Opinions on Fallout 4?

naossano said:
It is the total opposite IMO.
The very presence of Fast Travel is one of the factors that makes this design sucks so much.
It dwelve more on it there :
http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1501764-fast-travel-in-continuous-gameworld/
Click to expand...

Two years ago, I played a game of Fallout: New Vegas in which I did not fast travel even once, and for the most part it worked fine. You kind of had to stack objectives for when you had to travel to the opposite end of the map, but the only time this really annoyed me was when I was hauling my big pile of cave fungus back from Zion, but overall it made the game feel much more immersive as it gave a clear geographical reference for where everything is in relation to everything else. This made me think "maybe 'turn off Fast Travel' can or should be a menu option, a la hardcore mode. But now in New Vegas I try to avoid fast traveling whenever possible (I generally only do it to regain progress lost when the game crashes, which happens sometimes.)

Then I played Skyrim, with its design concept of "the hole the quest points you to is randomly chosen from any of the many random dungeons in the map", so unless you wanted to run across the entire map over and over again, it just wasn't a workable concept. Alas, I don't think Bethesda cares about this sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
naossano said:
As much as i don't like it, it is still better than using your pipboy to teleport yourself everywhere.
Click to expand...
That just needs to be fixed; there is nothing wrong with map travel. The game just needs to account for the time, and account for ambushes and terrain features that are bottlenecks... Like the bridge at Arroyo.

In accounting for time, it also needs to expire drug effects during the trip... meaning in realtime. If the PC pops Buffouts, and is hauling multiple miniguns, that strength needs to wear out in minutes, not hours. On the map that could mean seconds.
 
Last edited:
PossibleCabbage said:
naossano said:
Then I played Skyrim, with its design concept of "the hole the quest points you to is randomly chosen from any of the many random dungeons in the map", so unless you wanted to run across the entire map over and over again, it just wasn't a workable concept. Alas, I don't think Bethesda cares about this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I keep forgetting that mechanic. I pray it does not make its way into Fallout 4. I hope Bethesda at least understands that the random-generating stuff it likes to ruin the Elder Scrolls series with has no place in Fallout. But thinking of it, now that there's a crafting system which allows for every single weapon to be modified in multiple ways, I figure we're bound to have less unique items, their place as rewards taken by randomly modified level scaled equipment.
Click to expand...
 
It'll be a fun loot cave depletion simulator just like the last three games (two, if you want to be kind to Oblivion) that Bethesda made. It won't have anything of substance and I probably won't play it more than once or twice.
 
TorontRayne said:
Walpknut said:
Wel lthe short one of it is:

I hate what they have done to the dialogue system, skills and the voiced protagonist, not to mention the almost confirmed return of the land of immortal NPCs.
I specially cringed at Todd Howard's grandiose speech about what made Fallout special too. To me this was a worse blow to the Fallout series than 3 was.
Which is a shame, because if it wasn't for that I would have been into things like the less murky visuals, sculpting based character creation, settlement building and weapon customization. But as it stands it's sole existence offends me.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everything he said. I am reminded of the time I told myself to wait for Fallout 3 to come out before jumping to conclusions, yet everyone was right all along as far as the many glaring flaws it had. I think Fallout 4 is doing away with many of the things that made the series great. The problem is some people want a more involved RPG and some people want a hiking simulator. The series is moving more and more towards being a hiking simulator. Some might balk at that title yet it fits so perfectly. Plan on building a house, getting married, having kids, and not having to worry about getting killed because reloading is too hard.

Don't get me wrong. I thought Skyrim was a pretty interesting game, but did anyone think the story was good? The "streamlining" of the perk system in Skyrim was just a taste of what was to come. I thought at the time that it would be too drastic a change for even Bethesda fans to accept. I should have known after Morrowind. Don't worry about accidentally killing anyone because if they are important they will stand right back up. Got killed by a mini nuke? Nah he just got knocked out. I wonder who is important for the storyline? They can't be killed so they stand out. One of the things that really bugs me is the critical hits being executed by a refillable meter. Why?

Player freedom remains their primary goal according to Todd. I think that is exactly what their fans want too. They hated being too weak to go north from Goodsprings in New Vegas. They felt constrained by that one thing, on top of that all too familiar phrase: Choice and Consequences. Most Bethesda fans don't want consequences for their actions. They want freedom and choice but no consequences. I think that is one of the main things that differentiates some Fallout fans from others.

