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

[Crni Vuk]

People are so hyped because 90% of what they have shown so far is combat and/or focused around combat. Which I personaly also don't think is THAT awesome now, I mean pretty much all of the recently released games have been shooters of some sort, in which way is Fallout 4 really so special now? Because it has iron-sights for weapons? Because you have 70 weapons with 500 modifactions? Welcome to the age of Borderlands! But hey! Everyone has a different taste, but after 20 years of playing PC games - more or less, combat is really one of the last things that excites me these days. I mean most of it is very similar in the end, what changes are the visuals for the most part.

I would be curious though how people what people would think about Fallout 4 if only 10% of what Bethesda has shown would be about the combat. Would they still be so hyped?

 

[TransgenderVaultDeweller]

Pretty much the only thing we know is that we can shoot shit and build shitty settlements. While listening to cringe worthy "HARD LOOK AT TEH TROOTH." And listening to more ink spot.

So, it's over. Done, Fallout 4 has no hope.

 

[TorontoReign]

Funny how they slowly over the years phased out the RPG part of their games. Oh Bethesda.

 

[Battlecross]

Fallout 4 will objectively be worse than Fallout 1 and 2, and will no doubt be primarily focused on the knee-jerk/button mashing crowd you prefers explosions to story.

I'm not sure you understand what objectively means.

I'm really tired of this dumb "If you like 3/4 you must be stupid" nonsense too. If anything it makes you look dumb, not fans of a video game.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Depends what you see as objectively. If you consider Fallout 1s gameplay, its concepts, the developer quotes, design documents - most of it actually here available at NMA even! Go and look them up, the history of Fallout! Than would you really say that the changes to a first person shooter with only the bare minimum of role playing elements keept inside is, objectively of course, an improvement to Fallout 1?

Funny how they slowly over the years phased out the RPG part of their games. Oh Bethesda.

Well if they would make it at least a habit to outsource the RPG part to Obsidian ... everything would be perfect.

 

[Battlecross]

Depends what you see as objectively. If you consider Fallout 1s gameplay, its concepts, the developer quotes, design documents - most of it actually here available at NMA even! Go and look them up, the history of Fallout! Than would you really say that the changes to a first person shooter with only the bare minimum of role playing elements keept inside is, objectively of course, an improvement to Fallout 1?

I know enough of the history and have played 1 and 2 (again the incorrect assumption is if you like 3, you didn't play 1-2. Wrong.) since it is an opinion on something you can't claim opinions are objective. They're subjective. You may dislike everything about it, but that isn't objective. Especially when you're trying to compare entirely different game styles.

 

[TorontoReign]

Well if they would make it at least a habit to outsource the RPG part to Obsidian ... everything would be perfect.

Obsidian has little reason to work with Bethesda again.

 

[Walpknut]

If you can't even see how different the Design goals and philosophy between Bethesda's take and the Proper Fallout games then maybe you are either not very perceptive or you didn't pay much attention while playing them.

All you do Battlecross is appeal to subjectivity yet you can't even come up with a propr argument for anything, you just go around the Fallout section picking fights with everyone and then claim that it's us who have the problem....

 

[Battlecross]

If you can't even see how different the Design goals and philosophy between Bethesda's take and the Proper Fallout games then maybe you are either not very perceptive or you didn't pay much attention while playing them.

All you do Battlecross is appeal to subjectivity yet you can't even come up with a propr argument for anything, you just go around the Fallout section picking fights with everyone and then claim that it's us who have the problem....

Wut? Who said I didn't see the difference? I clearly said they're different.

Again, you're the guy who just angrily wargarbles nonsense at people. You have no room to talk, at all.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Depends what you see as objectively. If you consider Fallout 1s gameplay, its concepts, the developer quotes, design documents - most of it actually here available at NMA even! Go and look them up, the history of Fallout! Than would you really say that the changes to a first person shooter with only the bare minimum of role playing elements keept inside is, objectively of course, an improvement to Fallout 1?

I know enough of the history and have played 1 and 2 (again the incorrect assumption is if you like 3, you didn't play 1-2. Wrong.) since it is an opinion on something you can't claim opinions are objective. They're subjective. You may dislike everything about it, but that isn't objective. Especially when you're trying to compare entirely different game styles.

And that is the error. I do not talk about my taste here, if I like or dislike something, let us ignore taste completely for the sake of this argument.

You can objectively say that Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are not an improvement to Fallout compared to Fallout 1 and it's history. That doesn't mean that Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 have to be bad GAMES.

Maybe Fallout 4 will be the best first person shooter humanity has ever seen so far, but that isn't the point!
​

I will say it this way. You order a grilled steak. The chef gives you a cooked chicken. Can you make objective statements about this? Yes you can!

