From E3 untill now, Can you honestly tell me what we know of Fallout 4 objectively?

[Crni Vuk]

What does that mean? If you are looking for plot points they said from day one that they were going to play things close to their chest with this release; is it a far cry from their usual strategy? Absolutely. I'm sure that frustrates a lot of their fans (and foes), however I appreciate a developer with an old school sensibility when it comes to what they choose to release - especially since Bethesda makes a certain kind of game and we shouldn't be at all surprised about what it'll look like when it arrives.

That's pretty much what many here fear as well. That Bethesda won't be surprising us, like with a decent plot, good writing, dialog that makes sense, NPCs with depth, a complex system that is more than just killing everything in your sight.

Do you lament the removal of the Skill Tab or the individual skills themselves? And what could you do before in 1/2/3/NV that you (think) can not do now?

Hmm, no clue? How about, role playing? Or replay value? Like navigating your character trough the game world with the skills you chose? Using charsima, inteligence, science, or any of the other skills to solve quests? I mean skills that actually influence the dialog you can get and the way how NPCs treat you based on those answers. We have so far seen nothing that even tells us that you can really influence dialog based on the skills you chose.

I would not be surprised actually if a character with 1 in every SPECIAL stat can experience the exact same gameplay and story like a character with 10 in every SPECIAL stat.

The new approach of role playing games! You now can enjoy playing a role playing game without actually playing a role! And you can be all smug to your friends, because you're now one of those RPG loving nerds too ! While explaining to everyone how Planescape Torment sucks!

So you do want them to just lay out plot points at your feet. Why? Do you go into a movie wanting to know who is alive halfway through or which character is actually a bad guy or not?

I don't think that anyone really demands spoilers here, but showing only combat in a game that is supposed to be an RPG? And that doesn't bother you?

As far as we know there could be almost no real quests or actually real story in the game that goes further than your typical CoD game. However what they have shown so far, those few lines of dialog are definitely not impressive ... hate newspapers anyone? That's why we would like to see more examples of what they see as good writing. They don't have to show every character or every faction in detail. But just compare Fallout 4 trailers with the Witcher 3. The Witcher 3 was pretty action packed and fast paced as well. But you know the game also showed how detailed the world is and that it actually contains meaningfull quests, you can get a picture about the quality of the dialog in the game.

As far as F4 goes? Hate newspapers ...

 

[Battlecross]

This thread reminded me why I loved NMA during Fallout 3 development and release.

And the answer to the OP's broad question is quite easily resolved. It was obvious that they had a different question in mind, or perhaps aren't quite sure what "objectively" actually means.

Finally, I think most are missing the point that Battlecross is attempting to put forth. The "steak analogy" is disingenuous (while at the same time being self congratulatory). The Black Isle/Interplay Fallout and Bethesda Fallout are both different cuts of steak. These are objective measures (since we seem to like throwing that word around). The quality of each is not.

Yep.

It's the two most obvious braindead cop outs during a discussion, first appeal to subjectivity, when it fails just appeal to nihilism.

I'm sorry that you need to be educated that "I believe" and "It is" are different things, and do you know what nihilism is?

As for you non-stop repeating the appeal to subjectivity:

"The subjectivist fallacy is committed when someone resists the conclusion of an argument not by questioning whether the argument’s premises support its conclusion, but by treating the conclusion as subjective when it is in fact objective. Typically this is done by labelling the arguer’s conclusion as just an “opinion”, a “perspective”, a “point of view”, or similar."

There is no argument, the argument IS about opinion and it doesn't apply. It is a logical fallacy when it is used to dismiss an argument by just claiming it is an opinion, it has nothing to do with people not understanding the difference between objective and subjective. I shouldn't have to tell someone their claim that "Bethesda ruined Fallout" is an opinion, but some people apparently need that reminder.