We can't complain too much about the story since they have barely spoken about it, but that is what makes or breaks the game for me. I can overlook certain things if I can mod them out, but a shitty plot is hard to recover from.


My Thoughts went something like this:


Fallout 4 at E3? It can't be any worse than Fallout 3, right?

Concept art isn't that bad. I never cared for Todd Howard personally.

Pre-war intro with playable section? I can dig it.

Applause for female characters? I hate the gaming press. Were they coached to applause?

Dialog wheel? Voiced protagonist? *heart drops*

Player freedom is number one goal. This might have been less irritating to hear back in 2006. Now I want to punch myself in the face anytime I hear Bethesda say it.

Dynamic lighting got a rise out of me. I could clearly tell the difference from previous efforts. I'm not sure why people complained about the graphics of all things. A non-issue for me.

Applause for the dog. Why? Another Dogmeat wannabe? At least New Vegas had a robodog.

Giving commands to companions looks a lot like JIP Companions Command and Control.

The black and white Pipboy photo brought the excitement back up a little. They do some things very well. The animations on the Pipboy in game are pretty cool too. If they are going the cinematic route then these things are much needed.

Crafting overhaul is welcomed although some of the materials used are silly. A globe used for a scope? Sure. Why not?

Planting food and water is cool. Generators are actually an idea I had before. I like it. All of that stuff gets me excited.

Combat montage. Some of the things shown here are much welcomed. A pistol whip for example, the animations on the dog tearing at the enemy's throats, animations in general are improved a lot. Other stuff looks strikingly similar to Fallout 3...

Power Armor looks improved by a metric ton.

Brotherhood of Steel? At least I didn't see any Enclave troops. I'm not sure a vertibird is needed much unless they do away with fast travel, which I'm sure they would never do.

My emotions jumped and plummeted a number of times before settling near indifference. What I'm feeling about Fallout is about how I started to feel about the Resident Evil series.
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm a bad guy here... but let me start from the beginning. I didn't get into games like Fallout 1 + 2 until 3 had been announced. People were making such a big deal about 3 that I figured I should give those 2 a shot, I fell in love and here we are. I didn't enjoy 3 as much as 2, but I still had loads of fun, New Vegas refined it and tried to take things less seriously, as they should be, but again it still wasn't 2. Fallout 3, NV and 4 are not 1 and 2. What seems to be common in the present day is adapting old things (video games, movies, books, comics etc...) to fit broader audiences. It's a cringe worthy thing to do, but often it works. People will hear a number like 3 and go... well when did 1 and 2 come out? They do a little research (most not even bothering to play the games past a level), but get the gist of things. They understand what Fallout is about and what Fallout 3 was attempting to do and they get excited. In this process games like 1 + 2 get forgotten, but their brand name gets remembered. I guess that can feel like a betrayal.

Would things be better if 3/NV and 4 had been called something else?

Growing up in the 90s and 00s I never really understand why people got so upset aganist games like Fallout 3 and Doom 3 because I hadn't enjoyed the original games until I grew more mature. I feel bad, though, because I enjoy them all. New Fallout and Old... :puppy-dog:
 
I don't get why people say New vegas took thing less seriously. They have a completely political conflict with a lot of gray in the story and it still shows a lot of the grittiness of the Fallout setting while also having it's touches of black humor more in line with the originals continuing the story of the first 2 Fallouts. They didn't go for the shallow "grittyness" of FO3, but FO3 is a more childish game because it didn't bother developing the setting beyond "there is misery.... because, and evil cannibals, and orcs and DEVIL POWER ARMOR SOLDIERS!".
 
im worried about a cliche story and no freedom through speech (speech wheel) the gameplay will probably be good. it will probably be stunningly beautiful, im just afraid it will have no substance. i will remain skeptical until proven otherwise
 
PossibleCabbage said:
naossano said:
It is the total opposite IMO.
The very presence of Fast Travel is one of the factors that makes this design sucks so much.
It dwelve more on it there :
http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1501764-fast-travel-in-continuous-gameworld/
Click to expand...

