Fallout 4 teased? Three Dog returning

[Ilosar]

The Androids were stupid, the Railroad even worse. In a post-apocalyptic hellhole with barely any livable places beyond Rivet City and Megaton, who the fuck cares about android rights? Is there enough people who acually care to form a railroad? Is there enough escaped androids to warrant forming a railroad? It's stupid. They wanted to make a poorly disguised ''theme'' about slavery and railroads because there's the Lincoln Monument in this game and, dammit, we're going to milk that symbol for all it's worth and then some.

I don't hate Fallout 3 as much as some here. But Bethesda are mostly shit writers who aren't fit to make a proper Fallout game, there's absolutely no denying that.

 

[Hassknecht]

Time and time we are being told that cRPGs don't sell, that isometric perspective and turn based combat is obsolete and violence is hilarious.

Well, can you prove that cRPGs do sell? Actual proof that is... Do you think that Bethesda's market researchers are morons?

Again, blaim Black Isle for ruining Fallout, not the buyer who *saved* the game and give it a decent continuation. Which again, I enjoy playing. Mainly because of excellent voice acting and the myriads of mods. Have you seen Fallout 3 with high-resolution textures? It's so... vivid. Like you're actually there, breathing the radioactive wasteland air...

I think that your argument with cRPGs is like our fathers or grandfathers who constantly remind us that "They don't make movies like that anymore..." Which is exactly what we're going to tell our children.

No, cRPGs don't sell all that well. At least not enough for AAA production value. But those who want a cRPG don't need that production value. Voice acting for every character? Nope, who cares.
High res graphics, oh the imurshn! Graphics are not all. People wanted a cRPG and not a hiking simulator.
And yes, it's the same argument. Only that finally they DO make those games again.

@Dukeanumberone:
Sure, those would be better, but they still don't make any sense as farmhands. Actually, those make no sense anywhere. Manual labour can be done way better by specialized machines, which are also most likely cheaper to produce. And I doubt that anyone would want a naked skeleton as a personal servant if they can have a perfectly human looking one.

 

[Ilosar]

Well, can you prove that cRPGs do sell? Actual proof that is... Do you think that Bethesda's market researchers are morons?

There's no question that Bethesda-style open world games sell more, albeit I wouldn't write off CRPGs as a loss if they get a sufficient advertising campaign. The point is, it's not even a question of what sells. Bethesda doesn't make CRPGs. They've basically been remaking Morrowind with new coats of paint since 2000. They will never change the formula, especially since Skyrim sold so well. But that formula is not perfect for Fallout, albeit New Vegas has shown it can be well adapted still.

Again, blaim Black Isle for ruining Fallout, not the buyer who *saved* the game and give it a decent continuation. Which again, I enjoy playing. Mainly because of excellent voice acting and the myriads of mods. Have you seen Fallout 3 with high-resolution textures? It's so... vivid. Like you're actually there, breathing the radioactive wasteland air...

Waitwaitwait, FO3 has excellent voice acting? Damn. Sorry, but your standards must by abysmally low. Half the cast sounds bored (especially Liam Neeson), the other half overracts like crazy, and there's, what, 15 voices for all the hundreds of NPCs in the game?

You have a point that Interplay did worse for the franchise than Bethesda. Still, the fact that there are worse doesn't mean the bad should be ignored.

I think that your argument with cRPGs is like our fathers or grandfathers who constantly remind us that "They don't make movies like that anymore..." Which is exactly what we're going to tell our children.

You can throw these fallacies all day long, it remains that Bethesda games have nowhere near the interactivity and consequence-laden narrative of the original Fallouts, or even New Vegas. Their world building basically amounts to adding ''cool'' stuff that make little sense, their writing mostly sucks, their quest design is sometimes good sometimes bad, and they laugh at the very notion of consequences for your actions and actually making important choices.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Also:
LULZ at people defending this "android" thing in F3. Seriously, even if it is one of the better questlines, its still stupid for a setting like Fallout - at least the way how Beth has done it.

There's no question that Bethesda-style open world games sell more, albeit I wouldn't write off CRPGs as a loss if they get a sufficient advertising campaign. The point is, it's not even a question of what sells. Bethesda doesn't make CRPGs. They've basically been remaking Morrowind with new coats of paint since 2000. They will never change the formula, especially since Skyrim sold so well. But that formula is not perfect for Fallout, albeit New Vegas has shown it can be well adapted still.