I think you can objectively deduce that chicken is not steak, right? So you can also say that a chicken can never be an improvement to a steak, if what you want and what you expect is a steak. It could be the best cooked chicken in the world even. But it would still NOT be a good steak, would you not agree? And now you explain this to he chef and he pokes you in the eye with the fork and dissapears in the kitchen. And this pretty much sums up most debates about why Fallout 3 and 4 are not improvements over Fallout 1.

The fact that Fallout 3 and 4 have entirely different game styles is the whole point of it. And to say that Fallout was never meant to be a "first person shoter" is not an opinion, and it is not subjective. How is it not subjective? Because there is the history of Fallout and the developer quotes, where they even said that they could never imagine Fallout to be anyhing else than turn based and top down. The original developers said this. But that is not even the only point. But a very important one. The best thing you can do is to directly compare Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 and what you know about Fallout 4. And if you really want to be objective you have to get to the conclusion that Fallout 3 and 4 are not improvements to Fallout 1. That doesn't mean that you have to hate what Bethesda does. You can still enjoy all of the games for what they are.

Would you believe that changing Skyrim in to a Command and Conquer strategy game would be objectively an improvement to the Skyrim game? Again, we are NOT talking here about taste or what ever.

 

[Walpknut]

Wargarbles? What is that?

Please, tell us your argument towards Fallout 4 being a proper Fallout game, we are open to your ideas, but you just keep appealing to subjectivity over and over. We have all dissected the new systems and ways the game just completely fucked up the series, you just keep gettign angry about people doing it without bringing up any actual argument. If you have it at all, just state it. What exactly makes bethesda games proper fallouts?

 

[Battlecross]

Depends what you see as objectively. If you consider Fallout 1s gameplay, its concepts, the developer quotes, design documents - most of it actually here available at NMA even! Go and look them up, the history of Fallout! Than would you really say that the changes to a first person shooter with only the bare minimum of role playing elements keept inside is, objectively of course, an improvement to Fallout 1?

I know enough of the history and have played 1 and 2 (again the incorrect assumption is if you like 3, you didn't play 1-2. Wrong.) since it is an opinion on something you can't claim opinions are objective. They're subjective. You may dislike everything about it, but that isn't objective. Especially when you're trying to compare entirely different game styles.

And that is the error.

You can objectively say that Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are not an improvement to Fallout compared to Fallout 1 and it's history. That doesn't mean that Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 have to be bad GAMES.

Maybe Fallout 4 will be the best first person shooter humanity has ever seen so far, but that isn't the point!
​

I will say it this way. You order a grilled steak. The chef gives you a cooked chicken. Can you make objective statements about this? Yes you can!

I think you can objectively deduce that chicken is not steak, right? So you can also say that a chicken can never be an improvement to a steak, if what you want and what you expect is a steak. It could be the best cooked chicken in the world even. But it would still NOT be a good steak, would you not agree? And now you explain this to he chef and he pokes you in the eye with the fork and dissapears in the kitchen. And this pretty much sums up most debates about why Fallout 3 and 4 are not improvements over Fallout 1.

The fact that Fallout 3 and 4 have entirely different game styles is the whole point of it. And to say that Fallout was never meant to be a "first person shoter" is not an opinion, and it is not subjective. How is it not subjective? Because there is the history of Fallout and the developer quotes, where they even said that they could never imagine Fallout to be anyhing else than turn based and top down. The original developers said this. But that is not even the only point. But a very important one. The best thing you can do is to directly compare Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 and what you know about Fallout 4. And if you really want to be objective you have to get to the conclusion that Fallout 3 and 4 are not improvements to Fallout 1. That doesn't mean that you have to hate what Bethesda does. You can still enjoy all of the games for what they are.

Would you believe that changing Skyrim in to a Command and Conquer strategy game would be objectively an improvement to the Skyrim game? Again, we are NOT talking here about taste or what ever.

Again, what was being talked about was opinion which is subjective. You cannot say "Fallout 1 is better than Fallout 3" and have it be objective because it's like trying to say "Chicken is better than steak", to use your own comparison. You may LIKE chicken better, but it isn't objectively better because it's based on taste and opinion...not fact.

If someone tells me Jurassic World is better than Jurassic Park, I don't give a damn despite disagreeing. Nor would I claim Jurassic Park is better objectively because I can't claim that, since again it is opinion.

Wargarbles? What is that?

Please, tell us your argument towards Fallout 4 being a proper Fallout game, we are open to your ideas, but you just keep appealing to subjectivity over and over. We have all dissected the new systems and ways the game just completely fucked up the series, you just keep gettign angry about people doing it without bringing up any actual argument. If you have it at all, just state it. What exactly makes bethesda games proper fallouts?

Wargarble is mocking mindless frothing anger.

