Interesting article in Kotaku

[rogerdv]

http://kotaku.com/fallout-4-is-not-the-fallout-fans-fell-in-love-with-1745651992

Even when I disagree with the point of reducing Fallout spirit to "rich and choice-driven", I suscribe every other statement in the article. The story is marginally better than Fallout 3, with some parts being plainly stupid, like the Minuteman quests.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

When even Kotaku starts criticizing your AAA game it's time to admit you made some dumb decisions with your game.

 

[omegaspruz]

Guys read the article. Its not what it seems from the first paragraph, though. There is no vitriol of Fallout 4, but rather analysis of how some people, especially those that dwell here responded to Fallout 4.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Guys read the article. Its not what it seems from the first paragraph, though. There is no vitriol of Fallout 4, but rather analysis of how some people, especially those that dwell here responded to Fallout 4.

That is not at all what I got from the article. Here is a quote from the author:
"It was one of the coolest things I’ve found while playing Fallout 4...and then Fallout 4 ruined it."

"I understand that I covered some of this in my review, but after another 50 hours, I’m more struck by the changes than ever. I can’t tell you how many times I found an intriguing character in the wasteland, only to be disappointed by how brief and vague our conversations were. "

"Now it seems that if your interactions with the world won’t result in kills, loot, or XP, the game doesn’t feel it’s worth doing."

"Of course, just because I’ve accepted what Fallout has become doesn’t mean I can’t mourn what’s been lost along the way."

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read the article?

 

[omegaspruz]

Guys read the article. Its not what it seems from the first paragraph, though. There is no vitriol of Fallout 4, but rather analysis of how some people, especially those that dwell here responded to Fallout 4.

That is not at all what I got from the article. Here is a quote from the author:
"It was one of the coolest things I’ve found while playing Fallout 4...and then Fallout 4 ruined it."

"I understand that I covered some of this in my review, but after another 50 hours, I’m more struck by the changes than ever. I can’t tell you how many times I found an intriguing character in the wasteland, only to be disappointed by how brief and vague our conversations were. "

"Now it seems that if your interactions with the world won’t result in kills, loot, or XP, the game doesn’t feel it’s worth doing."

"Of course, just because I’ve accepted what Fallout has become doesn’t mean I can’t mourn what’s been lost along the way."

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read the article?

Quote: "Whenever I visit Memory Den, I don’t like lingering for too long. It’s not real, I know, but I don’t like the thought of getting trapped there, of never going out and having cool new adventures. Even as I may not linger, however, I do understand why others may not want to leave."

That's the conclusion of the article. God, people here like to argue and twist everything in the worst possible way.

 

[rogerdv]

Guys read the article. Its not what it seems from the first paragraph, though. There is no vitriol of Fallout 4, but rather analysis of how some people, especially those that dwell here responded to Fallout 4.

That is not at all what I got from the article. Here is a quote from the author:
"It was one of the coolest things I’ve found while playing Fallout 4...and then Fallout 4 ruined it."

"I understand that I covered some of this in my review, but after another 50 hours, I’m more struck by the changes than ever. I can’t tell you how many times I found an intriguing character in the wasteland, only to be disappointed by how brief and vague our conversations were. "

"Now it seems that if your interactions with the world won’t result in kills, loot, or XP, the game doesn’t feel it’s worth doing."

"Of course, just because I’ve accepted what Fallout has become doesn’t mean I can’t mourn what’s been lost along the way."

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read the article?

Quote: "Whenever I visit Memory Den, I don’t like lingering for too long. It’s not real, I know, but I don’t like the thought of getting trapped there, of never going out and having cool new adventures. Even as I may not linger, however, I do understand why others may not want to leave."

That's the conclusion of the article. God, people here like to argue and twist everything in the worst possible way.

One thing does not cancels the other. The game has been dissapointing for her (for me too) as a Fallout based title.

 

[omegaspruz]

And what have I said in the first place? Ultimately, Fallout has evolved, whether you, I or we like it. There is still enjoyment to be had, is it Fallout of Old? Not so much. But as I said, unlike here(something I partially participated in) there is no vitriol towards the game, rather a certain melancholy about the past.

 

[Askorti]

And what have I said in the first place? Ultimately, Fallout has evolved, whether you, I or we like it. There is still enjoyment to be had, is it Fallout of Old? Not so much. But as I said, unlike here(something I partially participated in) there is no vitriol towards the game, rather a certain melancholy about the past.

Evolved? No. Changed? Yes. Evolution implies improvement. This is not what happened to fallout.