Though I think the effort to "squeeze" Vegas in to this Bethesdian Fallout version is actually the part which hurted new Vegas the most.

Not only the fact that the engine they had to deal with was rather unsuited for the design Obsidian had in mind, but it made the world somewhat not feeling like a wasteland in some parts - mainly the same issues like in F3, a small world, unbelievable locations etc. Don't get me wrong Vegas was for it self a pretty solid and good game. But its somewhat obvious that a game like Fallout which has actually a different idea then exploration for the sake of exploration requires a different mindset and design. Open World games are not bad. If done well. And they sure can be games with great quality, Skyrim for example is a "good" game. But to squeeze a game like Fallout in to this open-world idea that is so popular right now seems counterproductive.

It doesn't mean that Fallout never contained a sense of exploration and secrets. But those had actually one way or another some meaning. How impressive would a place like the glow be if you had to do it for your "quest" (Brotherhood of Steel etc.) and 2 or 3 hours later you roam trough a couple of places with almost the same feeling. Same with the army depot in F2 which contained here and there some really nice informations about the time before the bombs droped, nothing much but it really helps to build the game. That is the problem I have not only with F3 but also with Vegas. To many vaults. To many dungeons, filled with enemies, loot and content that has clearly NO other purpose then to fill the stash of the player etc.

For a game like Diablo that is what I want, an endless dungeon where you face stronger monsters with each level and gaining loot on your way. Thats wonderful! (and something the community in D3 is asking for since the game was released) But not for game like Fallout.

What's so bad about androids you ask? It doesn't fit with Fallout at all.
The Fallout-universe depicts an alternate world and an alternate history.
One in which semiconductors were just invented before the war and advanced microprocessors not possible (apart from some prototypes, I think).
Most electronics are based on advanced vacuum tubes, and since electrical power is widely available, that's fine.
Fallout is based around the World Of Tomorrow, the future how the people of the 50's imagined it.
The robots have no real intelligence, they are well programmed automatons (except for Skynet, but that thing is borderline canonical).
Before the war, robot technology looked like the robot from Lost Planet.
And now someone can just build perfectly human robots with intelligence, emotions and everything JUST TO LET THEM WORK ON A FARM?
Seriously, I consider that an insult to everyone's intelligence.
It just doesn't make sense at all. I like the Blade Runner-esque implications and possible plotlines, but not in Fallout. Not at all.

I would say, if Beth would really do that for F4 ... I would be already happy. Seriously, at this point we cant expect from them anymore to do something in the spirit of Fallout. I would be already happy about "decent" writting ...

But I would not be surprised if the concept will be just what you described in the end. Androids made for farming which now start a rebellion, and *kablam* the player appears (either from some strange super duper crazy vault programm again or right from DC) and he now has the option to side with the androids or the scientists.

 

[ArtWhiz]

It's interesting to see all this pros and cons arguments for androids in Fallout 4 -- even if there are only rumors. Personally, I did not cared about the android story. Never met him and gave the android component to Zimmer every... single... time.

An android that "bleeds, sleeps and eats like a human." Who cares? People are dying everywhere, struggling to survive and I should care about a machine? Riiight... I don't consider the android as being an important part of the story. But I don't find it that surprising either, giving the fact that robobrains have, well, brains. After all, it's just a game. On another note, what aliens have to do with the Fallout world? Should be interesting to hear your arguments on this one...

 

[Hassknecht]

Well, aliens are a rather fuzzy thing in Fallout. They're mostly encountered as non-canon easter eggs, but there are some things in Fallout 1 and 2 that are apparently based off alien technology, the Psychic Nullifier and Skynet.
Although both accounts are not exactly to be trusted.
Other than that, there are no aliens in Fallout so far.
Mothership Zeta was an extended easter egg

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Stanislao Moulinsky

Because, as said, they make no sense. Producing robots can't be cheap and easy in the post apocalypctic world. Imagine producing androids with completely useless functions (covering them with living tissue, giving them follicles that can grow a beard and hair, giving them a digestive apparatus that I guess is used for their energy needs somehow despite food being a highly inefficient source of energy and so on) for what is just a low labor class. Harkness and co. aren't the Blade Runner kind of androids (artificial but fully organic), why go to all that trouble? Especially considering that they aren't pre-war tech that just got rediscovered.

