My Own Theory About Why F4 Is The Way It Is

[aenemic]

They play it extremely safe and more or less make the same game over and over with very little new features, because they know it works and sells well, and it's what they know how to do;

They actually did try something different in Fallout 4. They tried making a more action oriented Fallout game to draw in more sales from your typical FPS gamer. I think it worked sales wise for them, but quality of the game took a massive hit.

If they would've actually did what you said and released an upgraded Fallout 3 or Fallout: New Vegas I believe people would've actually been happy with it.

So you don't agree that Fallout 4 follows the same basic mold as all their previous modern games, with minor alterations? I don't think improving the gunplay constitutes for trying something new and going after the FPS market. I call it common sense in a game that was from the very beginning deemed to focus a lot on action.

Compare with how for example CD Project Red have allowed their games to evolve.

 

[Walpknut]

My theory:
Todd Howard arrives one day to the office: I said we were releasing the game this year, LOL!
Employee: But you said it was a 2017 deadline, we have barely been a year into development.
Howard: Speaking about that, I also said we had been working on it since Fallout 3, so careful with contradicting me in the interviews.
Employee: Why must you always lie so much?
Howard: IT FEEDS ME!

 

[Irwin John Finster]

They play it extremely safe and more or less make the same game over and over with very little new features, because they know it works and sells well, and it's what they know how to do;

They actually did try something different in Fallout 4. They tried making a more action oriented Fallout game to draw in more sales from your typical FPS gamer. I think it worked sales wise for them, but quality of the game took a massive hit.

If they would've actually did what you said and released an upgraded Fallout 3 or Fallout: New Vegas I believe people would've actually been happy with it.

So you don't agree that Fallout 4 follows the same basic mold as all their previous modern games, with minor alterations? I don't think improving the gunplay constitutes for trying something new and going after the FPS market. I call it common sense in a game that was from the very beginning deemed to focus a lot on action.

Compare with how for example CD Project Red have allowed their games to evolve.

I think it follows the same basic mold with major alterations, all of which are terrible.

 

[SaucyLad]

So you don't agree that Fallout 4 follows the same basic mold as all their previous modern games, with minor alterations? I don't think improving the gunplay constitutes for trying something new and going after the FPS market. I call it common sense in a game that was from the very beginning deemed to focus a lot on action.

Compare with how for example CD Project Red have allowed their games to evolve.

They improved gun-play and emphasized it far stronger than it was in any previous game;

The majority of NPC's you find in Fallout 4 are those that strictly want to kill you. In, fact they likely outnumber those you can speak with 100:1. The only things that work in Fallout 4 are the gun-play, crafting and Power Armor. The things that don't that people complain about the most? Dialogues, story, choice, quests. It's pretty clear they went a different route in Fallout 4 than they took with Fallout 3, which tried for an even balance.

If they'd followed the mold Fallout 3/New Vegas used and simply updated the graphics the resulting game would've been more acceptable to the core fans than Fallout 4. It wouldn't have been a giant leap in the series mind you but I personally would've rathered that than what we got.

 

[Mr Fish]

Skyrim was also pretty innovative when it launched, no one had seen a world THAT big and with THAT level of detail before. Cities were large and full of NPC's which went about their daily tasks. Fights were epic and there was no lack of lore to pore over. Say what you will about Skyrim but it definitely set a new high benchmark for open world RPG's and graphical quality.

The fuck are you talking about?

All right, let's start with the innovative part, no one had seen a world THAT big and with THAT level of detail before? Uh... I have? Saints Row? GTA? Fallout 3? Oblivion? Ugh... Morrowind...? The fuck are you talking about, man? There's been plenty of big open world games with a hard-on for attention to detail.

And big cities? What game were you playing? Whiterun has like a dozen houses if even that inside of its gates and like a dozen more outside of its gates. That's a "large city"? Oblivion IIRC had larger cities or at the very least same-sized cities. And NPC's went about their daily tasks? Yeah, so did they in Oblivion and Fallout 3. Hell, Saints Row is a big city and its inhabitants were far more colourful and interesting to follow around.

Fights were epic? I'm... I don't... What? WHAT!? You mean the time an army sent like 2 dozen men to storm a city? That was "epic"? Whaaaaat? What else was epic? Fighting a dragon to defend Whiterun with like half a dozen guards? Yeah... Real epic. Or do you mean the time I got propelled into outer space by a giant? Not really epic. More like funny. What exactly was 'epic' in Skyrim? Cause I can't remember anything I'd consider close to "EPIC!"

As to lore, didn't they butcher a bunch of lore for Skyrim? If they did, then the lore is meaningless then.

And high benchmark for graphical quality? Am I the only one who saw the sluggish and jacky animations? Am I the only one who saw those ugly blocky shadows? Am I the only one who paid attention to the direction water flows and noticed that all water flows into a universal direction regardless of where the river is heading?

I don't get this. When the hell did Skyrim become something to praise?

[edit]

Dark Souls, came out in 2011, had way better melee combat.
Mount And Blade Warband, came out in 2010, had way more epic battles.
Two Worlds 2, came out in 2010, had a way better magic system and even allowed you to craft your own spells on the fly.