 

[omegaspruz]

And what have I said in the first place? Ultimately, Fallout has evolved, whether you, I or we like it. There is still enjoyment to be had, is it Fallout of Old? Not so much. But as I said, unlike here(something I partially participated in) there is no vitriol towards the game, rather a certain melancholy about the past.

Evolved? No. Changed? Yes. Evolution implies improvement. This is not what happened to fallout.

Not necessarily. If we go by survival of the fittest, Fallout "evolved" to suit the market. We shouldn't fool ourselves, Fallout is what it is because it is the product of its time. Very few large AAA RPGs are that much different; as for the dialogue system it was Mass Effect, Star Wars, Dragon Age, Witcher, Alpha Protocol, Fallout. Whether its changed or evolved doesn't really matter much.

 

[Ilosar]

And what have I said in the first place? Ultimately, Fallout has evolved, whether you, I or we like it. There is still enjoyment to be had, is it Fallout of Old? Not so much. But as I said, unlike here(something I partially participated in) there is no vitriol towards the game, rather a certain melancholy about the past.

Stop with this patronizing ''evolution'' trope. Games aren't animals that adapt to their environments over millenia. They are designed by humans.

The series hasn't seen any sort of evolution. It has seen a genre shift; what was a CRPG has become a Borderlands-esque shoot and loot, with token story elements. This is not objectively better or worse, but the change is pretty significant.

This isn't always a bad thing. I'd argue Mass Effect's gameplay was improved by ditching several clunky RPG elements and going for a more shooter route, which ME3 refined so that it easily had the best gameplay in the series even if it suffered from autodialog and a shit ending.

However, Fallout already had a perfectly serviceable game system. As an RPG, it not only worked, but it was a classic of the genre, and SPECIAL was easily one of the most robust systems out there. Bethesda already altered it a lot in FO3, on top of the perspective change, and not for the better, so that FO3 was a fairly poor RPG. New Vegas then injected a good amount of those elements back and (IMO) proved that you can make a proper Fallour RPG as a first-person game. It's possible to mesh Bethesda style exploration with Black Isles style RPG elements. You just have to design the game well.

Then FO4 rips out the vast majority of those RPG elements so that you're only left with no skills, perks that only help you in combat except for a select few (and mostly do the same thing as the skills anyway), no SPECIAL use in conversation except for CHA, an awful dialog wheel, no faction reputation, no Karma, no story progression unless you're a good guy, thus no ability to roleplay anyone but a goody two-shoes parent looking for their child, and whose backstory is mostly already set for you. To say nothing of the fact that quests rarely offer any kind of choice, and are depressingly often ''go kill X for me pls'' affairs.

Because of that, FO4 doesn't have the same identity as previous games. Even FO3 tried to be an RPG. FO4 doesn't even bother. Go there, kill stuff, craft a better plasma gun. Exploring the ethics of a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Ain't nobody got time for that. Tactics was about as much of an RPG as FO4 is, and it didn't even bill itself as an RPG.

If someone likes it, well fine. I won't pretend that everyone should love the Fallout model that Black Isle and Obsidian envision. Hell, I even enjoyed FO4 for what it is. But what it is, isn't a proper Fallout game. It didn't make me build my character, roleplay, didn't make me think. And to me, that makes it an inferior game to FO1, FO2 and NV. This isn't unthinking vitrol. This is criticism. And Bethesda needs this criticism. Their gameplay model needs a serious kick in the butt if they want me to find their games great again. If I wanna play Borderlands, I'll go play freaking Borderlands. I wanted Fallout, and I didn't get Fallout.

 

[TransgenderVaultDeweller]

And what have I said in the first place? Ultimately, Fallout has evolved, whether you, I or we like it. There is still enjoyment to be had, is it Fallout of Old? Not so much. But as I said, unlike here(something I partially participated in) there is no vitriol towards the game, rather a certain melancholy about the past.

Evolved? No. Changed? Yes. Evolution implies improvement. This is not what happened to fallout.

Not necessarily. If we go by survival of the fittest, Fallout "evolved" to suit the market. We shouldn't fool ourselves, Fallout is what it is because it is the product of its time. Very few large AAA RPGs are that much different; as for the dialogue system it was Mass Effect, Star Wars, Dragon Age, Witcher, Alpha Protocol, Fallout. Whether its changed or evolved doesn't really matter much.