First, i never said either cheap or easily, per harkness he underwent many surgeries in order to appear fully human and escape the Institute. And even then zimmer still tracked him to rivet city.

You never said it was cheap or easy, but the fact that it's not cheap or easy is one of the reasons that post-war mass produced androids are stupid.

And Harkness never did many surgeries "to appear fully human". He was the same way since the beginning, the surgery was just for the face.

One of the holotapes of the quest:

"Hey doc, I’m only sharing this with you because you seem like someone we can trust. Have you heard about the synthetic men they make up north in the Commonwealth? Well, the rumors are true. They’re called androids. They're men like us, just made out of different parts. I know one of these androids. He's looking for a trustworthy doctor to perform some facial surgery."

 

[Hassknecht]

Also, he underwent surgery to look like someone else so he wouldn't be captured as easily. He always looked human.

 

[Dukeanumberone]

Hassknecht

@Dukeanumberone:
Sure, those would be better, but they still don't make any sense as farmhands. Actually, those make no sense anywhere. Manual labour can be done way better by specialized machines, which are also most likely cheaper to produce. And I doubt that anyone would want a naked skeleton as a personal servant if they can have a perfectly human looking one.

Difference of opinion, that we will never agree on I guess

Stanislao Moulinsky

You never said it was cheap or easy, but the fact that it's not cheap or easy is one of the reasons that post-war mass produced androids are stupid.

And Harkness never did many surgeries "to appear fully human". He was the same way since the beginning, the surgery was just for the face.

Ok, got me on the surgeries thing been a while since I've done that quest. But quoting cheap or easily in a game that really has no central economy is kind of ridiculous. Besides we are talking about the institute which has been built up as technologically superior with much more resources than anywhere else in the waste.


Ilosar

it remains that Bethesda games have nowhere near the interactivity and consequence-laden narrative of the original Fallouts

Interactivity seems mis worded considering you can interact with nearly everything in the game world, but lacking in consequence-laden narrative of the original Fallouts is spot on.

Crni

. But its somewhat obvious that a game like Fallout which has actually a different idea then exploration for the sake of exploration requires a different mindset and design.

I get what you are saying, more importance on story, dialogue , quest design, connected-ness of your actions and their affect on the game world, and I agree those should be the main focus of the fallout games. But I disagree that the exploration for sake of exploration should be removed, it should be up to the PC to decide how to play and what to do, give options not take them away right?

Too many vaults. Too many dungeons, filled with enemies, loot and content that has clearly NO other purpose then to fill the stash of the player etc.

Here is a solution, don't go in them, don't keep the loot.
Why are you expecting the game developer to limit you?
And the clearest solution is to mod in/out what you don't like.
No matter what kind of a game comes next it will never make
100% of people 100% happy.

.

For a game like Diablo that is what I want, an endless dungeon where you face stronger monsters with each level and gaining loot on your way. Thats wonderful! (and something the community in D3 is asking for since the game was released) But not for game like Fallout

I get that, Fallout should be more about the story, and I am against level scaling down, but for level scaling up.

LULZ at people defending this "android" thing in F3

its one dude, me. And I am not defending the "android" thing in F3, as that is pointless and a matter of preference, but rather proposing that Androids are not that big of a stretch for the IP as a whole.

Not only the fact that the engine they had to deal with was rather unsuited for the design Obsidian had in mind, but it made the world somewhat not feeling like a wasteland in some parts - mainly the same issues like in F3, a small world, unbelievable locations etc.

Well I am starting a rewrite/supermod for FO3 to bring it more in line with FO1, here is your chance to voice your opinions and have them mean something
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63059

I really want the community input and ideally this to be a community project.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I get what you are saying, more importance on story, dialogue , quest design, connected-ness of your actions and their affect on the game world, and I agree those should be the main focus of the fallout games. But I disagree that the exploration for sake of exploration should be removed, it should be up to the PC to decide how to play and what to do, give options not take them away right?

No, sorry thats not how "design" works.

Its because you will get at some point a situation where two different design concepts clash together and then you HAVE to make a choice either for the one or the other.

Its like throwing together Steak and Cake. The one is an main dish the other an dessert.