Two years ago, I played a game of Fallout: New Vegas in which I did not fast travel even once, and for the most part it worked fine. You kind of had to stack objectives for when you had to travel to the opposite end of the map, but the only time this really annoyed me was when I was hauling my big pile of cave fungus back from Zion, but overall it made the game feel much more immersive as it gave a clear geographical reference for where everything is in relation to everything else. This made me think "maybe 'turn off Fast Travel' can or should be a menu option, a la hardcore mode. But now in New Vegas I try to avoid fast traveling whenever possible (I generally only do it to regain progress lost when the game crashes, which happens sometimes.)

Then I played Skyrim, with its design concept of "the hole the quest points you to is randomly chosen from any of the many random dungeons in the map", so unless you wanted to run across the entire map over and over again, it just wasn't a workable concept. Alas, I don't think Bethesda cares about this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
to be fair, skyrim is a beautiful game, but i agree completely. i find myself saying "no im not going to fast travel for this mission at all" then i get "go to the other side of the map and fetch this special rock for me". one thing i do is just turn into a werewolf and run like that because it's so fast and i dont like the horses (they get too buggy and you cant skyrim-walk up mountains)
 
Walpknut said:
I don't get why people say New vegas took thing less seriously. They have a completely political conflict with a lot of gray in the story and it still shows a lot of the grittiness of the Fallout setting while also having it's touches of black humor more in line with the originals continuing the story of the first 2 Fallouts. They didn't go for the shallow "grittyness" of FO3, but FO3 is a more childish game because it didn't bother developing the setting beyond "there is misery.... because, and evil cannibals, and orcs and DEVIL POWER ARMOR SOLDIERS!".
Click to expand...

Don't forget the giant robot that spew jingoism!

Kids love Liberty Prime.

ninjacapo said:
im worried about a cliche story and no freedom through speech (speech wheel) the gameplay will probably be good. it will probably be stunningly beautiful, im just afraid it will have no substance. i will remain skeptical until proven otherwise
Click to expand...

This.

There's a dozen games coming out or are already out this year about shooting things.

I don't mind playing those games because hey, sometimes I do just like to kill some time by blasting stuff into atoms.

But that's not why I play RPGs.

For a genre that's ostensibly about good stories, Bethesda doesn't seem to really get it.
 
Last edited:
Walpknut said:
I don't get why people say New vegas took thing less seriously. They have a completely political conflict with a lot of gray in the story and it still shows a lot of the grittiness of the Fallout setting while also having it's touches of black humor more in line with the originals continuing the story of the first 2 Fallouts. They didn't go for the shallow "grittyness" of FO3, but FO3 is a more childish game because it didn't bother developing the setting beyond "there is misery.... because, and evil cannibals, and orcs and DEVIL POWER ARMOR SOLDIERS!".
Click to expand...
They have a gang of Elvis impersonators. Things like that made the game feel more like a dark comedy, even if things weren't that funny.
 
Fallout 1 and 2 had their share of silly elements while still giving the mdepth and making an interesting. Considering that the gang of Elvis impersonators are actually a pretty violent gang that is also the only force of order in a slum full of death, rape, and all the other social ills, you are just looking at it from a rather superficial level.
 
Walpknut said:
Fallout 1 and 2 had their share of silly elements while still giving the mdepth and making an interesting. Considering that the gang of Elvis impersonators are actually a pretty violent gang that is also the only force of order in a slum full of death, rape, and all the other social ills, you are just looking at it from a rather superficial level.
Click to expand...

It was funny to me, which was good enough. Not everything in video games need to be examined and studied so closely. I never said the entire game was funny, but the overall story tried to keep things way more interesting than 3 did. 3 just seemed stale until you started doing certain side quests.

To be clear I'm not trying to say 3 and NV are funnier than 1 and 2, I'm saying NV tried while 3 tried to be something else.
 
[video]https://youtu.be/xQjjIeYUQE0[/video]

More hard-hitting games journalism right here.

"Mr. Hines, Fallout 4 seems to be like a runaway train. Why is it so popular?"
 
Walpknut said:
I don't get why people say New vegas took thing less seriously. They have a completely political conflict with a lot of gray in the story and it still shows a lot of the grittiness of the Fallout setting while also having it's touches of black humor more in line with the originals continuing the story of the first 2 Fallouts. They didn't go for the shallow "grittyness" of FO3, but FO3 is a more childish game because it didn't bother developing the setting beyond "there is misery.... because, and evil cannibals, and orcs and DEVIL POWER ARMOR SOLDIERS!".
Click to expand...

