Fallout 4 goes Skyrim with infinite re-releases

[Gizmojunk]

Myself, I prefer isolated deep dives to a shallow ocean. I prefer the worlds to be sectioned apart to where the local events of the campaign actually transpire. In The Witcher, the game did not force the player to slog through scores of miles of unrelated (and presumably uneventful) travel to get to Vizima from Kaer Morhen; it simply indicated the travel, and picked up during the hellhound ambush. Straight and to the point—as is best IMO.

*Now I would have welcomed a random element that [potentially] generated a few encounters along the route, but to impose a realtime march through miles of terrain that would be either empty, or far too inhabited... no thanks.

 

[TorontoReign]

"One bad game"

He is right. One bad game meaning 76. Fallout 4 is not a bad game. It is a shit Fallout RPG.

 

[Mirin Lurker]

The most important character in Bethesda games is the WORLD itself. Having a living world with AI that will go on with their lives instead of just waiting for the player character to come along and interact with them is, imo, the greatest achievement in modern game development, and I think that the more they develop this aspect of their games, the better.

Think of it this way: it's a totally unique, highly advanced, bleeding edge feature in video games, with no other developer willing or able to copy it. If Bethesda stopped building these complex, living breathing worlds, then nobody else would either, and that would be a shame for all of video games.

I think you need to play another videogame. Its really not that advanced or unique once you actually figure out how it works.

 

[NotZak]

Like, I understand wanting Fallout to have CRPG releases with an Isometric Perspective, or wanting Obsidian to be involved in standalone releases or the mainline series; that would be an awesome addition to the series, and has already happened in the form of New Vegas.

But out of every other developer on the planet, there is no other team that could do justice to Fallout, or give us quality, uncompromising games. Does Bethesda take forever to release mainline games? Yes, and if you aren't a fan of *all* of their mainline series, it is unbearable, but if you try to just accept that Elder Scrolls, Starfield, and Fallout are essentially evolutions of each other at this point, then it becomes easy to accept Bethesda's method, and to just look forward to Starfield.

I'm pretty sure most of us have spent multiple hundreds of hours playing Fallout 4 and Skyrim, and Starfield will be an evolution of both of those games, and a preview of what we have to look forward to when Fallout 5 eventually comes out.

I almost respect this guy for the dedication

 

[NotZak]

He is right. One bad game meaning 76. Fallout 4 is not a bad game. It is a shit Fallout RPG.

There's a difference between a good game and a fun game, this is coming from someone that had Fallout 4 as their introduction into the series (played for 2 hours and got bored because of Bethesda's design philosophy to overwhelm the player with quests at the start of the game)

 

[NotZak]

I mean, name a single RPG that has half the depth of OBLIVION when it comes to the world and AI.

Stalker

 

[NotZak]

Norzan, you mention other games trying to copy Bethesda... uh which ones? No developer has the technological capability to copy a Bethesda game. There hasn't been a single game even remotely resembling a Bethesda game by another developer.

Their worlds are the only living virtual worlds that have ever been made; I tried to play The Witcher 3 and it's just... dead. The characters stand in one place, and repeat the same line over and over again. They don't eat, sleep, they're like paintings with voice lines. I'm the type of player who has to believe in a world to play a game, because why would I have any incentive to save a world or become powerful in a world that is totally dead and artificial.

A huge misunderstanding about Bethesda is that they make Immersive Sim games, not RPGs. Other Immersive Sims are Deus Ex, Thief, System Shock, and the first 3D Ultima game. Bethesda's world building and the level of simulation is unprecedented and is the reason that no other developer can copycat them, because they have been building their engine for 20+ years.

I'm not even saying that Bethesda is the ideal developer for Fallout, over Obsidian, but unfortunately, a lot of bad decisions were made in the past, bad games were made, and Fallout was sold, and all I'm saying is that Bethesda is a great developer. I can respect that old school fans of Fallout might not like Bethesda developing it, but just don't attack them for being "greedy", when in reality, I think they have shown more care in the way they craft and support their games than most developers.

This troll is actually working now by comparing Bethesda games to some of the most influential PC games of our time and going so far to call them and immersive sims. Bravo, Zentropy, you've got me.

 

[Norzan]

Norzan, you mention other games trying to copy Bethesda... uh which ones? No developer has the technological capability to copy a Bethesda game. There hasn't been a single game even remotely resembling a Bethesda game by another developer.

Yup, you are just trolling. The earliest example of a copycat was Ubisoft with Far Cry 3 which got constantly called as "Skyrim with Guns". Basically it's just sandboxes where you go around doing menial, shitty tasks in an empty world devoid of any depth just to fill up an exp bar. That's what happened with Bethesda since Oblivion.