There can be situations where you borrow design ideas from each other. I am not saying you shouldn't try experiments. But there are things which simply dont work well together and you see it when one of the design ideas has to suffer. If two designs fitt well together nothing suffers usually because you dont have to make a compromise. They complement each other. This can be seen for example very well in colour theory. There are colours which simply dont work well together, other colours create very great compositions. I will not go in to the emotions of colours because thats a topic for itself. And yes, I know there are exceptions, but they are very very limited. In general certain colours simply dont mix well for your projects.

This isnt about taste, its about design philosophy. Like chosing a certain viewpoint on purpose. Like Birds view or first person for example. The first is many times used for games where they want you to guide your character trough the world, where you chose his stats and based on those stats he will have success or fail. First person is chosen if they want you to assume the role of the character, to be the character this is many times where player skill comes in to play.

In PnP games usually you do not play with your skills, but with the skills of your character. This can go even so far that you have a situation where you know the answer but your character does not and thus he will fail - eventually. This can be frustrating for some because they dont like this "stats decide if I have success". But then I have to say, well you dont fitt in to the target audience maybe?

 

[Dukeanumberone]

No, sorry thats not how "design" works

Says who?

Its because you will get at some point a situation where two different design concepts clash together and then you HAVE to make a choice either for the one or the other.

So what? What if 4/5 substance wins and 1/5 style wins?
Will that ruin the game if 20% of it is just there to be explored ?
Not in my book, and still a debate of personal preference.

Its like throwing together Steak and Cake. The one is an main dish the other an dessert.

Ha joke is on you, I eat my steak dessert to your dismay.

There can be situations where you borrow design ideas from each other. I am not saying you shouldn't try experiments. But there are things which simply dont work well together and you see it when one of the design ideas has to suffer. If two designs fit well together nothing suffers usually because you dont have to make a compromise. They complement each other.

This seems a lot more reasonable and plausible to me.

This isnt about taste, its about design philosophy. Like chosing a certain viewpoint on purpose.

Right, so lets debate how having a minority of the game which is simply there to be discovered, and has no core purpose on the game world, will ruin what good there would be if all the other issue I listed were dealt with.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Time and time we are being told that cRPGs don't sell, that isometric perspective and turn based combat is obsolete and violence is hilarious.

Well, can you prove that cRPGs do sell? Actual proof that is... Do you think that Bethesda's market researchers are morons?

Again, blaim Black Isle for ruining Fallout, not the buyer who *saved* the game and give it a decent continuation. Which again, I enjoy playing. Mainly because of excellent voice acting and the myriads of mods. Have you seen Fallout 3 with high-resolution textures? It's so... vivid. Like you're actually there, breathing the radioactive wasteland air...

I think that your argument with cRPGs is like our fathers or grandfathers who constantly remind us that "They don't make movies like that anymore..." Which is exactly what we're going to tell our children.

The problem is here, that we are talking about a niche market, neither cRPGs nor Turn Based combat are "outdated" because they are a design choice. Visuals can be outdated, like graphics, depending on the style and idea behind it though they can become a "classic". Certain games age very well, others get forgotten very fast. Why? Hard to tell. Its usually depends on a lot of things. But fact is that a lot of old games have still fanbases around them, like the mario series, and honestly people still enjoy the typical mario style-gameplay like as we have seen it thousand times be it in mario world or super mario bros.

It only is a problem if you try to reach with an established niche title a somewhat broader audience.

No, sorry thats not how "design" works

Says who?

I say that, and I am a graphic designer, so I know the one or other thing about it.

Again, throw some steak with BBQ dip inside a bowl with apple pie and whip cream and see how far you can go.

Certain designs simply dont match witch each other very well, because you ALWAYS have to sacrifice something in the concept. You have to make choices. What has been sometimes done is to take a known concept (shooter gameplay for example) and take "certain" elements from other designs, like choices & concequences and including them in to your concept this can work very well. Deus Ex did this, and it was pretty good. But this is because the shooter mechanics and first person gameplay had not to compete with the RPG elements so it allowed for a smoth and fluid gameplay experience. When ever you start to mix typical cRPG mechanics in to a first person game you will never have the same quality like in a clear shooter or pure cRPG, simply because the principles behind each game are contrary. And even if you or I "can" enjoy it the experience is still subpar compared to a game for example that was made without any RPG elements and is a game with a strong focus on the story, the exploration and gameplay. Seriously. Remove ALL the stat points from F3 and the game would not suffer really. Make it a straight forward shooter and I believe it would lead to better results in the end because now you can spend more time on making the combat mechanics fluid.

