Fallout 4 gameplay videos leaked, Bethesda starts taking them down

The thing is that they are trying to pull heart strings about you killing ferals while making Feral Ghouls completely mindless enemies that are just completely different from the regular Ghouls. Just compare character models, normal Ghouls look like people with heavy burns and no noses, while Ferals look like emaciated zombies with huge eyes, no lips and all having the exact same face and attacking with their claws like animals, worse than animals, they suicidally attack you on sight. There is even a typ of Ghoul that attacks by throwing his "radioactive gore" at you. It just doesn't work. Same with their treatment of Raiders, where they don't even give them tribe names, they are just generic "raiders". It's all pretty lazy.


Edit: Not to mention the fact that he is aparently saying that them mindlessly attacking you shouldn't matter and you shouldn't kill them.... while he is a BOS member, pretty sure he will attack raiders on sight, and if his dialogue is anything to go by the BOS is involved in some form of war with some other faction at the moment, so him feeling bad for killing Ferals but not other people just sounds like very plastic heartstrings pulling characterization....
 
Last edited:
Walpknut said:
The thing is that they are trying to pull heart strings about you killing ferals while making Feral Ghouls completely mindless enemies that are just completely different from the regular Ghouls. Just compare character models, normal Ghouls look like people with heavy burns and no noses, while Ferals look like emaciated zombies with huge eyes, no lips and all having the exact same face and attacking with their claws like animals, worse than animals, they suicidally attack you on sight. There is even a typ of Ghoul that attacks by throwing his "radioactive gore" at you. It just doesn't work. Same with their treatment of Raiders, where they don't even give them tribe names, they are just generic "raiders". It's all pretty lazy.
Click to expand...

Eh I disagree, it moreso causes me to question the guy feeding them like an idiot than it does to have me sympathize with the feral ones themselves. It's up to the player to interpret though, which is fine so I don't see the issue here.

Raiders are a generic enemy, that's kind of the point in these games. They're basically just crazy people looking to steal, loot and kill. They don't exactly have to be organized by tribes because in this vision of the post apocalypse they're basically anarchists and thieves with no affiliation.
 
So like I say, their approach completely lacks any nuance so them trying to tackle such topics just comes off as foolish and mediocre. You can't try and pull some "Ghouls are people too!" thing when your raiders don't even have tribal names and your Feral Ghouls are literally labeled as abominations on your engine...
 
Willy Rogers said:
Hey, someone remastered The Wanderer trailer to properly show Dogmeat III's complex AI.

Click to expand...


PEGI BRRRRRRT. This video isnt accurate though, you can see the dog is actually running towards the super mutants, probably to attack it, instead of just casually walking away.

@Battlecross Just go and watch the newest Mad Max to see what could they have done with the raiders. I would give other examples but this is the most recent one that I can think, since old movies and games bore Bethesda's fanbase.

But if you want you can actually play New Vegas too to see some distinction and it loosely shares "this vision" of post-apoc since it is set in the same setting. There are 4 different raider factions in the game, and the big 4 of New Vegas were different group of raiders too(or just tribes but Im not sure, I dont remember their backstory).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Walpknut said:
So like I say, their approach completely lacks any nuance so them trying to tackle such topics just comes off as foolish and mediocre. You can't try and pull some "Ghouls are people too!" thing when your raiders don't even have tribal names and your Feral Ghouls are literally labeled as abominations on your engine...
Click to expand...

Well I don't think having general raiders means you can't do that with ghouls, I'm not sure why one would have to be one way for the other. Raiders don't have to be in tribes since they're unaffiliated criminal types. Ghouls on the other hand have two distinct groups, intelligent and feral.
 
Battlecross said:
Walpknut said:
So like I say, their approach completely lacks any nuance so them trying to tackle such topics just comes off as foolish and mediocre. You can't try and pull some "Ghouls are people too!" thing when your raiders don't even have tribal names and your Feral Ghouls are literally labeled as abominations on your engine...
Click to expand...

Well I don't think having general raiders means you can't do that with ghouls, I'm not sure why one would have to be one way for the other. Raiders don't have to be in tribes since they're unaffiliated criminal types. Ghouls on the other hand have two distinct groups, intelligent and feral.
Click to expand...

>Implying Raiders can't formulate their own sub-factions with different goals and affilations.


Even in new vegas, Fiends were raiders but had special clothes they wore, it's own story and you knew much about them as you time went on doing quest involving them. Fallout 3 the only thing trying to even do that was in a DLC and was pretty much not a lesson that now carries over to fallout 4. Congratulations on Bethesda for being incapable of adapting to the literary world around them.
 
Pretty much all the raiders in fallout New Vegas were somewhat unique. You had the Vipers, The Fiends, The jackals and Scorpions. All of them had their own backgrounds and characteristics.
Contrast it with the pure genericness of "raiders" in F3 and F4. It's just lazy. Extremely lazy and shallow.
 