The last game they made that had any effort put into it was Morrowind and that already was showing cracks and Bethesda's willingness to remove features and cheapen their product to make games for the lowest common denominator.

He is right. One bad game meaning 76. Fallout 4 is not a bad game. It is a shit Fallout RPG.

If you remove Fallout from it, it's still a genuine shit game. As soon you are basically forced to interact with its writing (which you have to in order to advance anything in the game), the entire game becomes a catastrophe.

 

[Gizmojunk]

As soon you are basically forced to interact with its writing (which you have to in order to advance anything in the game), the entire game becomes a catastrophe.

This —as stated— has never been a deal breaker for me; in fact it's usually the point of cRPGs in general... outside of combat.

 

[Norzan]

This —as stated— has never been a deal breaker for me; in fact it's usually the point of cRPGs in general... outside of combat.

Hence my point because Fallout 4's writing is abysmal. If it was great, i would be excited to actually interact with it because good writing greatly enhances any piece of media. But when it's really bad like in Fallout 4, it just makes me not want to play because i start asking what's my motivation to even continue which is the worst thing a RPG can do.

 

[JoacoN]

He is right. One bad game meaning 76. Fallout 4 is not a bad game. It is a shit Fallout RPG.

Ah I wasnt refering to Fallout only, I personally think that Oblivion is a pretty bad game, but I think its more of a me opinion

 

[JoacoN]

I only like Daggerfall and Fallout 3 from Bethesda.
I still havent played Morrowind and Skyrim cause I dont have the same time I had during the pandemic, and Fallout 4 is a pretty good open world game, but Ive never got grabbed by the quests or characters at all.
Fallout 76 makes me wanna die, I tried to play it 3 different times and its impossible for me to enjoy it at all, even with a friend

 

[Gizmojunk]

Hence my point because Fallout 4's writing is abysmal.

I've never installed the game; never played it.

 

[Zentropy]

While I don't enjoy Witcher at all, I can at least respect CD Projekt. I don't enjoy cinematic games, and Witcher is highly Cinematic, while Bethesda games are the opposite of that.

We all have different opinions, so at a certain point one has to just appreciate novelty in something that other people enjoy. Also, Metacritic scores help to get a non-biased view of the quality of a game at the time of it's release.

A good example is Oblivion; by modern standards, Oblivion is dated, but when it came out, it was revolutionary. People forget that Skyrim is a 11 year old game, of course it's dated in some aspects, but when it came out, it was revolutionary.

Fallout 4, in my opinion, was a massive step forward in terms of gameplay, world building, graphics and aesthetic, but the dialogue is the worst in the series. Now we can criticize Bethesda for this, but the fact is they have acknowledged the issues with the voiced protagonist and have confirmed that they will axe the voiced protagonist in all future projects. So now that Bethesda has learned from the misstep, it's just beating a dead horse to keep bringing up the dialogue.

It's also worth noting that Fallout 4 is only Bethesda's second attempt at including RPG-esque dialogue trees and checks in one of their games, the first being Fallout 3, so while it was a step backwards from Fallout 3, it wasn't a bad second attempt.

 

[Zentropy]

I only like Daggerfall and Fallout 3 from Bethesda.
I still havent played Morrowind and Skyrim cause I dont have the same time I had during the pandemic, and Fallout 4 is a pretty good open world game, but Ive never got grabbed by the quests or characters at all.
Fallout 76 makes me wanna die, I tried to play it 3 different times and its impossible for me to enjoy it at all, even with a friend

Morrowind is amazing, I'm playing through it right now, but I would recommend playing Skyrim first.
The crazy thing about Skyrim is that it's 10 years old and even the people that criticize it have often played 500+ hours. It's incredibly immersive, it draws you in, and let's you truthfully live in it's world. And since Bethesda supports their games and has re-released it in 4k with modern graphics, you won't even realize that it's a decade old.

Just try it out, forget everything you've heard about it, don't download any mods... just play that game. You'll understand what I mean when I say it isn't and RPG, because it isn't at all. It's an immersive sim, and always has benn.

 

[Zentropy]

Hence my point because Fallout 4's writing is abysmal. If it was great, i would be excited to actually interact with it because good writing greatly enhances any piece of media. But when it's really bad like in Fallout 4, it just makes me not want to play because i start asking what's my motivation to even continue which is the worst thing a RPG can do.

