Fallout 4 is not "Skyrim with guns."

[Irwin John Finster]

1. Mages?
2. Sarcastic
3. HATE MAGES
4. Of course

Fixed that for ya.

It really is VERY jarring to go from F4's dialogue wheel to Mass Effect. The difference in execution and quality is staggering. If you're going to copy Mass Effect and Bioware you should probably ensure your writers are up to snuff because I played only a few hours of ME3 and I don't know if I can even go back to F4 because it's lame attempt at a dialogue wheel system is insulting.

 

[MercenarySnake]

1. Mages?
2. Sarcastic
3. HATE MAGES
4. Of course

Fixed that for ya.

It really is VERY jarring to go from F4's dialogue wheel to Mass Effect. The difference in execution and quality is staggering. If you're going to copy Mass Effect and Bioware you should probably ensure your writers are up to snuff because I played only a few hours of ME3 and I don't know if I can even go back to F4 because it's lame attempt at a dialogue wheel system is insulting.

Considering you could ask multiple questions using investigate without being locked out of choosing one of the three choices(usually) they failed to even get that right. I still thought it was a pain in the ass to use the mouse to choose an option.

 

[omphaloskepsis]

The other issue is, you mention mods. Why are mods even relevant? Should a game not allow you to do exactly what you say without mods? Creating your own little adventure? A game should be able to stand on it's own merrits. I don't hate Skyrim. I just find it always a bit strange, when ever people speak very highly about Skyrim, mods are quite often one of the points people bring up.

Yeah, a game should be playable and ideally even good without mods. But I feel like you're arguing for a platonic ideal about what makes a game good. What makes a game good to me is what I experience when I play it. Look at KOTOR 2 and the restoration mod, or Vampire: Bloodlines and the unofficial patch. It's drawing an arbitrary line in the sand to refuse to acknowledge what those do for the game.

But modding for BGS games is a whole other level. Many people on the BGS mod forums are interested primarily in the game as a modding platform. There are modders who put thousands of hours of work into a game while having barely played the game itself. Also, many people who do play the game a lot never complete the main quests. No other game offers the mod tools or mod capabilities that BGS games do, so I think it's fair to call modding a major feature of the platform.

Modding deserves recognition as a feature alongside graphics, gameplay, story, dialog, etc.

(I'd also consider "community" a potentially major feature. When you're evaluating expensive products at home or work, it's often a very good --even essential-- idea to factor the user base into the decision. But I don't want to derail my main point. Just wanted to point that out.)

 

[Irwin John Finster]

The other issue is, you mention mods. Why are mods even relevant? Should a game not allow you to do exactly what you say without mods? Creating your own little adventure? A game should be able to stand on it's own merrits. I don't hate Skyrim. I just find it always a bit strange, when ever people speak very highly about Skyrim, mods are quite often one of the points people bring up.

Yeah, a game should be playable and ideally even good without mods. But I feel like you're arguing for a platonic ideal about what makes a game good. What makes a game good to me is what I experience when I play it. Look at KOTOR 2 and the restoration mod, or Vampire: Bloodlines and the unofficial patch. It's drawing an arbitrary line in the sand to refuse to acknowledge what those do for the game.

But modding for BGS games is a whole other level. Many people on the BGS mod forums are interested primarily in the game as a modding platform. There are modders who put thousands of hours of work into a game while having barely played the game itself. Also, many people who do play the game a lot never complete the main quests. No other game offers the mod tools or mod capabilities that BGS games do, so I think it's fair to call modding a major feature of the platform.

Modding deserves recognition as a feature alongside graphics, gameplay, story, dialog, etc.

(I'd also consider "community" a potentially major feature. When you're evaluating expensive products at home or work, it's often a very good --even essential-- idea to factor the user base into the decision. But I don't want to derail my main point. Just wanted to point that out.)

Saying modding is a "feature" of Bethesda games is fine, but how many Fallout 4 reviews have prefaced their praise of the game with "Don't worry mods will fix all the things wrong with this game!" If you have to use that as your starting point, maybe the game is not so good in the first place.

 

[whirlingdervish]

A game being able to be modded is not a feature in itself.

Making it so your game doesn't completely shit itself if someone replaces a texture or modifies a game file isn't even always an intentional step with a single player game, but a result of the development process and the way the engine functions.

It's a property of the software that allows for people to add features and swap out content, but by itself it is not a feature.

 

[omphaloskepsis]

Saying modding is a "feature" of Bethesda games is fine, but how many Fallout 4 reviews have prefaced their praise of the game with "Don't worry mods will fix all the things wrong with this game!" If you have to use that as your starting point, maybe the game is not so good in the first place.

I was coming from the context of a general statement games and modding. Yeah, saying mods will fix it is a bad sign, and an excuse.