What? You just made up your own parameters and goal posts for an argument I had said nothing about. I have said FO3 is a good game, nothing about "proper" fallout anything. They're different games with different takes by different developers and despite sharing a universe I don't compare them like I don't compare Halo 4 to Halo 3 despite being the same universe.

And again, you can't say it fucked up a series that was DOA unless it went back in time and ruined 1 and 2 or something. It didn't, and you can dislike all you want but saying it "fucked it up" is claiming it's objectively wrong or bad which it isn't.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Again, what was being talked about was opinion which is subjective. You cannot say "Fallout 1 is better than Fallout 3" and have it be objective because it's like trying to say "Chicken is better than steak", to use your own comparison. You may LIKE chicken better, but it isn't objectively better because it's based on taste and opinion...not fact.

Well I can say that Fallout 1 is better at beeing Fallout than Fallout 3, just as how Steak is beeing better at beeing a steak than a chicken. How is that hard to understand?

I think I somewhat understand your reasoning, you probably feel that we are talking and arguing here about taste, which isnt the case. I have no clue why you mix those things up.

I will try it again, for the last time. Because honestly I am somewhat tired of fighting windmills here.


Here it comes:

I am the owner of a restourant the tasty Fallout.

Now you come in and order a filet mignon from a card with this image:

However, what you get from me is a Burger:

So, do you think that a Burger is better at beeing a Filet Mignon than a Filet Mignon? Is this really about opinion? Or even taste? Both images look very tasty in my opinion and I would certainly eat both. But I would never ever get the idea to tell you that a Burger is a Filet Mignon. This, is not opinion, that is fact.

Please, try to think about his argument, I mean really. Try it. Not just, nah! He's wrong! I am right! Replace Filet Mignon with Fallout 1 and Burger with Fallout 3.

 

[Battlecross]

Well I can say that Fallout 1 is better at beeing Fallout than Fallout 3, just as how Steak is beeing better at beeing a steak than a chicken. How is that hard to understand?

That is kind of a mindless, duh statement. It's like saying the sky is better at being the sky than land is. It's pointless.

 

[Walpknut]

More appeals to subjectivity, the tool of those who have nothign to say.

Look kid, you can play the game and enjoy it, nobody is trying to make you not like it, but you are coming here to a discussion throwing a huge temper tantrum about our opinions and basically just acting like we are trying to force you into anything simply by disagreeing with you.

If you have anything to contribute to the dialogue other than "Hur hur durr Opinions are not facts!" then go ahead, otherwise just maybe indulge in the other sections of the forum instead?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well I can say that Fallout 1 is better at beeing Fallout than Fallout 3, just as how Steak is beeing better at beeing a steak than a chicken. How is that hard to understand?

That is kind of a mindless, duh statement. It's like saying the sky is better at being the sky than land is. It's pointless.

It's not pointless when you're trying to sell me the land as the sky. See you even agree! YOU UNDERSTAND THE POINT. But you can not come out and say, yes, you're right, a First Person Shooter is not Fallout, no matter how much I enjoy this first person shooter.

But it is we NMAers who argue subjectively ...

 

[Battlecross]

Well I can say that Fallout 1 is better at beeing Fallout than Fallout 3, just as how Steak is beeing better at beeing a steak than a chicken. How is that hard to understand?

That is kind of a mindless, duh statement. It's like saying the sky is better at being the sky than land is. It's pointless.

It's not pointless when you're trying to sell me the land as the sky. See you even agree! YOU UNDERSTAND THE POINT. But you can not come out and say, yes, you're right, a First Person Shooter is not Fallout, no matter how much I enjoy this first person shooter.

But it is we NMAers who argue subjectively ...

No one has sold you the land as the sky. Calling something another one in the series in no way says that it has to be what you want or the same as previous entries. Plus that argument falls apart once you've seen the new iteration you don't like, and since you know what you're getting now it makes even less sense.

Uh, I never said an FPS isn't Fallout because that isn't true. Fallout can be anything. I'm saying Fallout 1 is more Fallout because it CREATED Fallout, so that statement is so obvious as to be pointless to say. You moved the goalposts there by claiming you were saying that it can't be an FPS by the way.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Sadly I can't find the interview, but Todd Howard, Pete Hines and Emil talked in huge length about how they wanted to make a true Sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 with their game and not just a spin-off of some sorts.

 

[Walpknut]

So you are parroting pointless things that aren't even relevant to the topic at hand. Good, can you now say something more relevant or even interesting rather than "Opinions, hurr!"?

 

[Battlecross]

So you are parroting pointless things that aren't even relevant to the topic at hand. Good, can you now say something more relevant or even interesting rather than "Opinions, hurr!"?

I'm directly discussing something with Vuk, you can see yourself out if that is an issue to you.