As to exploration? Well, Oblivion or Morrowind kinda already did this "innovation".

What else is there. Dialogue? FNV came out a year before Skyrim. It played mostly the same and its dialogue system and writing blows Skyrim out of the water.
FNV also had a reputation system that far outmatches Skyrim's "bounty" system it has for its holds.
What else is there? Dragons? Yeah I found fighting a dragon in Dragon Age to be way more engaging and epic.

Skyrim is not innovative and it did absolutely nothing that something else hasn't done before and better.


[edit2]

Now as to your theory about why Fallout 4 turned out the way it did, I dunno, could be that's what happened. Bethesda is so tightlipped that it'd be hard to difficult to figure it out though. But yeah it seems strange that after 4 years of proper development time this is all we're left with. Then again, I found the design for Skyrim quite lazy and slapper together, so it could just be that Bethesda are bad at making games. I dunno. Like, think of how many enemies there are in Dark Souls and hell, think of how many different weapon types there are for the player to use. Think of all the different animations and models and balancing they had to do. Right? Now think back on just how many different enemy types there were in Skyrim and how many there are in Fallout 4. Shouldn't a triple-A studio have been able to develop more than this? I mean, what do the animators at Bethesda do all day?

So I dunno, man. If it was the engine being a problem for newer consoles then I guess we'll know if they decide to ditch the engine for their next game and go with a different one.

 

[omphaloskepsis]

Full Disclaimer:
So here's my theory:

The whole "Bethesda needs a new engine" trope is based on certain players hopes and beliefs (mostly centered around console graphics and bugs) rather than anything BGS has ever said. The engine is buggy, but suits their needs. Creating a new engine from scratch isn't automatically better, it depends on the design goals and implementation details. Big changes that have actually happened--such as rewriting the scripting subsystem as a virtual machine, have caused other problems, not because of the engine, but because of the new implementation.

Your timeline is off by a few years too. BGS wouldn't have moved most of the team over until the last Skyrim DLC shipped.

A lot of your post makes assumptions about consoles while ignoring PCs. Skyrim looked average or a little worse for 2011 (but was amazing with ENB and a few gigs of texture mods), while FO4 actually looks good. And BGS has a history of problems with the playstation, so there's nothing new there if that's what you're talking about. So the engine isn't a problem so much as the devs. Either they don't have a strong dev (programmer) team, or management isn't giving them the time/resources they need. And they definitely don't have coders who are knowledgeable about playstation development.

The engine (which is actually a group of subsystems, several licensed from other companies) is also really good for modding. Probably the best there is. Other games generally have much simpler NPCs, skeletons, scripting systems, etc. While there's probably legacy code that's causing some of their issues, a new engine would almost certainly be "streamlined" in the same way that all of their other features have, which would mean mods would be reduced to the minor, simple changes we see in most other games.

For me at least (as a PC player), the issues with FO4 are all related to design goals and implementation, and pretty much zero grievances with the engine. My problems with the game are all related to the story, dialog, lack of choices, and design to be a Borderlands clone with a Fallout skin. It's a fun shooter, but I would like to see a Fallout RPG. An engine won't fix any of these issues.

 

[Monco]

FO4 actually looks good.

Sorry, it really doesn't. The textures are low res and ugly compared to almost any other AAA game, the facial animations and lip syncing are still bad, the faces still look pretty uncanny, and the draw distance is pretty terrible. On top of it looking mediocre for a game that came out in 2015, it also runs like ass for a lot of people on PC.

 

[TheVaultKeeper]

If you think that this is the thread to discuss the relative merits and/or shortcomings of Skyrim, Morrowind and Fallout 3 I'm afraid you are mistaken, please stick to the topic at hand. There are many people who like both Skyrim (myself for instance) and the later Fallout games (me not so much), but this isn't the thread about that.

I also wish to clarify something which seems to have been unclear, what I have presented is just a theory. A theory without any facts to back it up. It is in other words "just a theory", and one which very well may be incorrect. It may just be that Bethedas gradually is declining just like Cmi Vuk argues. Or that they are "lazy & cheap" money grabbers like aenemic posted. Those are simple and perfectly valid possibilites as to why Fallout 4 is in the state it's in. As such I have no real inclination to "prove" anything at this point. If you don't want to believe my theory, that's fine. I'm not really interested in defending it. If the theory turns out to be bogus, fine by me. If I never find out if it's true or false, I can live with that.

As you might have gathered I don't care that much either way if my theory is true or false. But since this is the most rabid Fallout community on web I thought I'd post my silly theory here for your amusement. Personally I think it's an interesting idea, if you don't feel the same way that's ok too.

 

[Mr Fish]

If you think that this is the thread to discuss the relative merits and/or shortcomings of Skyrim, Morrowind and Fallout 3 I'm afraid you are mistaken, please stick to the topic at hand. There are many people who like both Skyrim (myself for instance) and the later Fallout games (me not so much), but this isn't the thread about that.