 

[ArtWhiz]

Rumors are that Fallout 4 will take place in the Boston area, involve the Institute and enslaved and rebelling androids, but no Brotherhood of Steel or super mutants... Seriously? Enslaved androids?! Like one wasn't more that enough...?

Maybe they would also add killing radroaches with WD40 in Fallout 4. Makes as much sense as rebelling androidS. Honestly, I was fine with one single android, because I didn't had to deal with it. More more androids? That would suck big time...

 

[Dukeanumberone]

I say that, and I am a graphic designer, so I know the one or other thing about it.

LOLZ. I didn't know you had the definitive viewpoint. I noticed something in that sentence "a" not "THE". Your "a" graphic designer with your own preferences and standards, not to be confused with a singular authoritarian governance on the topic.

Again, throw some steak with BBQ dip inside a bowl with apple pie and whip cream and see how far you can go.

There you go again blindly assuming we all have the same tastes.
Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles. BAM
http://roscoeschickenandwaffles.com/
If you ever come stateside you should really check it out, it might broaden your horizons. It is delicious. (subjective viewpoint)

because you ALWAYS have to sacrifice something in the concept.

There it is right there, you always have to sacrifice. No media exists in a perfect vacuum, there are always bits sacrificed, hopefully for the good of the game.

When ever you start to mix typical cRPG mechanics in to a first person game you will never have the same quality like in a clear shooter or pure cRPG

Right but open-worldly ness is not a simple mechanic.
It is simply part of the world, if you had holotapes everywhere in Fallout 1 simply explaining every aspect of the story,in detail, it would have taken away from the experience. No instead, they are far and few between and when they do show up they have that much more impact. So exploring without a purpose isn't your thing, doesn't mean it is not "anybody's" thing. And it has no bearing on actual game play mechanics.

Make it a straight forward shooter and I believe it would lead to better results in the end because now you can spend more time on making the combat mechanics fluid.

I agree but that was nowhere near my argument.

We are too apart on this and obviously you aren't able to clearly see what my point is so I'm done with it.

 

[Akratus]

It's interesting to see all this pros and cons arguments for androids in Fallout 4 -- even if there are only rumors. Personally, I did not cared about the android story. Never met him and gave the android component to Zimmer every... single... time.

An android that "bleeds, sleeps and eats like a human." Who cares? People are dying everywhere, struggling to survive and I should care about a machine? Riiight... I don't consider the android as being an important part of the story. But I don't find it that surprising either, giving the fact that robobrains have, well, brains. After all, it's just a game. On another note, what aliens have to do with the Fallout world? Should be interesting to hear your arguments on this one...

WAIT! That's it! They SHOULD make an android game. (If the alternative is something equally badly made and written and designed without androids) Because then I can go around killing and massacring these non-humans just to spite the npc's who care so god damn much about machines in a world where people are going extinct almost.

 

[Crni Vuk]

LOLZ. I didn't know you had the definitive viewpoint. I noticed something in that sentence "a" not "THE". Your "a" graphic designer with your own preferences and standards, not to be confused with a singular authoritarian governance on the topic.

yeah, screw people that have acutally education and all that fuzz. I know how this sounds, but I guess I do have somewhat a skill around art and the one or other thing with design.

And believe it or not, but when it is about design not EVERYTHING is about taste. There are clear patterns and rules which can be used to achieve certain effects for example. Colour theories are not just for fun out there either for example. Things like composition, empty (white) spaces, how to make your work stand out like working with uneven/odd numbers of objects etc.

Thats why some great arists dont have to be at the same time as well great designers. And yes it does change the quality of work. You can see the difference with professional illustrators and concept artists and when you compare their work with those which do not pay as much attention to their work.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naV1QseJC4k&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

And the same can be said about movies, books and other form of media/entertainment even games yeah. Does it mean you have ALWAYS to follow those rules?

No obviously not. A good artists or lets say a person that is very skilled in his field should know when he can neglect those rules.

