Five Lessons Fallout 4 Can Learn From Skyrim

I miss party based RPGs. Rogue levels up rogue skills. Healer levels up healer skills. And so on. A well rounded party could do anything when the time came. A well rounded single character takes most of the game to become capable of playing jack of all trades. Bethesda's awnser to this is the 3 door design.
Behind door no. 1 is a computer for science guys.
Door no. 2 is locked
Door no. 3 is a dark hallway for stealth or a hallway full of bad guys.
All doors lead to the same outcome. :roll:
 
Izual said:
So, just to be sure, everyone here thinks Fallout 3 > Skyrim? Or did I miss the point? :o

I can't say what others think, but as far as I'm concerned, Fallout 3 is just a bad dream, Skyrim is just Oblivion with a different graphics engine.
I know it might sound a bit extreme, but until I see a decent storyline (with an appropriate main quest), acceptable AI, more repercussions of my actions in the gameworld, NPC party, TB/RT alternative combat system, proper camera angles.... I don't care for whatever Bethesda comes up with.
 
warsaw said:
...so what you're saying is we need Skyrim with guns?

Well, considering how retarded Fallout 3 was and how much better than both Oblivion and Fallout 3 Skyrim is, I'd say that it would be a good thing if Fallout 4 managed to be just that...

Unless you still have hope for a true sequel to Fallout 2 of course.
 
The Sum Of The Parts

The Sum Of The Parts


Izual said:
So, just to be sure, everyone here thinks Fallout 3 > Skyrim? Or did I miss the point? :o

The colloquial demographic may spin in this "greater than" orbit.

Will only shadow gesture for myself.

My preference leans to science fantasy hand waving for the 'what if' fount of in game super powers.

My mind wanders when a possible Iron Age Norse mythology gets B-soft's brand of Tolkien de jour.

No plans for Skyrim, beyond how the ripple effect clouds or clarifies B-soft's development of FO4.

Interest in B-soft marketing another consumer focused extrusion.
B-soft packages a romantic experience, more towards pure puerile male pow-ah fantasy adventure with out B'O-ware's 'Dating Game'.
Curious when players hit "the wall" and cease in gushing intoxication, and start a 'morning after' hung over assessment, as with Oblivion.

Why try?

What if, in the realm of happy accidents, the 'hole B-soft may some day product manage, might be deeper than the sum of the populist parts. ;)




4too
 
Well I guess I know how to raise my Energy Weapons skill then:

1. Find Giant Radscorpion.
2. Pull out a halfassed laser pistol.
3. pewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewx250
4. Energy Weapons has increased to 100.
5. Profit?
 
Fallout 4 indeed shouldn't be Skyrim with guns, but most of the parts of this IGN article are true. They say "which Skyrim stuff could improve Fallout 3", not "what Fallout 4 should be".

MrBumble said:
warsaw said:
...so what you're saying is we need Skyrim with guns?

Well, considering how retarded Fallout 3 was and how much better than both Oblivion and Fallout 3 Skyrim is, I'd say that it would be a good thing if Fallout 4 managed to be just that...

Unless you still have hope for a true sequel to Fallout 2 of course.
This, definitely. Of course, not everything. Levelling, skills and perks should remain unchanged as well as many things.
But Skyrim, as much as I despise Bethesda, was 100 times more enjoyable than Fallout New Vegas. I don't expect Fallout 4 to be a great game, so I'd be fine if it was a post-apo-Skyrim. There's no "Obsidian miracle".
 
Alter the Morality System, it shouldn't lock out parts of the game
This increases the number of things you did in the game in a single playthrough, therefore reduces replayability and makes it more boring. In fact, more parts of the game should depend on personal choice. Would be a bad thing to do, at least from the perspective of a RPG fan.

Organic Leveling and Skill Progression
I haven't played Skyrim, but complicated skill systems with many possible choices are always nice (though the skill system used in Fallout isn't complicated, but it would work nicely if every skill is worth spending points on, because you can have tens of very different possible characters, especially having in mind perks, unfortunately it doesn't work in this way, because most of the skills/perks aren't worth it), it also increases replayability, and a title called "Fallout 4" needs replayability. However, the system that forces the player to use certain skills in order to increase them is horrible for a Fallout RPG. Would I have to talk to random people in order to increase my Speech, or will they remove it, because it can't be practiced without forcing the player to make speech checks? What else, make it a first-person real-time shooter? Oh, wait. Anyway, there isn't a strong connection between what are you planning for your character (for example, high lockpicking) and what are you doing - a character with a certain level of lockpicking should use it, no matter what are his plans for his lockpicking skill. So, it's basically a system that limits your actions to what are you planning with your character and makes some of your skills mostly unusable. Not fun. Oh, I forgot to mention that it feels more organic and allows you to better embody the character you're playing as. I guess that by "allows", they meant "forces", because you can do that without a shitty system, forcing it to do it.

A More Interesting World
I don't care too much the aesthetics of the world. It would be probably nice if they include more colors, as long as it's in a 50s high-tech way rather than a magical way.

