Five Lessons Fallout 4 Can Learn From Skyrim

[LinkPain]

While I agree the method of skill leveling should stay within their perspective games (level by doing -> Skyrim, I assign-> Fallout) I find that Skyrim has had one of the best level-by-using mechanics I have seen yet. The archery skill which was one I never used in Oblivion due to its inherent ineffectiveness became a go to skill for me in Skyrim. Bethesda did it right this time, and regardless of all the crap that Bethesda has flung at it I must say Skyrim is a gem and I look forward to a Bethesda Fallout 4. Because Skyrim shows Bethesda can change and learn from what doesn't work.

Obsidian however seemed oblivious to what worked and instead seemed hell bent on "going back to the roots" when even the roots were to bitter to pay attention. F3 had a decent story line that I found engaging while the NV campaign seemed so damned generic I only finished it because I thought the great plot twist was just over the next horizon. The DLC's which I thought were going to be epitomes of writing all turned to generic crap, except Old World Blues which was ok. Then to add insult to injury you have a closed-ended open-world game . Skyrim didn't have a mind shattering story either but it made you feel invested in it to a point.

With all that comes Skyrim with its many improvements over Oblivion and Fallout it suddenly becomes clear why this IGN guy did a mental suicide bomb on the church that is Fallout.

I'm not even going to comment on your many IMHO opinions but some are very wrong. F3 had worse story than any Fallout, ever, period. It is inconsistent. NV wasn't even near generic considering all the options you had available.
Which is my main point on criticizing Skyrim. Take for instance an almost major side quest in it, Civil War. After I give an oath it's over, I HAVE to follow specific line of quests, I only had 2 choices before that. Were it Obsidian, you could do pretty much anything, while Beth can't even make "truce" function in the main quest line if you have given that oath. A couple of words and its scripted hell. All the filler "speech" options can't come to the simple terms that the game is almost the same each time you play it, every quest you finish. You get a couple of options, tons of bugs if you try something unconventional. By all means, they had a good writer this time, that was a surprise. Only after hearing the same thing over and over again I get bored fast. FNV gave you options to experiment on your story how much you wanted.
Yes, Skyrim has a massive world. After I topple it, what's left? Replayability? Hell no. Waiting for DLC to finish it whole and pack it back into the drawer. The main problem it has will always be one path taken in all quest lines. And character customization pretty much falls down the drain when you realize he can be anything. Unlike Witcher 2 or FNV, where you had OPTIONS!

Which is why I can only come to certain conclusion why you think this IGN guy has a point, or that FNV had bad storytelling. You are probably a console player (or not), either way you were pressing whatever button to finish any kind of conversation in game without thinking whatever it meant. You probably never read any of the in game material, such as books or lore or anything like it. Obviously, you don't care for any FNC DLC pack because most of them deal more in story than customization, other than Old World Blues in which you had your home like apartment. Which is why you like skill grind in Skyrim or brain dead NPC characters in F3, you love character customization and leveling for no apparent reason than just to dance on some uber monsters head. Now tell me, did you ever think, that past all that "character awesomness" you invested in 300 hours of the game time, you turned back to see what the hell any of that had to do with the main storyline or questline. Because if you didn't, or for some reason you can't remember, or simply don't care, I recommend you go back playing Battlefield 3 or something like that. The less brain it requires to function the better. Perhaps you even think that computer games are for kids and they don't require any brains at all, but that's another topic.
And btw Fallout isn't a "church", it's a something you won't come to understand in your lifetime.

Ultima Online doesn't allow you to become a grandmaster blacksmith just by making daggers all the time.
And it's old.

You should see me learning restoration or heavy/light armor, or sneak. Damn, if anything was that easy in life, I would most certainly avoid school just to grind my speech skill with bartenders

 

[Crni Vuk]

you mean like buying and drinking beer over and over again ?

Works for skyrim ...

 

[HyperionOmega]

I'm not even going to comment on your many IMHO opinions but some are very wrong. F3 had worse story than any Fallout, ever, period.
-SNIP-

Wow....To begin you do know that opinions are generally seen as preferences and are not facts so therefore my opinion can never be wrong nor right...Only facts can be wrong and "who has the better story line" is a question that will always result in a OPINION which is neither wrong nor right

Which is why I can only come to certain conclusion why you think this IGN guy has a point, or that FNV had bad storytelling. You are probably a console player (or not),

I really like how your drawn conclusion of me has no real conclusion other than the fact that I play games....Well you got that right

either way you were pressing whatever button to finish any kind of conversation in game without thinking whatever it meant. You probably never read any of the in game material, such as books or lore or anything like it.
--More Snippy--
I recommend you go back playing Battlefield 3 or something like that. The less brain it requires to function the better. Perhaps you even think that computer games are for kids and they don't require any brains at all, but that's another topic.
And btw Fallout isn't a "church", it's a something you won't come to understand in your lifetime.

I thought the days of personal attacks on people who liked FO3 were over....I see I'm wrong. I have no idea how my OPINION has angered you so very much but in all honesty Link you treat it like a damn religion and offer very little proof to the contrary. I think your flawed psych profile of me based on my opinion proves that. I can only think of attacking a political or religious stance of yours as ever being able to recreate a reaction like seen above....so I must say why so angry . To put further holes in your profile I am a PC gamer and I did read just about every peace of in game material I could find, hell I have even read the Fallout Bible....still with all that NV had a mediocre story at best. Fallout 3 wasn't groundbreaking either but it was a tad bit more believable than NV was.

