It all comes tumbling down, tumbling down.

[PossibleCabbage]

I very much believe this. As an office drone myself I'm fully aware that while I may want to do a great job that I'm still confined by the boundaries set by people at the top. I don't think the devs at Bethesda were or are unaware of what FO4 is, but I think a lot of it's shortcomings stem from making the best of a bad situation created by suits who only look at what will move units.

From time to time though, the creative types are going to have these arguments with the suits and win at least partial victories. The more concrete stuff that the creative types have to point to here the better. So things like "Kotaku said that this was the worst (non-spinoff) Fallout game" and "low metacritic user score" and "other contemporary games in this genre achieved notably higher professional metascore" (suits in games love Metacritic) and the "why?" questions inspired by this ("What can we learn from the Witcher 3? Hell, what can we learn from Undertale?") are probably going to help make Fallout 5 a better game than it would have been otherwise.

After all, those sorts of discussions about Fallout 5 are about to start happening, since BGS's next game (presumably TESVI) is going to switch from pre-production to production during Fallout 4's DLC schedule, and pre-production on their next title (presumably Fo5) is going to start right after that.

 

[Spacemunkey]

I agree.Without being privy to the inner workings of BGS it would seem that the person who could win that argument is Todd Howard, but from what I've gleaned from interviews, articles, and the finished product, he's either unwilling or incapable to engage in that confrontation.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I very much believe this. As an office drone myself I'm fully aware that while I may want to do a great job that I'm still confined by the boundaries set by people at the top. I don't think the devs at Bethesda were or are unaware of what FO4 is, but I think a lot of it's shortcomings stem from making the best of a bad situation created by suits who only look at what will move units.

From time to time though, the creative types are going to have these arguments with the suits and win at least partial victories. The more concrete stuff that the creative types have to point to here the better. So things like "Kotaku said that this was the worst (non-spinoff) Fallout game" and "low metacritic user score" and "other contemporary games in this genre achieved notably higher professional metascore" (suits in games love Metacritic) and the "why?" questions inspired by this ("What can we learn from the Witcher 3? Hell, what can we learn from Undertale?") are probably going to help make Fallout 5 a better game than it would have been otherwise.

After all, those sorts of discussions about Fallout 5 are about to start happening, since BGS's next game (presumably TESVI) is going to switch from pre-production to production during Fallout 4's DLC schedule, and pre-production on their next title (presumably Fo5) is going to start right after that.

Only if the people in charge actually see that as error. And the last no clue, 10-15 years have not shown any improvement here. Think about what Bethesda has done with their current leaderships and management. Fallout 4 might seem exceptional, but when you think about it, it fitts extremly well in to the progress of all the released Bethesda titles, from Dagger to Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and now Fallout 4. Removing of RPG elements, simplifing of features, streamlining of gameplay, changing the narrative and queststructure to MMO like levels, getting pretty much rid of most if not all moral dilemas.

I personaly, do not have high hopes as far as Fallout 5 goes, or the next Elder Scrolls games, with the current leadership at Bethesda. I feel only a completely new managament has a chance to change something. But from a money making perspective, Bethesda is as good as never before, so even that hope isn't very high.

 

[MercenarySnake]

I very much believe this. As an office drone myself I'm fully aware that while I may want to do a great job that I'm still confined by the boundaries set by people at the top. I don't think the devs at Bethesda were or are unaware of what FO4 is, but I think a lot of it's shortcomings stem from making the best of a bad situation created by suits who only look at what will move units.

From time to time though, the creative types are going to have these arguments with the suits and win at least partial victories. The more concrete stuff that the creative types have to point to here the better. So things like "Kotaku said that this was the worst (non-spinoff) Fallout game" and "low metacritic user score" and "other contemporary games in this genre achieved notably higher professional metascore" (suits in games love Metacritic) and the "why?" questions inspired by this ("What can we learn from the Witcher 3? Hell, what can we learn from Undertale?") are probably going to help make Fallout 5 a better game than it would have been otherwise.

After all, those sorts of discussions about Fallout 5 are about to start happening, since BGS's next game (presumably TESVI) is going to switch from pre-production to production during Fallout 4's DLC schedule, and pre-production on their next title (presumably Fo5) is going to start right after that.