 

[Walpknut]

Except that's the literal only thing you have been doing, this thread was entirely about discussing what we do know and don't know about Fallout 4 (Info released by Bethesda or by leaks) even so close to release. Most of this thread was analyzing what we know, and what we know is pretty shitty stuff. You came here just crying about "OPINIONS!" and did absolutely nothign else but cry about that for pages without even contributing to the actual thread. That's called derailing a thread by the way.

 

[Practicat]

Everyone, just relax, smoke some weed and we will be able to dissect Fallout 4 in all of its detail come release.

 

[Battlecross]

Except that's the literal only thing you have been doing, this thread was entirely about discussing what we do know and don't know about Fallout 4 (Info released by Bethesda or by leaks) even so close to release. Most of this thread was analyzing what we know, and what we know is pretty shitty stuff. You came here just crying about "OPINIONS!" and did absolutely nothign else but cry about that for pages without even contributing to the actual thread. That's called derailing a thread by the way.

Then don't claim your opinion is fact and it doesn't have to be said. Don't point fingers at derailing when you do it constantly because you're constantly butthurt over the things I say. Also, stay away from the logical fallacies when you indulge in them yourself like constructing strawmen.

Furthermore, my posts were directly in regards to the title and I was discussing with people about how they have formed complete opinions over something we've barely seen. Again, "objectively" is in the title of the thread. Then saying "No Bethesda Fallout can be a true Fallout" is opinion, and thus not in line with the purpose of the thread.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Everyone, just relax, smoke some weed and we will be able to dissect Fallout 4 in all of its detail come release.

Weed...

 

[Beaushizzle]

Except that's the literal only thing you have been doing, this thread was entirely about discussing what we do know and don't know about Fallout 4 (Info released by Bethesda or by leaks) even so close to release. Most of this thread was analyzing what we know, and what we know is pretty shitty stuff. You came here just crying about "OPINIONS!" and did absolutely nothign else but cry about that for pages without even contributing to the actual thread. That's called derailing a thread by the way.

Then don't claim your opinion is fact and it doesn't have to be said. Don't point fingers at derailing when you do it constantly because you're constantly butthurt over the things I say. Also, stay away from the logical fallacies when you indulge in them yourself like constructing strawmen.

Furthermore, my posts were directly in regards to the title and I was discussing with people about how they have formed complete opinions over something we've barely seen. Again, "objectively" is in the title of the thread. Then saying "No Bethesda Fallout can be a true Fallout" is opinion, and thus not in line with the purpose of the thread.

This guy just doesn't get it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yeah, but I have no clue why someone would not get it, because this is really not rocket science. No one is talking about taste or quality it's just pure definitions at this point. Fallout was always meant to be a top down turn based game. And if a sequel doesn't contain that, it simply can't be a sequel to the old Fallout games. That simple.

New Vegas for example is a pretty good game. I really liked it for what it was, the hybrid FPS-RPG. But it still can't be a Sequel to F1 or F2 because it lacks the fundamental gameplay that both games had. I can only imagine that some people see this as some kind of attack on them self or something. But, there are also people who will argue with you that the theory of gravity is just a theory and not a proven concept or something ... so maybe I should not be really surprised.

 

[Battlecross]

Yeah, but I have no clue why someone would not get it, because this is really not rocket science. No one is talking about taste or quality it's just pure definitions at this point. Fallout was always meant to be a top down turn based game. And if a sequel doesn't contain that, it simply can't be a sequel to the old Fallout games. That simple.

New Vegas for example is a pretty good game. I really liked it for what it was, the hybrid FPS-RPG. But it still can't be a Sequel to F1 or F2 because it lacks the fundamental gameplay that both games had. I can only imagine that some people see this as some kind of attack on them self or something. But, there are also people who will argue with you that the theory of gravity is just a theory and not a proven concept or something ... so maybe I should not be really surprised.