What market are you referring to? cRPG's still have a slice as Pillars of Eternity have proved that. So does tides of numera the kick started game that is a spiritual successor to Planescape torment. This disproves your assertion of needing to fit to survive. If you make a product, (I've learned from mentors, entrepreneur business men around.) The motto is to look after the consumer and the business can take care for yourself. If you make a product that innovates and has soul into it. Not trying to be some husk of a mimic, Then you can generally get interested customers that willingly want to purchase and want to support the game. I feel today's market is only trying to take shallow methods and keep reselling with no improvements to it what so ever just copy and paste with little to no effort. I feel incentive in trying to make money alone is what causes problems in the first place. Indeed money is important. But your reason to make games is because you have passion and you want to change. You want to take pride in your work and share it to other people for entertainment. That is what games should be about. Making good games. Not what it is today. Fallout 4 tried to be other games rather than itself.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the important part is that if Bethesda keeps hearing that people in the mainstream are annoyed by how combat focused Fallout 4 is, how you have to kill 85% of the people you meet, and the other 15% hardly have anything worth saying, how people want meaningful context besides "you get XP and loot", and people would prefer to actually roleplay given the opportunity (and "Yes, Yes, No(Yes), Question" is not roleplaying) that they will have to adjust course somewhat.

They may not go as far as we'd like, but they'll probably have to swing the pendulum the other way. Fallout 4 is what it is, and at this point there's no real changing it, but if they listen to the criticism (especially when it's not coming from the dyed in the wool Fallout grognards) then at least there's hope Fallout 5 might actually be better than the last one.

At least, I feel confident that given the response to Fallout 4, if Bethesda funds a spinoff interquel they're much more likely to want to do a game that focuses on being an RPG than a game that focuses in being a shooter.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Guys read the article. Its not what it seems from the first paragraph, though. There is no vitriol of Fallout 4, but rather analysis of how some people, especially those that dwell here responded to Fallout 4.

That is not at all what I got from the article. Here is a quote from the author:
"It was one of the coolest things I’ve found while playing Fallout 4...and then Fallout 4 ruined it."

"I understand that I covered some of this in my review, but after another 50 hours, I’m more struck by the changes than ever. I can’t tell you how many times I found an intriguing character in the wasteland, only to be disappointed by how brief and vague our conversations were. "

"Now it seems that if your interactions with the world won’t result in kills, loot, or XP, the game doesn’t feel it’s worth doing."

"Of course, just because I’ve accepted what Fallout has become doesn’t mean I can’t mourn what’s been lost along the way."

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read the article?

Quote: "Whenever I visit Memory Den, I don’t like lingering for too long. It’s not real, I know, but I don’t like the thought of getting trapped there, of never going out and having cool new adventures. Even as I may not linger, however, I do understand why others may not want to leave."

That's the conclusion of the article. God, people here like to argue and twist everything in the worst possible way.

That still agrees with what I have posted. The author states good points about the game and then admits he understands why Fallout fans are disappointed. She makes the point that on it's own it's a decent game but judging it from the perspective of the Fallout series is understandable, and goes on to cite many critical reviews that explain why it's a "good game but not a good Fallout game" and how she can understand the sentiment despite disagreeing with it.

In other words, she is critical of Fallout for the same reasons I am and agrees some fans may find the game to be mediocre, as I have.

The author likes the game overall, but points out valid criticisms. I'd call that a decent review even with the points with which I disagree.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

In other words, he is critical of Fallout for the same reasons I am and agrees some fans may find the game to be mediocre, as I have.

*She

Patricia Hernandez also wrote this really nice piece about how important Fallout 2 was to her at an impressionable age, I highly recommend it: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/23/gaming-made-me-fallout-2/

 

[Crni Vuk]

And what have I said in the first place? Ultimately, Fallout has evolved, whether you, I or we like it. There is still enjoyment to be had, is it Fallout of Old? Not so much. But as I said, unlike here(something I partially participated in) there is no vitriol towards the game, rather a certain melancholy about the past.

Stop with this patronizing ''evolution'' trope. Games aren't animals that adapt to their environments over millenia. They are designed by humans.

The series hasn't seen any sort of evolution. It has seen a genre shift; what was a CRPG has become a Borderlands-esque shoot and loot, with token story elements. This is not objectively better or worse, but the change is pretty significant.

This isn't always a bad thing. I'd argue Mass Effect's gameplay was improved by ditching several clunky RPG elements and going for a more shooter route, which ME3 refined so that it easily had the best gameplay in the series even if it suffered from autodialog and a shit ending.

However, Fallout already had a perfectly serviceable game system. As an RPG, it not only worked, but it was a classic of the genre, and SPECIAL was easily one of the most robust systems out there. Bethesda already altered it a lot in FO3, on top of the perspective change, and not for the better, so that FO3 was a fairly poor RPG. New Vegas then injected a good amount of those elements back and (IMO) proved that you can make a proper Fallour RPG as a first-person game. It's possible to mesh Bethesda style exploration with Black Isles style RPG elements. You just have to design the game well.