Thats where you have to seperate pure "art" from "design" or "illustrations" for example. Becaues with art has a lot more freedom in what you want to achieve. Illustrations for example should always have a certain "quality" because graphic design is about communication (mainly with visuals, like pictures)

There you go again blindly assuming we all have the same tastes.
Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles. BAM
http://roscoeschickenandwaffles.com/
If you ever come stateside you should really check it out, it might broaden your horizons. It is delicious. (subjective viewpoint)

Again. This is NOT about taste. It is about what works and what doesnt. its about common sense. General rules. What has worked for a long time - I never said there cant be exceptions because those prove the rules.

But I mean this literaly, throw some of this:

in the EXACT same bowl with this:

And tell me if those together are better then each single dish.

Right but open-worldly ness is not a simple mechanic.
It is simply part of the world, if you had holotapes everywhere in Fallout 1 simply explaining every aspect of the story,in detail, it would have taken away from the experience. No instead, they are far and few between and when they do show up they have that much more impact. So exploring without a purpose isn't your thing, doesn't mean it is not "anybody's" thing. And it has no bearing on actual game play mechanics.

The issue is that you go with "taste" I am talking about "design" and why a certain design is chosen. This reminds me to discussions about why turn based is not outdated because its not a mechanic like visuals but a "choice" like someone who prefers bicycling to a motocross bike even though the motocross is faster and more powerfull. It is about what you expect. The experience you are looking for. This is why a simulation like Arma has a different priority like Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament for example. In the case of a game like Fallout exploration was not the main focus of the game and thus it never played such a huge role like in a game like Daggerfall where the whole world was randomised content or a game like Diablo where the focus is on killing endless waves of creatures for randomised loot. Certain games have their strength and their playerbase, their target audience. By mixing for example a sand box experience together with cRPG elements it is very likely that one of those concepts will suffer. And you will eventually alinate some part of the target audience. Now dont get me wrong, I do not have any problem at all with games that have a focus on exploration. I played Morrowind for a very long time and I love it. But I would not get the idea to force the quality of Morrowind on a game like Baldurs Gate for example.

And it has no bearing on actual game play mechanics.

This is as well wrong. There is only so much you can achieve because its a reality that gamedevelopment has not access to unlimited resources and time - which project has anyway?.

I am sure someone could try to make a game which is pleasing everyone, giving you access to a great, rich world where every of your actions matters and where you have thousand of miles to explore with deep dungeons and fat loot. But then the project might never finish. You have to set a priority like either on "exploration" or what makes their "sand box game" or on very intense cRPG mechanics or Shooter gameplay etc. what ever they decide to get as well in the game. And then you still have to deal with those situations where certain designs clearly are in conflict with each other (RPG skill mechanic vs. direct player skill). Imagine a game like CS based on "dices" for example. Not very great for such a game. But in a top down cRPG that is what you expect. This has nothing to do if one or the other is "better" or "worse". It is about expectations.

 

[Dukeanumberone]

Crni Vuk

I was going to go line by line and try to bridge a gap, but you are arguing theory, which is nice, and you probably are right in those terms. But I was arguing more about reality.
You can argue till your blue in the face that Fallout "in theory" belongs as an isometric, tbc, with talking heads, but the reality is that this line-->

Certain games have their strength and their playerbase, their target audience

is not about you or people who think along the same lines of absolution in terms of FALLOUT. We both know the target fan base for the new games really could give 2 shits about most of the things I said should be the priority with a minimal focus on exploration. Instead it will probably be more of a mix of Fo3/ with some of the new implemented mechanics of FNV. It very well may go completely against your theories of how things should be in an idealist design vacuum.

It is about expectations.

Well fallout hasn't been a top down cRPG for a very long time, has it?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Reality? What do you mean by that? That some company like Bethesda (and before them Interplay) decided to make out of the Fallout games something they never have been in the first place? With the exception that Bethesda was successful (in selling it to the masses).

I am not talking about quality here mind you.