Anything can be a sequel to anything, there are no laws or rules dictating what sequels must be though. Halloween 3 is a terrible sequel to Halloween 2, but is still a sequel regardless.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Would you consider Dirty Dancing to be a Sequel to Halloween if they decided to make Dirty Haloween Dancing the Sequel to Halloween where Jamie Lee curtis is dancing with Michael Myers to time of my life?



I am serious, are you dense?

 

[Walpknut]

Anything can be a sequel when you don't give a shit. That's a new defense for Bethesda.... Not sure how effective it is, really...

 

[Battlecross]

Would you consider Dirty Dancing to be a Sequel to Halloween if they decided to make Dirty Haloween Dancing the Sequel to Halloween where Jamie Lee curtis is dancing with Michael Myers to time of my life?



I am serious, are you dense?

Are you? You're claiming an FPS can't be a sequel to an isometric game because...you said so.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yes, that is what I am saying! Do I get finally trough? Tell me why is an FPS a Sequel to an isometric game? Because ... you say so? Is a car a sequel to a bicycle? I claim that an FPS can not be a Sequel to an isometric game, and I can also back this up with reasoning. I have yet to hear something from you on that point, except for OPINION, OPINION, OH MY OPINION!

First there are a few points hat we HAVE simply to agree on, or we will never get anywhere:

1. We are not talking about quality.
   Like if the game is good, fun to play, if the mechanics are well done etc. We are talking STRICTLY about mechanics only here. A game can be made as FPS and still be a bad game. Like Rambo the video game, but it still doesn't change the fact that is a first person shooter.
2. We are not talking about taste.
   What ever if we like FPS, Real time, turn based, top down, third person view etc. If we like something or not isn't important for a definition. The fact that someone doesn't like first person shooters doesn't change the fact that Half Life 1 is a great first person shooter.
3. We are not talking about opinions, but definitions.
   Mechanics like FPS, Turn Based, Top Down etc. have clear characteristics and even define genres, that's why you have FPS and Turn Based as labels. Those have clear meanings. FPS is not Top down. Turn based is not real time gameplay. That is not opinion.

Once we agreed on that, we can actually analyse in detail if a game is actually a Sequel or not. There can by hybrids with games, no doubts about it, a First Person Shooter can offer you to play aswell in third person/over the shoulder. A role playing game can be mixed with First Person Mechanics and so on. The lines can be blurry sometimes, but they do NOT dissapear, nor do the definitions of what is a first person shoter or what is a turn based game.

And there is no doubt about it that Fallout 3 and 4 do not offer you turn based combat and also no top down/iso view. AGAIN(!) I do NOT talk about the quality of the game, SIMPLY the mechanics.

To give you another example here, take a look at the screenshots here and see for your self, if you don't understand why Strike Force is not a Sequel to the previous 3 games than you ARE dense:

Commandos Behind Enemy lines

Commandos Men of Courage

Commandos Destination Berlin

Commandos Strike Force

​

I like First Person Shoters, but I also like tactical games. However, I would never get the idea to call Commandos Strike Force a Sequel to the previous Commandos Games because they offer you vastily different experiences, even though they both have the exact same setting - in this cas WW2.

Once you get in to that you can somewhat nail down what a Sequel has to do to be actually a Sequel to something. Nailing only the visuals is not enough. And to focus only the mechanics neither. Fallout 1 is a top down turn based game with role playing, stats and dialog. This is clearly defined. There is no way around it. And you could even go so far as to say that isometric is very different to just topdown perspectives! But I really don't want to be THAT anal right now.

This has nothing to do with taste, quality, opinion or what ever. Someone could say that he didn't like the story in Fallout 1. Granted. That is taste. And this HAS been discussed to death here and many people agree, the reason to leave the vault isn't very exceptional. It's just the Mc Guffin to start the game. For fucks sake, you're not even the FIRST vault dveller who was send on a mission. But, you can not say that Fallout 1 doesn't contain choices and concequences in many of the quests. Or that stats don't have meaning in dialog and so on.