I think the basic basement level difference is that Fallout 3, when just wandering the map, was unrelentingly grim and presented a world in which everybody was dead and everything was ruined. On the other hand, the Mojave is a living place full of people who have built things and tried to improve their lives, so the atmosphere of just walking around is far more pleasant. I think this is intentional as the latter demonstrates that the Mojave is something that you should want to save, whereas the former gives the impression that the Capital Wasteland is hopeless and yet you're expected to save it.

Which is not to say that New Vegas isn't dark enough, it gets plenty dark (Vault 11 may be the bleakest thing in the history of the franchise) it's just that the darkness is emphasized by the presence of some light to give it contrast. Fallout 3 has the opposite problem where the excess of darkness makes the lighter bits just seem goofy beyond reason.

I hope that Fallout 4 at least has moments where "getting around" is fairly pleasant.
 
It's simple for me really. I fell in love with Fallout 1 and 2. Does Fallout 4 looks like it? Does it look like them what so ever? The answer is no. It does not. combat mode has changed, perspective has changed, world design has changed, narrative structure has changed, dialogue has changed, skills have changed, SPECIAL has changed, feral ghouls have changed, power armor has changed, Enclave has changed, super mutants has changed even vaults to a degree has changed. What is actually intact from the original games? Very very few things are intact and those few things are still uncanny in their implementation. Change isn't necessarily bad. But when you swap out parts on a car to the point that it has become a boat it becomes a problem. It may very well be a really nice boat but I didn't want a damn boat I wanted a fucking car.

Fallout 4 looks like it's going to be a fun game on its own merits, but I refuse to give Bethesda any of my money for the direction they are heading Fallout into.

So I passionately loathe Fallout 4/Bethesda. And I just wish I could get closure already so that I could move on.

My problem with Fallout 4 is everything. From the voiced protagonist to the limitedly powered power armor vehicle to the 28 days later rip off feral ghouls to the damn idiotic musket laser rifle. The gameworld 'will' be too small just like every other fucking Bethesda game which means that settlements will be scaled down to ridiculous proportions. The gameworld itself will be littered with dungeons and feel more like a themepark than it will feel like a believable wasteland. The combat is first person, which means twitch-shooting and Bethesda games has yet to give me a good game when it comes to ranged combat. Lore was pretty much fucked over in Fallout 3 in so many ways and I have zero reason to believe otherwise for Fallout 4. Settlement building is stupid, period. The crafting system for weapons is over the top and it feels like standard weapons will take a back seat for the weekly-community-fun-gun. SPECIAL is changed so that if you max out each SPECIAL as far as you can you get 4 in each, I have no idea how this is going to work but I don't like it as the previous system allowed me to roleplay by going with 5 as standard, there are too few points. Skills are removed in favor of perks. Voiced protagonist severely limits how I will be able to roleplay. How? Neither of the 4 characters I RP'd in FNV had the voice of the male or the female PC in Fallout 4. That's how. The backstory is too strict and will limit what I can roleplay as (no more 16 year old getting lured into the porn business or an elderly woman beating the shit out of boxers).

I even have issue with the vault suit, it's not tight enough.

Oh and vault doors open the wrong way.

Nitpicking for the win.

Whatever. I can't see a single redeemable feature of Fallout 4 and judging by what I've seen them say (Todd especially) and Skyrim as well as their Bethfans' reactions I fail to see how any features yet to be shown explicitly is going to blow me away.

TL : DR
I'm throwing a bitchfit about how I loathe Fallout 4 and Bethesda.
 
well a no-marker option would actually require good and well written quest design, so yeah, there is zero chance to see that as official option and mods (most probably) can't change the writting and story. So there is no real way to play the game without quest markers - again. But hey! Kidz love playing their RPGs on rails these days.

Seriously, quest markers are killing the RPG star.
 
Why are there independence day parade decorations in that location from the Demo in Fo4? The bombs dropped in October did they just leave the decorations there for four months? And how did those survive being at intemperie and having a nuke explode nearby?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top