Though, honestly, there are areas where I think it's legit reasoning. I suppose it depends on what's important for a particular player. For example, I'm fine with graphics being subpar, especially if they can be modded. But that's because graphics are usually of secondary importance to me. So if I was reviewing a game, I wouldn't feel like it was a big deal to say that you could fix the graphics with mods.

Of course, there are things that aren't fixable or inexcusable. You (mostly) can't fix story or dialogue with mods. You can't turn a shooter into an RPG, though you could add some RPG features.

I haven't read any reviews of FO4 because I assumed they'd piss me off. The game is too highly rated for them to be taken seriously, as is the case with pretty much all AAA games.

 

[5545Trey]

Fact is lots of game franchises reach their peak and never achieve that same goodness again. Final Fantasy had its with VI and VII. TES with Morrowind. Fallout with Fallout 2. Zelda with Ocarina of Time. Chrono with.. Chrono Trigger.. yeah it jumped the shark right at the first sequel. Like it or not, that is just how it is with video games.

Let me stop, you right there, because this argument is poorly thought-out. All of those examples are not valid because it is almost always subjective which game is the peak of said series, and deluding yourself into thinking that is how video games work is silly. Those are all just popular opinions, nothing more.

Skyrim was a piece of shit.

Agreed. It had very little redeeming features.

No redeeming features yet its got decent reviews no matter where you go to look? Id beg to differ mister.

This logic is outdated and flawed. Decent reviews means nothing if those "redeeming qualities" can only obtained in the form of modding.

 

[whirlingdervish]

A game having been reviewed positively by any number of people, is not a feature.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

A game having been reviewed positively by any number of people, is not a feature.

It's the old "Fallout 4 sold well, therefore it is a success" argument that disregards the fact that amount of money made does not equal quality. There's a guy on YouTube that screams into a microphone while playing Goat Simulator that supposedly makes $12 million a year. Twilight sold incredibly well. Transformers was a huge success. None of these things are deep or meaningful in any way.

Want to make more money? Make the game as stupid and action-packed as possible.

Want to make art? You will not make as much money in the game industry, but your dumbed-down sequels will once big publishers get ahold of them.

 

[HerveCaen]

Let me stop, you right there, because this argument is poorly thought-out. All of those examples are not valid because it is almost always subjective which game is the peak of said series, and deluding yourself into thinking that is how video games work is silly. Those are all just popular opinions, nothing more.

Just popular opinions? Ha. This guy. Yes, popular opinions on what the best games in the series are completely meaningless! The one or two people that believe the worst in the series are correct and the majority doesnt matter. With your logic, Fallout reached is peak with Fallout 3 and 4. Next.

This logic is outdated and flawed. Decent reviews means nothing if those "redeeming qualities" can only obtained in the form of modding.

Outdated and flawed? Simply wow. Yes lets disregard every single positive review ever for Skyrim and attribute them to players that only played with lots of mods. It must be true because you say it is.

It's the old "Fallout 4 sold well, therefore it is a success" argument that disregards the fact that amount of money made does not equal quality.

Yet I mentioned reviews and never sales. Its funny some of you have this superiority complex about yourselves that you think your word is greater than the majority of those who played it. Simple fact is majority that played Skyrim liked it. As evidenced by its reviews.

Whats really going on with most of you naysayers is youve no point at all with anything you say. You just constantly sling poo like monkeys and when called out on it with facts such as user reviews you just chimp and keep slinging more while disregarding everything or twisting it to a point where it wont be true just to suit your arguments.

 

[GeorgieBest]

Let me stop, you right there, because this argument is poorly thought-out. All of those examples are not valid because it is almost always subjective which game is the peak of said series, and deluding yourself into thinking that is how video games work is silly. Those are all just popular opinions, nothing more.

Just popular opinions? Ha. This guy. Yes, popular opinions on what the best games in the series are completely meaningless! The one or two people that believe the worst in the series are correct and the majority doesnt matter. With your logic, Fallout reached is peak with Fallout 3 and 4. Next.

This logic is outdated and flawed. Decent reviews means nothing if those "redeeming qualities" can only obtained in the form of modding.

Outdated and flawed? Simply wow. Yes lets disregard every single positive review ever for Skyrim and attribute them to players that only played with lots of mods. It must be true because you say it is.

It's the old "Fallout 4 sold well, therefore it is a success" argument that disregards the fact that amount of money made does not equal quality.

Yet I mentioned reviews and never sales. Its funny some of you have this superiority complex about yourselves that you think your word is greater than the majority of those who played it. Simple fact is majority that played Skyrim liked it. As evidenced by its reviews.

Whats really going on with most of you naysayers is youve no point at all with anything you say. You just constantly sling poo like monkeys and when called out on it with facts such as user reviews you just chimp and keep slinging more while disregarding everything or twisting it to a point where it wont be true just to suit your arguments.