Uh-huh. Skyrim's still not innovative though. But I'll refrain from talking about it. The thread will derail at some point like they always do and when that happens feel free to exploit it and inform me just how Skyrim was innovative. I'll avoid derailing it further and let the discussion focus on your theory.

Also, read my "[edit2]" in my previous post, I did post something relevant to your theory.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Skyrim was fun... if not innovative.

Anyhow, this theory holds merit in logic but falls apart in facts. I think it makes some sense that they would rush the game due to cut content.

 

[Gaddes]

While the theory isn't bad, I just think Bethesda is mediocre when it comes to making actual RPG's, well modern Bethsoft at least. They've improved on visuals with each game, but that's about it. Every game since Morrowind has lost more and more RPG elements.

 

[farchettiensis]

It's hard to tell, but this is not entirely implausible. I mean, you've gotta wonder why the game feels unpolished and unfinished in several ways..., sure, money and hype are part of the explanation, but there is something else, that is certain. That part of staff may have left is a good explanation, too. Think about, if you were talented and actually cared about the Fallout franchise, would you work for ''Godd'' Howard? Hardly, I'd say. You've gotta consider there might have been other things at play (their own incompetence, why not). I just hope they don't continue going down the slope.

On Skyrim: the game may not feel cohesive, nor your actions may have that much of an impact, but I think it's a damn good game. It had some of the most beautiful video game scenarios I've ever seen, and there was plenty lore to it, despite alleged incoherences. I'm not sure if it was innovative, or dumbed down in relation to the previous games of the franchise, but I do know Fallout 4 is waaaaay below Skyrim's league. There were very memorable characters and sites, which F4 lacks entirely.

 

[Crni Vuk]

*Shrugs* I doubt many people working for Beth actually cared about Fallout or even the Elder Scrolls in the first place and what direction it's heading to. We care, in some sense, because we are one way or another consumers. So you either like what they do or don't. For most of the developers working on it, it's probably more or less a job. Particularly on the lower end of the food chain. And, I had this a couple of times with my job, not exactly the same, but still creative work. Sometimes your client and/or boss, decides for the shitty webdesign/cover/brochure etc. And you have no other choice but to work on that ... even if you know that it's absolute garbage. The images are not good, the typography is shit, you would never buy it, it's downright cheap. But ... the client wants it that way.

 

[Trash of the Den]

*Shrugs* I doubt many people working for Beth actually cared about Fallout or even the Elder Scrolls in the first place and what direction it's heading to.

Yup the old man is right. You my friend couldn't be more correct here.

 

[TorontoReign]

It shouldn't be a big mystery why it is the way it is. Money. They want more money for less. That is why they still have 100 people working on a huge ass game that launches broken as shit but appeals to casuals.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Fallout 4 is not only worse than both Fallout 3 and Skyrim, it is substantially worse. In fact it is suspiciously sub-standard for what is supposed to be a Bethesda AAA game. !

Aren't all Bethesda games pretty much sub-standard for what AAA games are supposed to be like?

 

[Crni Vuk]

It shouldn't be a big mystery why it is the way it is. Money. They want more money for less. That is why they still have 100 people working on a huge ass game that launches broken as shit but appeals to casuals.

Your logic, puts even Sherlock Holmes to shame!

 

[TheVaultKeeper]

I'm not going to argue against either of you. I think we here on NMA care more about Fallout and Elder Scrolls than 90% of the people at Bethesda, especially including Todd or Emil. Which is a real, real shame to be honest.

Luckily there are studios like Larian, Obsidian and CD Projekt RED who continue making games for people that actually care about RPG's. That's were I'm putting my money.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

2011: Skyrim launches with great success, studio is drowning in money, they know the game engine is on it's last legs. Possibly someone is already working on a new engine.
2011-13: A new game engine is being developed and Fallout 4 along with it. So far so good.
2013: Disaster. The next gen consoles launch and for whatever reason it's not working out so great with the new game engine. Panic sets in.
2013 + 6 months: Frantic efforts are made to make the new engine play nice with the next gen consoles. No success.
2013-Fallout 4 launch: The new engine is ditched and the team scramble a mad effort to put Fallout 4 into the old engine.

If there is anything that Bethesda has proven in the past decade, it's that they understand the art of making money somewhat well. So it's highly unlikely that they would intend to make an engine for next-gen consoles and fail miserably at it. Besides, keeping the old engine is cheaper. And I'm going to lose it if I start to ramble on how I feel about Bethesda's most ardent fans, which are in fact to blame for Bethesda's latest travesties.

The way I see it, Bethesda had a choice. Invest 50 million dollars and have the game sell 10 000 000 copies, or invest 70 million and have it sell 10 050 000*.

*All the numbers are purely hypothetical.

Or that's what they want you to think.

But I'll tell you what's the truth, who's really behind it. It's the Illuminati!

Is it not obvious?

 

[whirlingdervish]

It's hard to imagine that they can't manage to license a more capable and modern engine technology, when Zenimax literally owns iD software, the company made famous by their innovations in 3d game engines.

I'd lean more toward laziness than cheapness when it comes to their reasons for still using Gamebryo or whatever they are calling it now to pretend it's not the same thing.