Only if the people in charge actually see that as error. And the last no clue, 10-15 years have not shown any improvement here. Think about what Bethesda has done with their current leaderships and management. Fallout 4 might seem exceptional, but when you think about it, it fitts extremly well in to the progress of all the released Bethesda titles, from Dagger to Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and now Fallout 4. Removing of RPG elements, simplifing of features, streamlining of gameplay, changing the narrative and queststructure to MMO like levels, getting pretty much rid of most if not all moral dilemas.

I personaly, do not have high hopes as far as Fallout 5 goes, or the next Elder Scrolls games, with the current leadership at Bethesda. I feel only a completely new managament has a chance to change something. But from a money making perspective, Bethesda is as good as never before, so even that hope isn't very high.

What exactly is it that doesn't give you high hopes for Fallout 5 if you don't mind me asking? I'm just curious to hear your opinions on it.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

I guess the real question is then "what is Todd Howard willing to go to bat for", since he's (most likely) a real person who thinks some things are better than other things for reasons unrelated to sales. There were some abrupt about-faces in development priorities between Fallout 3 and Fallout 4, after all. Take for example the whole "binary morality" thing. Fallout 3 was a game deeply invested in the good/evil dichotomy, to the point where the game's choices were generally coded as one or the other, and the radio DJ spends half the time talking about how good (or bad) you are. When Obsidian said "hey, objective morality kind of clashes with our game's themes, can we just drop karma for reputation" they said no. But now Fallout 4 has no karma whatsoever and the game isn't interested in telling you that you're holy or wicked.

So something changed between then and now, and it can't just be "reacting to industry trends" since you can buck those if what goes against the is considered one of your design priorities. The thing I'm wondering about is what priorities are going to change between now and BGS's next bite at the apple.

 

[MercenarySnake]

Well if your character didn't play as a goody two shoes parent I would say maybe they were trying to change to a morally grey route but I think that it was to strip out another feature.

In New Vegas we had the reputation system like Fallout 1 and 2, while I thought more probably could've been done with it the reputation system was good to have in there. Then there was karma which I thought could've been improved on(honestly though I prefer having a morally grey system instead of the silly good vs evil) Fallout 4 removed both of them instead of approving on them leaving out more features unless the GECK shows it was hidden cut files.

 

[Crni Vuk]

What exactly is it that doesn't give you high hopes for Fallout 5 if you don't mind me asking? I'm just curious to hear your opinions on it.

Mainly the ego and past work of the people that are in charge of Fallout and the Elderscrolls is what doesn't give me any hope. Todd Howard in particular, I think, is a very pecuilar kind of developer, a one trick pony that simply CAN'T do anything else than what you see in Fallout 4:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/showthread.php?175874-Don-t-Buy-the-Hype

Namely simplifying and streamling an already existing product. Not creating a visualy and creatively unique product. Or taking risks even. Without the intention to insult him, I just don't get the feeling that Todd (and Emil for that mater), are risk takers and visionaries. Look at their portfolio and compare it now with Obsidian or Timothy Cain. Has Todd created ANY franchise/design on his own? Has he even tried? I am not saying that working on the shoulders of others or with existing content is inherently a bad thing. Coming up with your own stuff and creating your own franchise is extremly difficult after all.

Bethesda has done the same thing, for the last no clue 10 years or so. They would have already changed something, if they really wanted to improve or change here. The criticism you hear about F4, is not new. For years you hear always the same stuff. Better UI, more choices and concequences, better dialog, less bugs etc. And that from people that are Bethesda fans even and generally love their games. When ever someone makes a video, "what we expect from the next Fallout/Elder Scrolls game" you always hear those points coming up. And? Nothing has changed. People still buy it.

At this point, I think they are simply to long in the company, to heavily invested in their own design goals that worked so well - for them - for last 15 years. It's incredibly hard to change old habits, particularly when you feel that this is the road to success. What counts is the fact that they sell 30 million units, or what ever the maximum will be for Fallout 4. Seriously, I would not be surprised if Fallout 5 will become even more simplified changing the game totally to a Bordlerlands clone with minimal story, 99% of Radiant AI quests and coop gameplay or something. Bethesda has a habit of 1. alinating old fans and 2. playing it save (appealing to the mass market). There are enough people out there who like Fallout 3 but have their qualms with Fallout 4 - TO much of a shooter not enough RPG, the same issues with many of their previous games.

