Preston Garvey, arguable the most annoying Fallout character ever, spawns dozens of related memes

Irwin John Finster said:
Except Saint's Row III was a good game with good voice acting and not an offline-MMO with half-assed everything.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Absolutely correct. But what I meant was that it took a jump in tone. It's less startlingly obvious as a change because Fallout was already wacky in a way, but if a Bethfan would actually take a minute to think about it Fallout: New Vegas humour was very different from Fallout 4 humour.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
Well, yes. Absolutely correct. But what I meant was that it took a jump in tone. It's less startlingly obvious as a change because Fallout was already wacky in a way, but if a Bethfan would actually take a minute to think about it Fallout: New Vegas humour was very different from Fallout 4 humour.
Click to expand...
I would be fine with the change in tone if it was a good game, but for me FO4 is an offline-MMO. It is a good way to MINDLESSLY waste your day, but it is utterly NON-immersive. Neither of those characteristics is a good thing for a game that was supposed to be an RPG (or any game really).

Saints Row III was dividing for fans because it was a new direction for the series but ultimately it was accepted because it turned out to be a good game with its own identity and not just a GTA knockoff. The characters, writing, and dialogue of Saints Row is leagues ahead of Fallout 4 which is just a pity.
 
I don't consider FO4 a stupid game, I consider it not a Fallout game and not a RPG. Those are my only complaints, I see how people can have fun playing it, I don't like it much because I get bored playing FPS and I miss the RPG elements on it.

Games these days are aimed at the masses and FO4 is obviously like that, I have no problem with it or with Bethesda making a game to get them a lot of money, but selling it as a RPG is the only problem I have with it.

You go on Steam and read the game info (not user tags, but the actual Steam Information of the game) and it says this:

Title: Fallout 4
Genre: RPG
Developer: Bethesda Game Studios
Publisher: Bethesda Softworks
Release Date: 10 Nov, 2015

It should say something like:

Genre: Adventure, Open World, Action, Shooter, with mild RPG elements
Any of the genres there would fit and they could add the "with mild RPG elements" or even just "with RPG elements" if they stretch it. I bet the sales wouldn't be affected by having the real genres at all, the people would still buy the same amount I am sure.

Bethesda people are always saying how they love and grew up playing RPG games like the classic Fallouts, Ultima games, Baldur's Gate games, Planescape Torment, etc ... They released real RPG games in the past and then they stick the RPG label in FO4 like they have no idea what a RPG is after they mentioned they love those real RPG of the past? Just doesn't make any sense and that is the only thing I don't agree with FO4 (it's like I go to a fancy bar, ask for a pure 50 year whisky and they serve me a 5 year whisky with half of it being water and have 6 ice cubes, it is lying to the customer and it is sad).
 
Risewild said:
I don't consider FO4 a stupid game, I consider it not a Fallout game and not a RPG. Those are my only complaints, I see how people can have fun playing it, I don't like it much because I get bored playing FPS and I miss the RPG elements on it.

Games these days are aimed at the masses and FO4 is obviously like that, I have no problem with it or with Bethesda making a game to get them a lot of money, but selling it as a RPG is the only problem I have with it.

You go on Steam and read the game info (not user tags, but the actual Steam Information of the game) and it says this:

Title: Fallout 4
Genre: RPG
Developer: Bethesda Game Studios
Publisher: Bethesda Softworks
Release Date: 10 Nov, 2015

It should say something like:

Genre: Adventure, Open World, Action, Shooter, with mild RPG elements
Any of the genres there would fit and they could add the "with mild RPG elements" or even just "with RPG elements" if they stretch it. I bet the sales wouldn't be affected by having the real genres at all, the people would still buy the same amount I am sure.

Bethesda people are always saying how they love and grew up playing RPG games like the classic Fallouts, Ultima games, Baldur's Gate games, Planescape Torment, etc ... They released real RPG games in the past and then they stick the RPG label in FO4 like they have no idea what a RPG is after they mentioned they love those real RPG of the past? Just doesn't make any sense and that is the only thing I don't agree with FO4 (it's like I go to a fancy bar, ask for a pure 50 year whisky and they serve me a 5 year whisky with half of it being water and have 6 ice cubes, it is lying to the customer and it is sad).
Click to expand...
It's actually listed as "General" instead of RPG on Metacritic now. Probably because offline-MMO is not a category. FO4 is a trailblazer in creating a new game genre.
 
