Fallout 4 storytelling in a nutshell.

There's also the Ubisoft situation where more studios means switching the hands developing the game between so many developers the game comes out an inconsistently balanced mess. Numbers means multiplying the efficiency of developing further what is already good. If more shit hits a bigger fan, that just means there's going to be more crap all over the place.
 
I didn't even know they did that. I thought projects were generally handled by a single studio with outsourcing for certain bits and pieces for precisely that reason. Passing projects between different studios during production sounds like an awful idea.
 
MercenarySnake said:
Maybe Boston likes using skeletons as decorations, attracts more customers. Maybe in the Bethesdian Fallouts there was a special medicine created to make everyone's skeletons well preserved and last for 100s of years.
Click to expand...
I'm betting the people on Sugarbombed would say something as ridiculous as that. They said pretty much the same when i pointed out cans don't last longer than 50 years, even under the best canning processes and storage methods.
 
TomJ said:
I'm betting the people on Sugarbombed would say something as ridiculous as that. They said pretty much the same when i pointed out cans don't last longer than 50 years, even under the best canning processes and storage methods.
Click to expand...

Yeah, shouldn't we see a lot more degradation over two whole centuries? Not just skeletons, but clothing, packaging, anything organic- hell, shouldn't we see all the concrete crumbled to only chunks, the metal rusted and corroded beyond any structural support, and the wood rotten out from over 210 years without maintenance and exposure to the elements? I would think things in 200 years would be totally unrecognizable.
 
Of course not, didn't you know the bombs chose specific parts of these places to be trashed like the Glowing Sea. After all why would you see degradation of things when you can wear mutated clothes that make you better at something just by wearing them. :lol:
 
It's a shame the Commonwealth hadn't shown any signs of decay, it would have been really cool to roam around a basically unrecognizable gutted city that had slowly melted away due to time and neglect, seems as though that would have been a better place to build story and themes around as well... Oh well maybe the next fallout game will take note.
 
Izak said:
It's a shame the Commonwealth hadn't shown any signs of decay, it would have been really cool to roam around a basically unrecognizable gutted city that had slowly melted away due to time and neglect, seems as though that would have been a better place to build story and themes around as well... Oh well maybe the next fallout game will take note.
Click to expand...

Where the settlements are built competently, like any normal human being would do, unlike in Megaton where it's basically just twisted scrap metal everywhere into vaguely house-shaped buildings. Where the settlements aren't built out of any existing structures because existing structures are almost non-existent- no aircraft carriers (sorry Rivet City, but how do you get a carrier up the Potomac?) and no ballparks (Bethesda "dropped the ball" on making it feel like Fenway).
 
Fenway made some sense to me, it seems logical that it would be involved in emergency procedures and that people who survived the bombs would settle there and keep in a relatively good state of repair. The problem with Diamond city is that it doesn't stand out in anyway, it should have been a "Diamond in the rough" not some stupid copy and paste homeless shelter where everyone lives in scrap metal shacks, it should be the Vault City of the Massachusetts, but I forget myself according to Bethesda people cant create legitimate cities within 200 years without the help of Magical Mcguffin's.
 
The reason for the scrap metal shanty towns is that Bethesda really wanted to build a Mad Max-esque post-apocalyptic environment a la Junktown. I have no idea why they chose to set it 200 years after the bombs. They could've just set it 25-50 years afterward but on the East Coast rather than the West Coast. They ended up with a Flanderized mess that makes little sense if you think about it for more than half a minute. I assume they probably just weren't confident in their ability to portray Fallout without throwing the Brotherhood, Super Mutants and the Enclave into the game.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that would have been any better, people would have been really pissed if super mutants and synths were running around the East coast before/during/slightly after the events of Fallout 1.
 
Well that's true but my point about synths still stands, stupid damn replicant's existing mere decades after the war, it's slightly better that they exist centuries after the war but it's still pretty dumb.
 
Last edited:
ZigzagPX4 said:
Dragon Age: Inquisition did this too, and I'm highly confident Mass Effect: Andromeda will be the same way. Too many companies want to reach the number of hours in content that the Witcher 3 brought, and are unwilling to spend that much time into actually writing a story, so they just throw in as much filler as they can. The Witcher 3 changed the face of modern RPG development and no one is willing admit this yet. I'm just waiting for Cyberpunk 2077 to roll along and hammer the point home so hard, companies will have to actually make coherent RPGs or just give up the genre to proper developers entirely.

They all want bragging rights. "We've got over 400 hours of content!" And just under 50 hours of that content is the actual main plot and all the unique side quests. The rest are fetch quests and dungeon clearings. The reason Inquisition got away with it and Fallout 4 didn't was because their game didn't come out a complete mess and had prettier graphics. Oh, and the plot was much more plausible to comprehend. It doesn't make Inquisition a good game, it's just does what it sets out to do better than Fallout 4 does.

But it's not going to get away for long. MMOs are online for a reason, and as a result there's a reason why MMOs don't work offline. The social parts and the living game economy are what makes MMOs work. You take that away and you've got a pointless time-waster better used reading a book.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I would actually want to see more games going in the direction of Witcher 1 and Dragon Age 1 for once. Not that I think Dragon Age 1 had an awesome story or something. It was mediocre. But what made it different to all those open-world stuff we have now, was the map. Closed instances, similar to Fallout and Baldurs Gate.

Now, I don't have ANY problem with open world games in general. I loved Gothic and Outcast - super old, but awesome open world game, and it did a lot of stuff, long before other games had them. Like mounts, crafting and such. And given the details, the world was huge.

It's just that more and more popular RPGs and even action games turn into open world or pseudo open world games :/. They lack diversity. I think 2077 will be awesome. But, I hope they won't make it open world just because it's popular or something.
 
Izak said:
Well that's true but my point about synths still stands, stupid damn replicant's existing mere decades after the war, it's slightly better that they exist centuries after the war but it's still pretty dumb.
Click to expand...
Synths are pretty dumb in general. They don't fit into the rest of the game very well whether it's 20, 200 or 2000 years after the war. Oooh, robots that look like people, so much spookier than the armies of very visible and ever-present monsters and psychopaths trying to murder us day in and day out. At least Bethesda came up with it on their own, I guess, but it's difficult to believe that no one in development ever stopped and said "hmm, maybe in this godawful shithole we've created where raiders, evil mercenaries and super orcs outnumber regular people 10 to 1, some synth shooting up a bar might not be all that big a deal".
 
Yeah I think I agree with maybe 40% of some of the arguments presented here. The rest, I feel is just there for validation's sake, to justify that it really is a hollow experience and to solidify holding the position of being against it.
 
D Borous said:
Yeah I think I agree with maybe 40% of some of the arguments presented here. The rest, I feel is just there for validation's sake, to justify that it really is a hollow experience and to solidify holding the position of being against it.
Click to expand...
Which technically is all arguments here, in some way or another.
 
Latomus said:
Yeah, shouldn't we see a lot more degradation over two whole centuries? Not just skeletons, but clothing, packaging, anything organic- hell, shouldn't we see all the concrete crumbled to only chunks, the metal rusted and corroded beyond any structural support, and the wood rotten out from over 210 years without maintenance and exposure to the elements? I would think things in 200 years would be totally unrecognizable.
Click to expand...

Don't you know that the first thing that gives way to a nuclear apocalypse is entropy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top