I think the jist of it @Battlecross, is that the problem with Fallout 3 and 4 is that the raiders don't have enough personality. Take the Pitt, those raiders have some personality, they have a leader who is a slaver who has reasons other than "lulz i'mma evil", or paradise falls, though they could have used some improvement. Humans are a social species, it just doesn't make sense that the raiders wouldn't in 200 years eventually congregate into seperate gangs/tribes. Hell, keep the generic raiders, but have more actual groups that make it clear that the solo raiders are in the minority.
 
Raiders in Post Apocalyptic settings always had tribal names, same in other setting when such criminal types exist. Gangs always have names, that would actually help them not only differentiate one group from the other but also makes the setting feel more dynamic, helping the player know about the territory they are in and how to approach them "Oh shit I those guys are Meathooks, so they probably use melee, better not get close, these guys are stablished to attack farms so I gotta be close to a Settlement" or just something as simple as "This is more of a low level zone of the map". When they are just called "Raiders" they just become balantly filler enemies, you know they are just there to have combat and not to serve any real propouse for the setting, they also make everything feel even more artificial because their lack of even a gang name means they have no organization of any kind either. They are just "random crazies".
NewVegas didn't go crazy with it, but in that game you never find anything just called "A Raider" and they all have backstory, they usually indicate the player where they are with the Jackals and Vipers serving as enemies in low level areas and sticking to roads, with the Powder gangers being only dangerous if the player had crossed them so they also presented an instance of choice and consequence, and the Fiends being mostly around the Northern Part of the map and being more dangerous. They all had unique backstories to their groups too.
 
TransgenderVaultDeweller said:
Battlecross said:
Walpknut said:
So like I say, their approach completely lacks any nuance so them trying to tackle such topics just comes off as foolish and mediocre. You can't try and pull some "Ghouls are people too!" thing when your raiders don't even have tribal names and your Feral Ghouls are literally labeled as abominations on your engine...
Click to expand...

Well I don't think having general raiders means you can't do that with ghouls, I'm not sure why one would have to be one way for the other. Raiders don't have to be in tribes since they're unaffiliated criminal types. Ghouls on the other hand have two distinct groups, intelligent and feral.
Click to expand...

>Implying Raiders can't formulate their own sub-factions with different goals and affilations.


Even in new vegas, Fiends were raiders but had special clothes they wore, it's own story and you knew much about them as you time went on doing quest involving them. Fallout 3 the only thing trying to even do that was in a DLC and was pretty much not a lesson that now carries over to fallout 4. Congratulations on Bethesda for being incapable of adapting to the literary world around them.
Click to expand...

I said nothing of the sort, I'm saying they don't have to be specific tribes because they were in the previous games. These ones do congregate together and have groups, they're just not named or anything.
 
Yeah, who needs depths to raiders when the game is all Death to Raiders anyway?
Same with the ghouls... Except that they're trying to pull that one off, sadly.
 
Battlecross said:
I said nothing of the sort, I'm saying they don't have to be specific tribes because they were in the previous games. These ones do congregate together and have groups, they're just not named or anything.
Click to expand...
And that's the problem for me. I want that fluff! I want so much of that fluff I can make cotton candy out of it! It's just so bland to fight off "raider", give them some personality. Like, "long-pig sticker" he's got a melee weapon, and is wearing human-leather and carrying "strange-meat" pies in his inventory. Like I said we need more Pitt, and less "lulz i'mma evil".
 
Must suck to be a Raider, to live exclusively for the amusement of one-of-a-kind Chosen Vault Dwellers

I said before, the prior games did not have these ritualistically suicidal cannon-fodder "raiders", these were actual groups with actual goals, identities and survival instincts. FO3 introduced the "i only live to be shot by you!"-raiders.
 
zegh8578 said:
Must suck to be a Raider, to live exclusively for the amusement of one-of-a-kind Chosen Vault Dwellers

I said before, the prior games did not have these ritualistically suicidal cannon-fodder "raiders", these were actual groups with actual goals, identities and survival instincts. FO3 introduced the "i only live to be shot by you!"-raiders.
Click to expand...

Oh, they existed, too, in the random encounters on the world map.
 
But very few of the were just called generic raiders. You could find the Highwaymen, The mobsters and such, you could even find two groups of "raiders" fighting each other often.
 
Yeah, random "raiders" are fine, But would it have killed them to add some actual tribes in fixed locations? Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, maybe they have. Problem is bethesda's track record, while the pitt was okay, paradise falls was just generic slaver camp. I've often thought that paradise falls would look better if ALL of the raiders there dressed like pimps, like Eulogy Jones, with slick hair and weasely faces. I mean that place was essentially a giant, slaver run, bordello.
 
Paradise Falls would've been better if they weren't just a secluded location in the buttcrack of the map and Slave traffickers and slaves had more of a pressence in the other settlements. Or if they were using those slaves for something productive. Like, what do they do with those Slaves? Just keep them on a pen all day cuz IBOLS? The Pitt tries to imply they are all under the emploment of Ashur, but then why even keep them in Pens? Why omit something that important form the main game and relegate it to DLC? Why not make them all look like Pitt Raiders from the beginning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top