Dude you think opinions (reviews) are facts- get the fu** out:p

 

[HerveCaen]

Dude you think opinions (reviews) are facts- get the fu** out:p

If its the opinion of the majority then I believe it holds a bit of merit. Are you going to tell me the opinion of a select chosen few are to be the ones that decide whether or not something is good and what everyone else thinks doesnt matter at all?

 

[GeorgieBest]

Dude you think opinions (reviews) are facts- get the fu** out:p

If its the opinion of the majority then I believe it holds a bit of merit. Are you going to tell me the opinion of a select chosen few are to be the ones that decide whether or not something is good and what everyone else thinks doesnt matter at all?

Dude im just telling you a bit of merit is not fact

 

[Monco]

I was coming from the context of a general statement games and modding. Yeah, saying mods will fix it is a bad sign, and an excuse.

Though, honestly, there are areas where I think it's legit reasoning. I suppose it depends on what's important for a particular player. For example, I'm fine with graphics being subpar, especially if they can be modded. But that's because graphics are usually of secondary importance to me. So if I was reviewing a game, I wouldn't feel like it was a big deal to say that you could fix the graphics with mods.

Of course, there are things that aren't fixable or inexcusable. You (mostly) can't fix story or dialogue with mods. You can't turn a shooter into an RPG, though you could add some RPG features.

I haven't read any reviews of FO4 because I assumed they'd piss me off. The game is too highly rated for them to be taken seriously, as is the case with pretty much all AAA games.

It's not really fair to judge a game's quality by it's mods, but at the same time mods can be a big factor in whether a game is worth buying or not. Mods can extend the lifetime of games and allow people to get a lot more value for their money, which is important to a lot of gamers.

 

[5545Trey]

Just popular opinions? Ha. This guy. Yes, popular opinions on what the best games in the series are completely meaningless! The one or two people that believe the worst in the series are correct and the majority doesnt matter. With your logic, Fallout reached is peak with Fallout 3 and 4. Next.

Maybe you should try putting some effort into actually reading what someone is explaining to you whether than get on your high horse and spout hot air out of your ass when you clearly had no idea the point they were trying to make. Re-read my post again before you make bullshit claims I never even implied in my own post.

Outdated and flawed? Simply wow. Yes lets disregard every single positive review ever for Skyrim and attribute them to players that only played with lots of mods. It must be true because you say it is.

Do I really need to use crayons for you to actually understand what I meant when I said, "decent reviews means jack", or do you enjoy twisting my words around because you are incapable of arguing like a respectable person? I meant that decent reviews are not credible in seeing the redeeming qualities of a game because they are subjective. How you can confuse these two statements is beyond me. All you have done is put words in my mouth and disregarded and misinterpreted all my points just so you can fulfill your own goddamn self-ego. Even if some members here have a "superiority complex", you are no better than they are if all you can do is resort to the same fucking fallacies as you claim they do. Reviews, just like opinions, are subjective, whether they are popular or are only agreed upon by a selected few. Claiming what game is pinnacle to what series is subjective. That is ALL that I have told, but if want to continue to avoid everything I keep telling you, then go ahead.

 

[HerveCaen]

Maybe you should try putting some effort into actually reading what someone is explaining to you whether than get on your high horse and spout hot air out of your ass when you clearly had no idea the point they were trying to make.

The high horse sitter is you sir. Im not the one that thinks my opinion is greater than millions of others that think otherwise.

Do I really need to use crayons for you to actually understand what I meant when I said, "decent reviews means jack", or are do you enjoy twisting my words around because you are incapable of arguing like respectable person? I meant that decent reviews are not credible in seeing the redeeming qualities of a game because they are subjective. How you can confuse these two statements is beyond me.

Only twisting being done here is by you. For some reason you feel you have the power to push your subjective opinion on others and even say those that reviewed Skyrim favorably, no matter how numerous, was solely because of its modding or just simply dont matter.

If youre going to do anything with those crayons remove them from your nose I believe theyve been hitting your brain.

Re-read my post again before you make bullshit claims I never even implied in my own post.

Decent reviews means nothing if those "redeeming qualities" can only obtained in the form of modding.

Im making nothing up. Are you on drugs?

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Dude you think opinions (reviews) are facts- get the fu** out:p

If its the opinion of the majority then I believe it holds a bit of merit. Are you going to tell me the opinion of a select chosen few are to be the ones that decide whether or not something is good and what everyone else thinks doesnt matter at all?

The majority of people are idiots.

 

[HerveCaen]

The majority of people are idiots.

Come on now. Had the majority actually hated Skyrim youd been utilizing that fact now and thinking theyre intelligent.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

The majority of people are idiots.

Come on now. Had the majority actually hated Skyrim youd been utilizing that fact now and thinking theyre intelligent.

That wouldn't happen. Skyrim was designed for the majority.

 

[Mr Fish]

The majority of people are idiots.

Come on now. Had the majority actually hated Skyrim youd been utilizing that fact now and thinking theyre intelligent.

A broken clock that strikes right twice a day is still a broken clock.