An (Even) More Non-Linear Affair
I agree that the world should be more non-linear. I can't say if the beginning at Fallout 3 was too bad, because it forced the player to follow a certain path - it was some sort of an introduction (btw I remember how fast was it to give me the impression of a stupid game, because the player didn't had any doubts in killing a guard from the vault, and the guard was going to kill him as well, for no real reason) and I'm not sure if the implementation of the idea of Vault 101 was possible without it. I'm neutral about this one, Fallout 3 was linear enough (maybe it needed more quests and more content to some of the locations).

A Cleaner Aesthetic
Sounds nice. I don't care too much about this one.
 
Izual said:
But Skyrim, as much as I despise Bethesda, was 100 times more enjoyable than Fallout New Vegas.

What the fuck am I reading... Did we play different games? Could you elaborate on that?
 
Well, not everyone likes every type of game. And when it comes to genre, Skyrim and New Vegas are pretty different, despite the look.
 
That's why I was asking for an explanation. ;) When one says "a better game" I expect more than "well the landscapes are more pretty" - I was more interested what mechanics he thinks feel better than New Vegas, because I honestly don't see any.
 
I too find Skyrim more enjoyable than FNV.

Certainly not deeper in terms of roleplaying possibilities, choices and consequences ( there are almost none, it's a TES game ), but in terms of design, atmosphere, coherence, music, polish ( it's still a Bethsoft game, but at least it feels somewhat finished ), combat, and in terms of, like, not being boring too.

Also, when Izual says a "more interesting world" why do you assume it has merely to do with aesthetics ? It's the same shit-engine with a few newer effects here and there so it doesn't have to do with that. It has way more to do with interesting architecture, topography and design than it has to do with its looks...
 
Izual said:
So, just to be sure, everyone here thinks Fallout 3 > Skyrim? Or did I miss the point? :o

No, Skyrim is better than Fallout 3, if by nothing else than much better writing and world design.

Skyrim doesn't really hold a candle to New Vegas. The combat is even worse, the main story is much less interesting, the setting is a matter of taste, the character system is way too simple and broken, and the AI and challenge levels are somehow even more broken.
 
as much as I enjoy Skyrim at the moment, I would actually prefer if Fallout 4 moved even further away from the TES formula. I'm happy the day the two franchises aren't constantly compared to each other and people don't expect roughly the same things from them.

it kind of bothers me that people see these games as part of the same series, more or less. why not TES be the casual exploration adventure and Fallout be the story-heavy rpg?
 
aenemic said:
it kind of bothers me that people see these games as part of the same series, more or less. why not TES be the casual exploration adventure and Fallout be the story-heavy rpg?

They have somewhat similar principles exactly in not being story-heavy, which is BioWare's field, and in being open-world. The big difference should be Fallout is more of an RPG, more about the character system, and more about actions having consequences. It's there where I worry about TES seeping in.
 
aenemic said:
it kind of bothers me that people see these games as part of the same series, more or less. why not TES be the casual exploration adventure and Fallout be the story-heavy rpg?

You're right, TES should be different from Fallout, Fallout being the story-heavy RPG. But it's not the case anymore! It was when it was still Fallout 2 vs Morrowind, but right now, who calls Fallout New Vegas "story-heavy"? Scenario-wise, it was so disappointing, short and uninteresting. At least, in Skyrim it's hard to tell who are the good guys and who are the bad guys... Though Skyrim's scenario/story is uninteresting and not deep either.
 
Izual said:
Fallout being the story-heavy RPG. But it's not the case anymore!

In terms of story and content there was more going on in NV than in Fallout 2, while being less "LOL!" and not so themepark-y like FO2. I don't see what kind of argument this is.
 
aenemic said:
as much as I enjoy Skyrim at the moment, I would actually prefer if Fallout 4 moved even further away from the TES formula. I'm happy the day the two franchises aren't constantly compared to each other and people don't expect roughly the same things from them.

it kind of bothers me that people see these games as part of the same series, more or less. why not TES be the casual exploration adventure and Fallout be the story-heavy rpg?

Because then we wouldn't be able to complain anymore :lol:
 
Izual said:
So, just to be sure, everyone here thinks Fallout 3 > Skyrim? Or did I miss the point? :o

They suck equally. Tried some Skyrim, got the same impression when playing Modern Warfare 3.

Turned off the PC, that is.
 
Mendacious BN said:
aenemic said:
it kind of bothers me that people see these games as part of the same series, more or less. why not TES be the casual exploration adventure and Fallout be the story-heavy rpg?

They have somewhat similar principles exactly in not being story-heavy, which is BioWare's field, and in being open-world. The big difference should be Fallout is more of an RPG, more about the character system, and more about actions having consequences. It's there where I worry about TES seeping in.

well, all that was implied when I used the term "rpg". it's exactly what I want from Fallout.

and when I say story-heavy I don't mean linear scripted storytelling. I mean long complex quest lines that actually tell a story, which you can change the outcome of.
 
Back
Top