions based on predictive analysts and business sense, and Bethesda Game Studios develops the actual game. So you can either blame decisions to dumb down Fallout on Softworks/Zen, but anything else is sort of vague.

Is the game poor quality because Softworks/Zen force an early release or because the developers directing Game Studios are not good at their job? Is the idea to make Fallout 4 a copy of Borderlands and Destiny from Softworks/Zen, to appeal more, or from Game Studios, because it seemed like a good idea at the time?

Are they combinations of decisions? Are they developer-publisher compromises? Frankly, this is what @Crni Vuk was on about with not being able to be sure where the real problem lies.

 

[Mr Fish]

I can always blame Toddie "The Scapegoat" Boi for it all I guess.

Oh and as to writers leaving Bioware, didn't the core writers of TES leave after Morrowind?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Todd Howard, as far as I know, is pretty much in charge when it comes to the creative direction of the games they develope. And he has some ties to Zenimax. Beeing a Game Director and Executive Producer. I guess Bethesda softworks is getting some guidelines by the CEOs. Or who ever is in charge. Target goals if you want so. Probably something that's as generic like, we want to sell so-and-so many units, we want to reach this playerbase, to expand more on the console market, monetizing more trough DLCs and mobile games. Discussing the current trend in the industry, what EA, Ubisoft etc. are doing right now and so on. You name it.
I would assume that Todd has a relative lot of freedom in how to achieve these goals.
That's all just what I guess of course. I never worked for such a large company. I assume they have meetings every now and then, where everyone in charge is discussing the topics.
This will be later communicated trough, no clue, presentations and brain storming with everyone, to the various departments and individuals.

As for Bethesda Game Studios, I know that BioWare was good before EA got hold of it too. Not so much anymore now that the original founders and several writers have left one-by-one to either move on to new career options or to work with new developers. Make of that what you will.

Actually, I noticed that Bioware kinda started to loose their spirit before EA bought them. But that's just a feeling. Dragon Age was already in production for quite some time before EA took over. And it is very unlikely that what you see in Dragon Age, was most due to EAs influence. I mean those things don't happen over night. And as fun as DA was, I thought it was a huge disappointment, when I look at previous works by Bioware. You might say, Bio became a "corporate buisness" already before EA took over.
Someone made an really excelent video about it on youtube, explaining the origins of Bioware, and why they are this corporate today. If I remember it correctly, Bioware was funded by a people that knew each other from college or something. Some beeing doctors, or something like that. They just wanted to make great games together. And it shows. Pretty much the same as with Interplay and many other game developers that grew a lot in size.

Well, so did EA, Ubisoft, Square Enix, and several other countless ones, all before they became major publishers. I wasn't in gaming at the time yet but I know that several people here at NMA actually got to see the developers become faceless corporate entities personally.

I think to remember that EA was always pretty strong with sport games. But that was 15-20 years ago. And I also remember that they had some really good titles! Though I can't say much about them today. But it seems, from what I can read, almost nothing has changed here and it's like both innovation and creativity is absolutely dead with EAs sport games. It's more about throwing out a new game every year that can be sold to the masses.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

While we can't know for sure, I know that many at NMA have pointed out that all the bad decisions made by Bethesda Game Studios have been traced back to Todd Howard.

Plus, Bethesda Softworks is home to MachineGames (The New Order devs), Arkane Studios (Dishonored devs), and id Software (spearheaded early FPS gaming), so considering all of the other games published by Softworks have always been pretty good even if they've never been well-written or focused, I can see why many would assume the problem lies within the developers themselves - Todd Howard and Bethesda Game Studios.

Just as a note - Pete Hines is the vice president of Bethesda Softworks.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, the developers you mentioned, like ID software, made a lot of decent titles long before Bethesda bought those. Just saying. But we have to simply face the fact, that many of the "old" names have almost nothing in common anymore with the studios of the past. Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, ID and many more, including Interplay. They grew in size and their founders pretty much left all of them. I guess for the most part, because the people who founded those companies, well, wanted to make games they liked. Not constantly fighting people in fancy suits telling them how to make those games. But those are the ones that manage the finances.

As someone said it nicely, the first generation of game companies consisted of people that wanted to use money, to make great games. While the people in charge now, want to make lots of money by making games.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

My point was that Bethesda Softworks are still making more community-supportive decisions than several other publishers, having allowed the development of several good games, many of which are spiritual successors to popular games in the past. Even as a publisher, they're still the lesser of many, many evils, which is why if Fallout 4 was their fault, it would seem very out-of-character.

Fallout 4 is the kind of decision EA would make, but not Bethesda Softworks. They look all the same, but publishers have subtle differences, and should be regarded with the according levels of trust. I guess considering the patterns of the modern games industry, it would make more sense that Fallout's current direction is Bethesda Softworks' fault, but personally, it all points more towards the developer, which in this case is Bethesda Game Studios.

In my own opinion, I just don't like not knowing whose fault a mistake is, because it can end up with the wrong entity being blamed. Guess there's not much we can do about that, though.

 

[Hassknecht]

I think they were just not big enough to get away with EA-type of shit before. Now that they know that they have a fanbase that will happily bend over and ask for more I guess they'll go full EA/Ubisoft in the future.
They tried paid mods before, and only backed down because they got too much flak. Now they're easing it in with a bit of lube by basically selling mod-material as DLC.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

I think they were just not big enough to get away with EA-type of shit before. Now that they know that they have a fanbase that will happily bend over and ask for more I guess they'll go full EA/Ubisoft in the future.
They tried paid mods before, and only backed down because they got too much flak. Now they're easing it in with a bit of lube by basically selling mod-material as DLC.

That's a disappointing thought... Dishonored and Wolfenstein: The New Order were really good games, and I would hate to see the future of both series in the hands of basically EA. Still, not excusing them, but they're the lesser of countless other evils, and I would be less distrustful of them than I would be of any other publisher.

Hopefully, their screwing over of IPs remains limited to Fallout and the Elder Scrolls.

 

[Hassknecht]

Personally, I just hope that CD Projekt Red doesn't go down the EA-path. Although it doesn't seem that they will. One of the few video game companies that really do seem to care about video games and gamers in general.

 

[Theinnerfish]

They tried paid mods before, and only backed down because they got too much flak. Now they're easing it in with a bit of lube by basically selling mod-material as DLC.

As far as i know it was Valve who backed down on that...

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Personally, I just hope that CD Projekt Red doesn't go down the EA-path. Although it doesn't seem that they will. One of the few video game companies that really do seem to care about video games and gamers in general.

Blind optimism and naivety speaking again, but here I began to assume that CD Projekt RED was about to begin the trend of pulling the games industry back to actually caring about games over money. Heralding the start of a new generation, so to speak. Also, it's CD Projekt that's the publisher, not CD Projekt RED.

I've never really been an optimistic person, but I see good things in gaming's future. Hopefully my predictions will reign true.

As far as i know it was Valve who backed down on that...

Valve genuinely thought it was a community supportive idea, and when they realised it was the wrong approach, they apologised a lot. Thanks to companies like EA, apologies no longer seem geniune but rather to avoid losses, and Valve took a permanent PR hit.

I'm not sure what Bethesda were thinking with it, though.