Look, lets get "real" then. Beth is a company with a certain formula which has not changed since Morrowind. Albeit some might argue they have become more "bland" in what they do. - And I somewhat agree when comparing Morrowind to Oblivion, I was really hyped about Oblivion because I loved Morrowind, but well ... decide for your self Oblivion review

They, Bethesda, imposed their Oblivion-Morrowind Formula over the Fallout concept not making a symbiosis here or even trying to get even close to what made Fallout a quality RPG - Fighting the good fight with your voice ...
The reason why this works for Beth is because they sacrifice Fallout for Oblivion. Literally. Its what their player base likes. We had tons of those discussions on their forum about that before the game was released. The Beth people enjoy it to wander in some cave full with random enemies to find this super-duper-fat-man on the end of the cave. Neat. But thats not Fallout for me.

You know there is nothing wrong with Beth games for the people that enjoy them. And thats fine for me. But reality is they made Fallout in to something it never was supposed to be. You like that. Fine, I respect that. But don't act like its "reality" how to design a game. See kick starter projects. See Fallout Vegas. See Diablo 3 and why its "top down" and not "third person" or "first person".

If we ignore for a moment that Vegas is first person/real time gameplay it offers a lot more quality content compared to F3.

And I am really NOT happy with the way Beth is designing their games because with in Todds own words, they "skip" the design phase. And that is I am afraid one of the reasons which can lead to major plot holes and even bad quality in writing. Maybe if they had a proper "concept phase" or what ever you want to call it they might have avoided situations where your companions flat out refuse to perform actions for you that kill you but leave them COMPLETELY unharmed because someone decided "Fallout 3 has to be about sacrifice!". Or a strange plot where the super evil boss decided its all pointless now because you the player said so and now he kills himself ... wow. And Beth got awards in writing for that ... (I am not expecting poetry here, but seriously a bit more quality cant hurt either I mean a 12 year old might writte some better stuff ... )




Well fallout hasn't been a top down cRPG for a very long time, has it?
Its what the original developers chose for the game. They did it on purpose. I don't know what that has to do with anything. Both first person games and top down cRPGs have a long tradition on the PC. And both made PC gaming what it is today. just that the one is a "niche" genre.

 

[Dukeanumberone]

Crni

Reality? What do you mean by that? That some company like Bethesda (and before them Interplay) decided to make out of the Fallout games something they never have been in the first place? With the exception that Bethesda was successful (in selling it to the masses).

I am not talking about quality here mind you.

Look, lets get "real" then. Beth is a company with a certain formula which has not changed since Morrowind. Albeit some might argue they have become more "bland" in what they do. - And I somewhat agree when comparing Morrowind to Oblivion, I was really hyped about Oblivion because I loved Morrowind, but well ... decide for your self Oblivion review

They, Bethesda, imposed their Oblivion-Morrowind Formula over the Fallout concept not making a symbiosis here or even trying to get even close to what made Fallout a quality RPG - Fighting the good fight with your voice ...
The reason why this works for Beth is because they sacrifice Fallout for Oblivion. Literally. Its what their player base likes. We had tons of those discussions on their forum about that before the game was released. The Beth people enjoy it to wander in some cave full with random enemies to find this super-duper-fat-man on the end of the cave. Neat. But thats not Fallout for me.

You know there is nothing wrong with Beth games for the people that enjoy them. And thats fine for me. But reality is they made Fallout in to something it never was supposed to be. You like that. Fine, I respect that. But don't act like its "reality" how to design a game. See kick starter projects. See Fallout Vegas. See Diablo 3 and why its "top down" and not "third person" or "first person".

If we ignore for a moment that Vegas is first person/real time gameplay it offers a lot more quality content compared to F3.

And I am really NOT happy with the way Beth is designing their games because with in Todds own words, they "skip" the design phase. And that is I am afraid one of the reasons which can lead to major plot holes and even bad quality in writing. Maybe if they had a proper "concept phase" or what ever you want to call it they might have avoided situations where your companions flat out refuse to perform actions for you that kill you but leave them COMPLETELY unharmed because someone decided "Fallout 3 has to be about sacrifice!". Or a strange plot where the super evil boss decided its all pointless now because you the player said so and now he kills himself ... wow. And Beth got awards in writing for that ... (I am not expecting poetry here, but seriously a bit more quality cant hurt either I mean a 12 year old might writte some better stuff ... )




Well fallout hasn't been a top down cRPG for a very long time, has it?
Its what the original developers chose for the game. They did it on purpose. I don't know what that has to do with anything. Both first person games and top down cRPGs have a long tradition on the PC. And both made PC gaming what it is today. just that the one is a "niche" genre.