It's just when I am directly comparing the changes from Daggerfall to Morrowind and the other games I get the feeling that they have a certain design goal they follow. Morrowind was already a simplifcation, with a smaller world, one ending, less skills etc. Oblivion was again a simplification from Morrowind. And Skyrim from Oblivion. And Fallout 4 to Fallout 3 of course and Fallout 3 was made in the spirit of Oblivion.

If you really want to know what I mean, you could also watch this:


I am NOT saying that ALL changes they made have been for the worse! I am talking about the game in general, the tone, narrative, queststructure, the design approach Bethesda followed from the late 1990s to 2015. It's hard to describe it without writing a novell really or sounding preachy.

 

[MercenarySnake]

What exactly is it that doesn't give you high hopes for Fallout 5 if you don't mind me asking? I'm just curious to hear your opinions on it.

Mainly the ego and past work of the people that are in charge of Fallout and the Elderscrolls is what doesn't give me any hope. Todd Howard in particular, I think, is a very pecuilar kind of developer, a one trick pony that simply CAN'T do anything else than what you see in Fallout 4:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/showthread.php?175874-Don-t-Buy-the-Hype

Namely simplifying and streamling an already existing product. Not creating a visualy and creatively unique product. Or taking risks even. Without the intention to insult him, I just don't get the feeling that Todd (and Emil for that mater), are risk takers and visionaries. Look at their portfolio and compare it now with Obsidian or Timothy Cain. Has Todd created ANY franchise/design on his own? Has he even tried? I am not saying that working on the shoulders of others or with existing content is inherently a bad thing. Coming up with your own stuff and creating your own franchise is extremly difficult after all.

Bethesda has done the same thing, for the last no clue 10 years or so. They would have already changed something, if they really wanted to improve or change here. At this point, I think they are simply to long in the company, to heavily invested in their own design goals that worked so well - for them - for last 15 years. It's incredibly hard to change old habits, particularly when you feel that this is the road to success. What counts is the fact that they sell 30 million units, or what ever the maximum will be for Fallout 4. Seriously, I would not be surprised if Fallout 5 will become even more simplified changing the game totally to a Bordlerlands clone with minimal story, 99% of Radiant AI quests and coop gameplay or something.

It's just when I am directly comparing the changes from Daggerfall to Morrowind and the other games I get the feeling that they have a certain design goal they follow. Morrowind was already a simplifcation, with a smaller world, one ending, less skills etc. Oblivion was again a simplification from Morrowind. And Skyrim from Oblivion. And Fallout 4 to Fallout 3 of course and Fallout 3 was made in the spirit of Oblivion.

If you really want to know what I mean, you could also watch this:


I am NOT saying that ALL changes they made have been for the worse! I am talking about the game in general, the tone, narrative, queststructure, the design approach Bethesda followed from the late 1990s to 2015. It's hard to describe it without writing a novell really or sounding preachy.

Oh I can agree with everything you're saying here, it seems they're heavily invested into this company so changing management isn't going to happen sometime soon. I think that they want to play it safe since this is what they're best at, they know they're good at it and so they keep the formula while removing parts of what every game before it had.

I want to say it's to broaden their fanbase and audience but with the backlash of people as of circa Fallout 4 being unhappy with things like the dialogue I'm beginning to wonder if something else is factored into their formula or if being that one trick pony is starting to eat at everyone. Maybe I'm looking far to much into this though.

Unless they can prove they can do something good with the DLC I have no high hopes for the future of the Fallout franchise. I really do want another turn based isometric Fallout though even if it's a pipe dream.

 

[Spacemunkey]

Personally I find the removal of karma a good thing. The Fallout universe, imo, is much better suited for a faction reputation; I mean why would x faction care that I killed an npc from y faction in the context of the wasteland unless they were allies.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Unless they can prove they can do something good with the DLC I have no high hopes for the future of the Fallout franchise. I really do want another turn based isometric Fallout though even if it's a pipe dream.

They made decent DLCs for some of their games already, people here said that Shivering Isle for Oblivion and the Pit for F3 have been decent enough. Infact if the Pit would have been Fallout 3 and Shivering Isle actually the plot of Oblivion, it might have been really turned out to be awesome games! As far as the usual Beth standard goes.