Then FO4 rips out the vast majority of those RPG elements so that you're only left with no skills, perks that only help you in combat except for a select few (and mostly do the same thing as the skills anyway), no SPECIAL use in conversation except for CHA, an awful dialog wheel, no faction reputation, no Karma, no story progression unless you're a good guy, thus no ability to roleplay anyone but a goody two-shoes parent looking for their child, and whose backstory is mostly already set for you. To say nothing of the fact that quests rarely offer any kind of choice, and are depressingly often ''go kill X for me pls'' affairs.

Because of that, FO4 doesn't have the same identity as previous games. Even FO3 tried to be an RPG. FO4 doesn't even bother. Go there, kill stuff, craft a better plasma gun. Exploring the ethics of a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Ain't nobody got time for that. Tactics was about as much of an RPG as FO4 is, and it didn't even bill itself as an RPG.

If someone likes it, well fine. I won't pretend that everyone should love the Fallout model that Black Isle and Obsidian envision. Hell, I even enjoyed FO4 for what it is. But what it is, isn't a proper Fallout game. It didn't make me build my character, roleplay, didn't make me think. And to me, that makes it an inferior game to FO1, FO2 and NV. This isn't unthinking vitrol. This is criticism. And Bethesda needs this criticism. Their gameplay model needs a serious kick in the butt if they want me to find their games great again. If I wanna play Borderlands, I'll go play freaking Borderlands. I wanted Fallout, and I didn't get Fallout.

This. So mich this. Even though I refuse to see even New Vegas as a "true" Sequel (yeah yeah, curse me for it ...), I think it did a lot of great stuff. The writing and the quests definetly have been what I would expect from a Fallout game. The gameplay, it was still a shooter in my opinion. But well. That's a different story.

What I really want to say is that I have no doubts that F:NV would have sold at least as many copies like Bethesdas Fallout 3 if it was released at the same time and with the same marketing behind it.

I think you CAN sell great quality AND make it appeal to a wider audience. NV definetly contains enough action and shooter-stuff inside to satisfy those players as well.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

In other words, he is critical of Fallout for the same reasons I am and agrees some fans may find the game to be mediocre, as I have.

*She

Patricia Hernandez also wrote this really nice piece about how important Fallout 2 was to her at an impressionable age, I highly recommend it: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/23/gaming-made-me-fallout-2/

Thanks I will read that. Also changed the pronouns in my post.

 

[TheRippaMan]

Guys read the article. Its not what it seems from the first paragraph, though. There is no vitriol of Fallout 4, but rather analysis of how some people, especially those that dwell here responded to Fallout 4.

That is not at all what I got from the article. Here is a quote from the author:
"It was one of the coolest things I’ve found while playing Fallout 4...and then Fallout 4 ruined it."

"I understand that I covered some of this in my review, but after another 50 hours, I’m more struck by the changes than ever. I can’t tell you how many times I found an intriguing character in the wasteland, only to be disappointed by how brief and vague our conversations were. "

"Now it seems that if your interactions with the world won’t result in kills, loot, or XP, the game doesn’t feel it’s worth doing."

"Of course, just because I’ve accepted what Fallout has become doesn’t mean I can’t mourn what’s been lost along the way."

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read the article?

Quote: "Whenever I visit Memory Den, I don’t like lingering for too long. It’s not real, I know, but I don’t like the thought of getting trapped there, of never going out and having cool new adventures. Even as I may not linger, however, I do understand why others may not want to leave."

That's the conclusion of the article. God, people here like to argue and twist everything in the worst possible way.

What's next you're going to tell people you got attacked here for having a different opinion than the mass of angry Fallout fans stuck in the past? lol, nobody is twisting anything, just want to make sure you understand that. It's called a discussion. This place is a forum, a meeting place to exchange and discuss ideas.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Guys read the article. Its not what it seems from the first paragraph, though. There is no vitriol of Fallout 4, but rather analysis of how some people, especially those that dwell here responded to Fallout 4.

That is not at all what I got from the article. Here is a quote from the author:
"It was one of the coolest things I’ve found while playing Fallout 4...and then Fallout 4 ruined it."

"I understand that I covered some of this in my review, but after another 50 hours, I’m more struck by the changes than ever. I can’t tell you how many times I found an intriguing character in the wasteland, only to be disappointed by how brief and vague our conversations were. "

"Now it seems that if your interactions with the world won’t result in kills, loot, or XP, the game doesn’t feel it’s worth doing."