This whole derail started after I said

I get what you are saying, more importance on story, dialogue , quest design, connected-ness of your actions and their affect on the game world, and I agree those should be the main focus of the fallout games. But I disagree that the exploration for sake of exploration should be removed, it should be up to the PC to decide how to play and what to do, give options not take them away right?

and then you went on to a lecture about game design in general, which is fine as it was informative. Yes, I have read your design manifesto and agree with most of the points you make, but they are points made in moot. WHY? well because as you put it

That some company like Bethesda (and before them Interplay) decided to make out of the Fallout games something they never have been in the first place?

so here we are, now, 2013, awaiting Fallout 4. If you can't look to the future of the series, why even post on the F4 threads?
It has changed, expecting a "PURE CRPG" experience out of any future FALLOUTS as long as Beth holds the license is ridiculous and borderline crazy. It will remain somewhat of a "HYBRID" because if it ain't broke(in regards to sales) why fix it? I hope it does get better in regards to writing and game mechanics but I know it won't be going back to "Classic" FALLOUT anytime soon.

They, Bethesda, imposed their Oblivion-Morrowind Formula over the Fallout concept not making a symbiosis here or even trying to get even close to what made Fallout a quality RPG

what do you mean? things like-->>

importance on story, dialogue , quest design, connected-ness of your actions and their affect on the game world, and I agree those should be the main focus of the fallout games.

Things I said I wanted and DIDN"T say were well done in 3.
Things I pointed out that should be more of a focus than random exploration, without neutering that part completely?

I would also like to see a more in depth version of the SPECIAL system, STATS in general, perks more focused and a better blending of actions to action points. I never said I wanted a carbon copy of F3, which seems to be the words you are trying to put in my mouth.>>

But reality is they made Fallout in to something it never was supposed to be. You like that. Fine, I respect that. But don't act like its "reality" how to design a game.

If we ignore for a moment that Vegas is first person/real time gameplay it offers a lot more quality content compared to F3.

You mean more along the lines of what I said I wanted?

Well fallout hasn't been a top down cRPG for a very long time, has it?
Its what the original developers chose for the game. They did it on purpose. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

.
It was in regards to your statement about expectations. Your expectations being in line with the original FALLOUTS, the series has changed, its not "PURE" and it won't be for a long time.


I understand the crux of your argument, that sandbox exploration with no purpose directly connecting it to the main story or any quest will ruin the game.Or so you made it seem with this

When ever you start to mix typical cRPG mechanics in to a first person game you will never have the same quality like in a clear shooter or pure cRPG, simply because the principles behind each game are contrary.

At least thats what I gather considering you never addressed many of my points. I don't agree with that statement and obviously it didn't condemn the game for a lot of people. It will never be "PURE", yes you are right about that, it is not a "PURE CRPG" anymore, whether or not it was designed that way from the go is moot because as it stands , now , present day, it is a "HYBRID".

And even if you or I "can" enjoy it the experience is still subpar compared to a game for example that was made without any RPG elements and is a game with a strong focus on the story, the exploration and gameplay.

This is as subjective as you can get. Why because it is not pure?

***KEEP IN MIND I AM NOT ARGUING FOR F3, DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THAT IDEA. I AM SIMPLY REASONING THAT HAVING A PORTION OF THE NEXT GAME SIMPLY FOR EXPLORATION WILL NOT RUIN A GAME THAT HAS THE FOLLOWING ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR.

-Good writing / Story arc
-Good Dialogue
-Decisions that have lasting consequences over the game world
-Good quest design-with branching arcs
-Quality FACTIONS
-etc

So to reuse your steak and cake analogy, as long as they cook the steak (the ABOVE MENTION BULLET POINTS) I still want some cake (exploration for the sake of exploration). It is ok to put them in the same bowl, you know why? Because it all ends up in the same place.

 

[Maax]

Todd Howard is like the Michael Bay of video games, his games are flashy but once the new car smell wears off there's nothing of substance to hold you. They are popcorn games, designed to hit as many target audiences possible and achieve maximum revenue. Nothing I have read or seen from Bethesda's past efforts tells me Fallout 4 will be any different. One can only hope that they outsource the license to a third party for a spin-off, like they did with Obsidian (Fallout: New Vegas).