For example I personaly believe Fallout 1s turn based combat was mediocre, Jagged Alliance is a lot better. But this could be seen as opinion, there are certainly many people who like Fallout 1s combat. But that isn't the point. I can NOT say Fallout 1s combat is real time.

The point is, for Fallout 2 to be a Sequel to Fallout 1 it requires at the minimum some turn based combat, a top down view, dialog, quests with choicese & consquences, stats that play a role. And of course the same setting.

Fallout 3 could be made in some 3D engine, no problem! But it still needs to follow that formula of previous to be a direct Sequel.

The rest is a question of opinion and what ever if the quality of the writing is good enough, if there are enough choices and consequences, if they are meaningfull enough etc. That is all stuff we can argue about. No problem! But we can not say that definitions are opinion in this case. Because First Person perspective is not a matter of opinion in this case. Just as how it is not a matter of opinion that Halloween is a horror movie and Dirty Dancing a love movie and that the one can never ever be the Sequel to the other because they follow a completely different tonality, you will tell your girl friend only once that you should go and watch a Saw instead of Titanic, it's all the same anyway right?

No matter how bad Halloween 3 is, it is still more of a Sequel to Halloween 2 than Dirty Dancing.

Just to make this clear though, for example, it isn't simply enough to just take the top down gameplay and sell it as Fallout Sequel either. Like Desperados, a Commandos like game with a Wild West Theme:

​

This is a perfect example where a certain game SHARES mechanics with other games, where they are made in the SPIRIT of the game. Desperados would be not even a good Sequel to Commandos. But if for example someone asked me, hey! Do you know a game that plays LIKE(!) Commandos? I could point them in the direction of Desperados, or Robin Hood the Legend of Sherwood.

​

What I can't really do is to tell someone to play Skyrim if he is looking for a game like Robin Hood the Legend of Sherwood or to tell him to Play Medal of Honor if he is looking for a Commandos game, just simply because those games share the same theme like Fantasy or WW2 ...

I have no clue how to make this more clear ...

 

[Juza The Cloud]

Man I totally remember Desperados! That game was awesome.

 

[Battlecross]

Yes, that is what I am saying! Do I get finally trough? Tell me why is an FPS a Sequel to an isometric game? Because ... you say so? Is a car a sequel to a bicycle? I claim that an FPS can not be a Sequel to an isometric game, and I can also back this up with reasoning. I have yet to hear something from you on that point, except for OPINION, OPINION, OH MY OPINION!

First there are a few points hat we HAVE simply to agree on, or we will never get anywhere:

1. We are not talking about quality.
   Like if the game is good, fun to play, if the mechanics are well done etc. We are talking STRICTLY about mechanics only here. A game can be made as FPS and still be a bad game. Like Rambo the video game, but it still doesn't change the fact that is an first person fhooter.
2. We are not talking about taste.
   What ever if we like FPS, Real time, turn based, top down, third person view etc. If we like something or not isn't important for a definition. The fact that I don't like first person shooters doesnt change the fact that Half Life 1 is a great first person shooter.
3. We are not talking about opinions, but definitions.
   Mechanics like FPS, Turn Based, Top Down etc. have clear characteristics and even define genres, that's why you have FPS and Turn Based as labels. Those have clear meanings. FPS is not Top down. Turn based is not real time gameplay. That is not opinion.

Once we agreed on that, we can actually analyse in detail if a game is actually a Sequel or not. There can by Hybrids with games, no doubts about it, a First Person Shooter can offer you to play aswell in third person/over the shoulder. A role playing game can be mixed with First Person Mechanics and so on. The lines can be blurry sometimes, but they do NOT dissapear, nor do the definitions of what is an First Person Shoter or what is a turn based game.

And there is no doubt about it that Fallout 3 and 4 do not offer you turn based combat and also no top down/iso view. AGAIN(!) I do NOT talk about the quality of the game, SIMPLY the mechanics.