"Of course, just because I’ve accepted what Fallout has become doesn’t mean I can’t mourn what’s been lost along the way."

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read the article?

Quote: "Whenever I visit Memory Den, I don’t like lingering for too long. It’s not real, I know, but I don’t like the thought of getting trapped there, of never going out and having cool new adventures. Even as I may not linger, however, I do understand why others may not want to leave."

That's the conclusion of the article. God, people here like to argue and twist everything in the worst possible way.

What's next you're going to tell people you got attacked here for having a different opinion than the mass of angry Fallout fans stuck in the past? lol, nobody is twisting anything, just want to make sure you understand that. It's called a discussion. This place is a forum, a meeting place to exchange and discuss ideas.

This is actually what I have noticed about the people who complain about NMA on Reddit.

 

[TheRippaMan]

Guys read the article. Its not what it seems from the first paragraph, though. There is no vitriol of Fallout 4, but rather analysis of how some people, especially those that dwell here responded to Fallout 4.

That is not at all what I got from the article. Here is a quote from the author:
"It was one of the coolest things I’ve found while playing Fallout 4...and then Fallout 4 ruined it."

"I understand that I covered some of this in my review, but after another 50 hours, I’m more struck by the changes than ever. I can’t tell you how many times I found an intriguing character in the wasteland, only to be disappointed by how brief and vague our conversations were. "

"Now it seems that if your interactions with the world won’t result in kills, loot, or XP, the game doesn’t feel it’s worth doing."

"Of course, just because I’ve accepted what Fallout has become doesn’t mean I can’t mourn what’s been lost along the way."

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read the article?

Quote: "Whenever I visit Memory Den, I don’t like lingering for too long. It’s not real, I know, but I don’t like the thought of getting trapped there, of never going out and having cool new adventures. Even as I may not linger, however, I do understand why others may not want to leave."

That's the conclusion of the article. God, people here like to argue and twist everything in the worst possible way.

What's next you're going to tell people you got attacked here for having a different opinion than the mass of angry Fallout fans stuck in the past? lol, nobody is twisting anything, just want to make sure you understand that. It's called a discussion. This place is a forum, a meeting place to exchange and discuss ideas.

This is actually what I have noticed about the people who complain about NMA on Reddit.

I can't say anything about Reddit, but I do have to wonder in a general sense where some people think it's absolutely necessary that others share in their sentiments 100%. I suppose it reinforces some level of confidence in themselves that otherwise they don't get anywhere else. But seeing posts like the one I quoted just makes me wonder how many of these NMA survival horror stories are simply the product of people coming here and having their opinions challenged lol.

In any case, I felt the article was spot on.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Guys read the article. Its not what it seems from the first paragraph, though. There is no vitriol of Fallout 4, but rather analysis of how some people, especially those that dwell here responded to Fallout 4.

That is not at all what I got from the article. Here is a quote from the author:
"It was one of the coolest things I’ve found while playing Fallout 4...and then Fallout 4 ruined it."

"I understand that I covered some of this in my review, but after another 50 hours, I’m more struck by the changes than ever. I can’t tell you how many times I found an intriguing character in the wasteland, only to be disappointed by how brief and vague our conversations were. "

"Now it seems that if your interactions with the world won’t result in kills, loot, or XP, the game doesn’t feel it’s worth doing."

"Of course, just because I’ve accepted what Fallout has become doesn’t mean I can’t mourn what’s been lost along the way."

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read the article?

Quote: "Whenever I visit Memory Den, I don’t like lingering for too long. It’s not real, I know, but I don’t like the thought of getting trapped there, of never going out and having cool new adventures. Even as I may not linger, however, I do understand why others may not want to leave."

That's the conclusion of the article. God, people here like to argue and twist everything in the worst possible way.

What's next you're going to tell people you got attacked here for having a different opinion than the mass of angry Fallout fans stuck in the past? lol, nobody is twisting anything, just want to make sure you understand that. It's called a discussion. This place is a forum, a meeting place to exchange and discuss ideas.

This is actually what I have noticed about the people who complain about NMA on Reddit.

I can't say anything about Reddit, but I do have to wonder in a general sense where some people think it's absolutely necessary that others share in their sentiments 100%. I suppose it reinforces some level of confidence in themselves that otherwise they don't get anywhere else. But seeing posts like the one I quoted just makes me wonder how many of these NMA survival horror stories are simply the product of people coming here and having their opinions challenged lol.

In any case, I felt the article was spot on.

I don't use Reddit but I remember around the time Fallout 4 was released I was looking through some threads there and most of these people complaining about NMA ended up convincing me to go register at NMA.