This whole concept of a world divided between two emotions - mania or dementia - alone is a cool concept, worth it's own game, and not something you see everyday ... but they wasted it on a DLC while making the main game a typical rescue-the-world-oh-great-hero! thing.

However, it still didn't change what happend to Skyrim and Fallout 4. I guess the guys behind the DLCs are simply not so heavily supervised like the people working on the main game. So there is more creative freedom and more risky stuff inside, because you can always go, meh, if it doesn't work, it's just a DLC, let the intern try his hands on it!

 

[MercenarySnake]

Personally I find the removal of karma a good thing. The Fallout universe, imo, is much better suited for a faction reputation; I mean why would x faction care that I killed an npc from y faction in the context of the wasteland unless they were allies.

I might get flak for this but I didn't care for the karma system due to things like the good vs evil aspect of it. Same thing thing with stealing a coffee cup in secret and getting bad karma to me is kind of silly. Now I'm all for the reputation system.

 

[Spacemunkey]

I might get flak for this but I didn't care for the karma system due to things like the good vs evil aspect of it. Same thing thing with stealing a coffee cup in secret and getting bad karma to me is kind of silly. Now I'm all for the reputation system.

I had a similar issue with the way reputation was handled in FNV, if I wipe out an entire group of NCR/Legion who the hell told them I did.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

Personally I find the removal of karma a good thing. The Fallout universe, imo, is much better suited for a faction reputation; I mean why would x faction care that I killed an npc from y faction in the context of the wasteland unless they were allies.

Karma mostly made sense as "general reputation". It made less sense when the presentation was more realistic and more sense when it was more abstracted (after all, if no one sees you steal something, why should you lose reputation) plus Fallout 3 sort of thoroughly deconstructed it since you could completely atone for the murder of everyone (except Moira) in Megaton if you gave away 20 bottles of water.

At this point, the game is better off without it, and you don't really need "general reputation" anyway if your faction system is sufficiently robust.

I had a similar issue with the way reputation was handled in FNV, if I wipe out an entire group of NCR/Legion who the hell told them I did.

Well, the NCR has radios, and you don't lose reputation with a faction if you kill their members while stealthed, so it's not completely implausible...

 

[Mr Fish]

Legion also got radio's and they got a shit ton of scouts in their areas so it's possible that one might've seen you in the distance if you weren't stealthing and reported your crime against nature. Khans might be listening in on NCR radio or they might have spies or even contacts in the NCR who they've learned from if you killed Melissa or the ones by Boulder City. Hell, a lot of reputation loss can make perfect sense really.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Legion also got radio's and they got a shit ton of scouts in their areas so it's possible that one might've seen you in the distance if you weren't stealthing and reported your crime against nature. Khans might be listening in on NCR radio or they might have spies or even contacts in the NCR who they've learned from if you killed Melissa or the ones by Boulder City. Hell, a lot of reputation loss can make perfect sense really.

I agree, karma is stupid but reputation makes sense, though honestly it could be handled better.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

The weirder karma abberation in New Vegas was when you storm into Cottonwood Cove, kill everybody except the slaves for no karma change, then when you go to loot the tents and the buildings of the items that the recently deceased no longer require you start losing karma.

So the game doesn't judge you for killing people in cold blood, but does judge you for taking their stuff.

 

[Dr Fallout]

The weirder karma abberation in New Vegas was when you storm into Cottonwood Cove, kill everybody except the slaves for no karma change, then when you go to loot the tents and the buildings of the items that the recently deceased no longer require you start losing karma.

So the game doesn't judge you for killing people in cold blood, but does judge you for taking their stuff.

Yeah Karma was ridiculous in all games that had it.

 

[MercenarySnake]

Fallout 2 handed karma out like candy, by the end of the game I had over 700 karma! I think it's silly that killing them leads to no karma loss but taking things that belong to people that don't need it leads to evil karma, what the shit?

 

[Dr Fallout]

Fallout 2 handed karma out like candy, by the end of the game I had over 700 karma! I think it's silly that killing them leads to no karma loss but taking things that belong to people that don't need it leads to evil karma, what the shit?

Karma was never a good idea, reputation was a great idea.

 

[MercenarySnake]

Karma was never a good idea, reputation was a great idea.

Agreed, I don't care for the way karma was but I though the reputation system was a good idea. Should've been expanded upon further.