To give you another example here, take a look at the screenshots here and see for your self, if you don't understand why Strike Force is not a Sequel to the previous 3 games than you ARE dense:

​

You are the densest person to call someone dense I've ever met, not to mention your difficulty understanding simple points here and now you're going off the deep end. The only point I've made is this:

You claimed an FPS cannot be a sequel to an isometric game. This is not true, it's patently false actually as an FPS can be a sequel. You seem to be trying to say a sequel must have the same mechanics as its previous iterations, this is simply not true. I don't understand the purpose of your argument here honestly.

A sequel does not have to be the same mechanically as its predecessors. That's it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Do you actually just want to repeat that or do you actually want to bring some arguments to the table?

I will ask this again, would you consider Dirty Dancing a Sequel to Halloween? Would you consider Angry Birds the Fallout edition a Sequel to Fallout 3? Would you consider a car the natural evolution to a bicycle?

A sequel does not have to be the same mechanically as its predecessors

Why not?

Please, give me a PLAUSIBLE argument. And I want to hear something else here than MAH OPINIONZ!

 

[Battlecross]

Do you actually just want to repeat that or do you actually want to bring some arguments to the table?

I will ask this again, would you consider Dirty Dancing a Sequel to Halloween? Would you consider Angry Birds the Fallout edition a Sequel to Fallout 3? Would you consider a car the natural evolution to a bicycle?

Are you not listening? The only argument I've made is that your assertion is incorrect, and it is. The belief that different mechanics mean a sequel can't be a sequel does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

Dirty Dancing isn't a sequel to Halloween, but if it took place in the Halloween universe it could be a sequel! I don't get why this is so difficult.

 

[Beaushizzle]

Do you actually just want to repeat that or do you actually want to bring some arguments to the table?

I will ask this again, would you consider Dirty Dancing a Sequel to Halloween? Would you consider Angry Birds the Fallout edition a Sequel to Fallout 3? Would you consider a car the natural evolution to a bicycle?

Are you not listening? The only argument I've made is that your assertion is incorrect, and it is. The belief that different mechanics mean a sequel can't be a sequel does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

Dirty Dancing isn't a sequel to Halloween, but if it took place in the Halloween universe it could be a sequel! I don't get why this is so difficult.

Battlecross makes me lol. He's arguing semantics, Crni. I'd give up.

 

[TorontoReign]

I have to say the new Fallout games ARE sequels. They just aren't very good ones. They are sequels that stray from their roots. Claiming otherwise is arguing for the sake of arguing. They should have been spin offs but they aren't.

 

[Battlecross]

Do you actually just want to repeat that or do you actually want to bring some arguments to the table?

I will ask this again, would you consider Dirty Dancing a Sequel to Halloween? Would you consider Angry Birds the Fallout edition a Sequel to Fallout 3? Would you consider a car the natural evolution to a bicycle?

Are you not listening? The only argument I've made is that your assertion is incorrect, and it is. The belief that different mechanics mean a sequel can't be a sequel does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

Dirty Dancing isn't a sequel to Halloween, but if it took place in the Halloween universe it could be a sequel! I don't get why this is so difficult.

Battlecross makes me lol. He's arguing semantics, Crni. I'd give up.

It's not semantics, I have argued against this silly assertion that a sequel has to be the same mechanically to be a sequel. It doesn't. It's common sense. Halo Wars could be a sequel to Halo while being an RTS, nothing about it being a sequel says the mechanics must be the same.

Trying to explain this very simple point will drive me to the nuthouse.

I have to say the new Fallout games ARE sequels. They just aren't very good ones. They are sequels that stray from their roots. Claiming otherwise is arguing for the sake of arguing. They should have been spin offs but they aren't.

Exactly, thank you. Hate them as sequels all you want, but claiming something can't be a sequel because its an FPS where the others weren't just isn't making sense.