You're right in that Fallout 4 has poor writing, they took a big step back in that regard. However, it has amazingly fun gameplay, physics, the best power armor in the series bar none, and my favorite world in the series, besides maybe Fallout 1.

 

[Zentropy]

Yup, you are just trolling. The earliest example of a copycat was Ubisoft with Far Cry 3 which got constantly called as "Skyrim with Guns". Basically it's just sandboxes where you go around doing menial, shitty tasks in an empty world devoid of any depth just to fill up an exp bar. That's what happened with Bethesda since Oblivion.

The last game they made that had any effort put into it was Morrowind and that already was showing cracks and Bethesda's willingness to remove features and cheapen their product to make games for the lowest common denominator.


If you remove Fallout from it, it's still a genuine shit game. As soon you are basically forced to interact with its writing (which you have to in order to advance anything in the game), the entire game becomes a catastrophe.

Far Cry 3 has persistent cells, every AI following schedules, eating sleeping, all with unique names and their own place in the world? Does it also have zero cutscenes, numerous factions created for side quests only, and cities and towns with guards and a crime and punishment system that includes fines and jail?

This is what makes Bethesda games immersive sims; they had to get rid of the crime system for Fallout due to lack of infrastructure, but yeah.

And while, if you look at Metacritic and other non-biased opinions, Bethesda's games are considered some of the greatest of all time, when I compared their games to Deus Ex, Thief, System Shock, etc, I was pointing out what their GENRE was, not comparing quality.

Bethesda doesn't make RPGs, never has. THis is probably the biggest reason that fans of the original Fallout games dislike Bethesda, because Fallout was one of the greatest WRPGs of all time, and now it isn't even an RPG. And that's a shame. I wish that RPG Fallout games were still made.

You almost have to just forget that Bethesda's games are called "Fallout". Just judge them by their own merits, as IM-Sims.

Bethesda is the only developer making immersive sims at the moment, and if you guys have never gotten into those types of games, I highly recommend it.

 

[Norzan]

A good example is Oblivion; by modern standards, Oblivion is dated, but when it came out, it was revolutionary.

It was just a worse Morrowind.

However, it has amazingly fun gameplay

It's functional but completely destroyed by its really low amount of weapons and really bad encounter design.

and Witcher is highly Cinematic, while Bethesda games are the opposite of that.

This is something that people like to bring up about Bethesda games, but then forget the amount of times you have to sit around doing nothing while a person monologues at you, the high amount of dialogue lines and so on.

Bethesda games do try too hard to be cinematic but completely fail. Those long, drawn-out intros confirm this.

 

[Zentropy]

Dude I've played 100+ hours of Morrowind in the last 2 months alone, and probably 30 hours of Oblivion in the same amount of time; Morrowind and Oblivion are nothing alike. While I actually prefer Morrowind to Oblivion, Oblivion is where Bethesda became totally distinct from every other studio, with their living worlds, NPC Schedules, jails, etc. Oblivion was a massive milestone for Bethesda, and it added tons of stuff to their engine and design philosophy and lore that still remain vital to this day. Oblivion is too important to call it a "worse Morrowind"

The development of Oblivion added so much to Bethesda's engine, and while I understand that you don't appreciate this, it should be acknowledged.

And another thing, is that while you are right that there aren't many weapons, and there aren't many random encounters either, Fallout 4 made a massive leap forward in terms of combat. Game development works like this: developers try out new ideas, release a title, and they keep the stuff that works, and axe the stuff that doesn't. At least that's what good developers do, and over the years, I think Bethesda has proven that they nearly always keep the great majority of the positive developments they make, while nixing most of the bullshit.

Finally, most people want games to have cinematic voiced dialogue on the part of NPCs, the "first person cut scenes" you're referring to, because they are important for exposition and world building. The issue I have with standard cut scenes isn't the the exposition, but rather the fact that they take away control from the player.

I don't want to pull it up, but I believe there is an interview where Todd Howard and another developer are discussing cinematics, and he points out that "If something cool happens, why would we do that in a cut scene? If something cool happens, we need to give the player the opportunity to do that". Furthermore, cinematic cut scenes often involve dialogue choices, exposition on the part of the player character, travel, etc.

All of those features control away from a player and it is a core Bethesda design philosophy to never do that, and *that* is what people appreciate about the way Bethesda handles their stories and exposition. Does that make sense?

 

[Verevoof]

And another thing, is that while you are right that there aren't many weapons, and there aren't many random encounters either, Fallout 4 made a massive leap forward in terms of combat.

I've never played Fallout 4 or even seen a video of it. How did it make a "massive leap forward in terms of combat"? I genuinely know nothing of the game, but am curious.