New Vegas had no real decision after you picked your side in the main quest. It might have sent you to different people but again that's all mission markers and such. Much the same that Skyrim does. Obsidian gave you a nice illusion of freedom but never really delivered as do all games that are finite. Just because a game has choice "a" lock me out of path "B" does not make it better, in fact you could probably argue that a game that allows you to go through all routes is superior to one that doesn't. It could be a fact.

But the main reason of my post was to say that I believed the guy to be insane about what he wanted FO4 to do. My reasons for that insanity was the blinding awesomeness that he saw as skyrim combined with the tepid "meh" of NV. This led him to hail skyrim as better in all things, which even I would say that he was wrong about.

So calm down a bit its just an opinion, I thought we wrote on these forums to gather different view points not just verbally assault people you disagree with.

Take care.

 

[White Knight]

Fallout 3 wasn't groundbreaking either but it was a tad bit more believable than NV was.

How so? I find a story of factions fighting over land and a large source of power more believeble then fighting an evil organisation over a purifier which end with a big battle involving a giant robot and surviving massive amounts of radiation. If your not talking about story, then what is more believeble about Fallout 3? That you can destroy megaton, which Three Dog announces on his radio, and in general be an evil bastard, yet the Brotherhood of Steel will still accept you and won't say anything about you, nor punish you.

Just because a game has choice "a" lock me out of path "B" does not make it better, in fact you could probably argue that a game that allows you to go through all routes is superior to one that doesn't. It could be a fact.

So a game that reacts to your choices and changes the way factions react to you is worse than a game where you can be part of every single faction and they don't care that you are working with their enemies? It might be your not being clear enough, but thats what i am taking from your post, and it dosen't make sense.

 

[Ilosar]

Fallout 3 wasn't groundbreaking either but it was a tad bit more believable than NV was.

Of course, a town composed of children and 20 feet tall giant robots launching nukes like a football player are far more believable than a game about the intricate politics of a post-nuclear wasteland. You have just enlightened me my friend.






Please note the sarcasm.

New Vegas had no real decision after you picked your side in the main quest. It might have sent you to different people but again that's all mission markers and such.

I now strongly doubt you played the game at all. Sorry, but the quests you do as the Legion greatly differ from those with the NCR, and so on. Wild Card and Mr. House paths are smlar, but stil end up very differently. And no, the choices don't stop after you pick a side. You can let the Boomers live, or destroy them. Same with the Khans. Or the Brotherhood. Entire factions can dissapear. How is that not choice?

Obsidian gave you a nice illusion of freedom but never really delivered as do all games that are finite.

That doesn't make sense to me. Because a game ends (is ''finite'') it doesn't have freedom? You will have to explain.

Just because a game has choice "a" lock me out of path "B" does not make it better, in fact you could probably argue that a game that allows you to go through all routes is superior to one that doesn't. It could be a fact.

Having to make choices in a RPG and suffering the consequences? Perish the thought. Being able to do anything regardless of how much sense it makes is a sure mark of bad design. I begin to see why you prefer Bethesda games, because they have the same philosophy of letting the player do anything. Musclehead warrior becoming leader of the Mage's Guild anyone?

But the main reason of my post was to say that I believed the guy to be insane about what he wanted FO4 to do. My reasons for that insanity was the blinding awesomeness that he saw as skyrim combined with the tepid "meh" of NV. This led him to hail skyrim as better in all things, which even I would say that he was wrong about.

Oh, on that we agree, I would certainly not like an eventual Fallout 4 to be like Skyrim. It's a fine adventure game with RPG elements, but it's most definitely not the caliber of RPG that Fallout requires. Obsidian are the only ones that can do it properly, really. I wish they do the fourth game, but I doubt they will sadly.

So calm down a bit its just an opinion, I thought we wrote on these forums to gather different view points not just verbally assault people you disagree with.

All I have to say is that you will not make many friends here by claiming Fallout 3 is superior to New Vegas, especially with arguments as shaky as those you presented. This place is not a hive mind like some detractors present it, but if one thing unites the posters here it's their dislike of Fallout 3 and their love for the first two games.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I would not say "disslike" since quite a few did liked it. They just dont go on and on about it as many agree that Fallout 3 was in the end rather shallow as far as RPGs go.

 

[Generic Dude 2.0]

I just gave up on Skyrim with some 50 hours on the counter. The most exciting activity in the whole was putting scattered tomatoes in a pot. I hate how game builds up epicness that leads to nowhere, making player feel robbed. Like in Fo3, you clearly realize it's only a game, all this people around you are just empty emotionless models in fancy armor. When I play Fallout 2 or Arcanum, for example, game does not allow me to realize that Virgil or Cassidy are not real. I truly root for them, even though they are just tiny generic models with no any distinctive features. Or lets take Benny in NV. Even though guy shot me in the head, I just can't help loving him because of how well the character is written.
Skyrim looks great, sound design is amazing, but that's not an RPG game, it's a naturalist simulator.