Risewild said:
Bethesda people are always saying how they love and grew up playing RPG games like the classic Fallouts, Ultima games, Baldur's Gate games, Planescape Torment, etc ... They released real RPG games in the past and then they stick the RPG label in FO4 like they have no idea what a RPG is after they mentioned they love those real RPG of the past? Just doesn't make any sense and that is the only thing I don't agree with FO4 (it's like I go to a fancy bar, ask for a pure 50 year whisky and they serve me a 5 year whisky with half of it being water and have 6 ice cubes, it is lying to the customer and it is sad).
Click to expand...

Publisher's orders. I expect that at some point some of the devs will have enough, at which point they'll leave the company citing that "we wish to explore new opportunities". Translation - we had ideas how an RPG should be made, suits think it won't make enough money, says no, and we've had it. It's been seen with Electronic Arts in literally every of their studios.

Irwin John Finster said:
It's actually listed as "General" instead of RPG on Metacritic now. Probably because offline-MMO is not a category. FO4 is a trailblazer in creating a new game genre.
Click to expand...

Shadow of Mordor did the best existing-game-hybrid I've seen in recent times. They combined Assassin's Creed with Batman's Arkham series, then threw in a unique aspect of their own - the Nemesis System. Not to mention Deus Ex sort of spearheaded this in the beginning, by creating a first-person shooter and a stealth game in one game. But in that sense, Grand Theft Auto also counts as being cutting edge in combining the racing genre with the action shooter genre.

The problem is that Fallout 4 decided to do two very detrimental things. They took all the aspects of a multiplayer game to put in a singleplayer game, even though multiplayer games are multiplayer for a reason. And the other thing is that they didn't create any identity of their own. VATS nearly counts, but it's too much of an inconsequential and completely optional gimmick that it never sets itself apart as a good thing. Fallout 4 was a mash-up of different games and that was it.

Deus Ex and GTA combined genres to create new ones entirely, and Shadow of Mordor decided to relish the best of several existing genres and make the best variant of it that it possibly could. Fallout 4 just wallows in the worse parts of a game it is not. But I know why I enjoyed it - it's got a little taste of everything. It's good at doing this - I play it for half an hour when I'm not sure what I want to play and it helps me decide what I actually want to play! Great! But it's not that great as a game on its own. It's like a taste test of the entire catalogue of the video game action genre.
 
Last edited:
Irwin John Finster said:
It's actually listed as "General" instead of RPG on Metacritic now. Probably because offline-MMO is not a category. FO4 is a trailblazer in creating a new game genre.
Click to expand...

Yeah but unfortunately RPG is still the only genre on the steam store :twitch:.

I once joked about how FO4 is a test to see if Beth should make a online Fallout game because it was just like an offline MMO, I am so glad I am not the only one that see the similarities :drunk:.
 
Irwin John Finster said:
Coming in here with a brand new account, double posting, and using the exact same shtick that every other troll uses when attempting to troll here isn't going to convince anyone.

You're not trying hard enough.


Except Saint's Row III was a good game with good voice acting and not an offline-MMO with half-assed everything.
Click to expand...
calling me a troll without some evidence isnt going to convince me about your arguments either. also, read. not saying f4 is 100% great game. i see the flaws, but i see qualities too. but if you insist on insulting anyone with different opinion, go on. also, if you know lore very well, come to the other thread about how were armies before apocalypse and help me with it.
 
Martin said:
really? i postproned quite alot of quests, and evaded minutemen quests completely in my first playthru. maybe you just want to brag about bad game?
Click to expand...
Okay good on you to ignore them but what if I wanted to say No? I shouldn't have to "ignore" them, I should be given a choice. You know something that good games manage to have.
[Sarcastic] Yes I just love bragging about how bad the game is.

In all seriousness I'm just having a conversation about a bad game with others, not my fault that Fallout has amounted to a popamole. I don't need to brag about how awful the game is when even fans on the Bethesda forums are talking about how "AI is stupid like that mutt Dogmeat standing in my way", "Settlement building is useless along with enemies spawning in my walls", and "Minutemen quests are repetitive".

If you don't like criticism then I'm sorry I don't like a game that you happen to like.
 
MercenarySnake said:
Okay good on you to ignore them but what if I wanted to say No? I shouldn't have to "ignore" them, I should be given a choice. You know something that good games manage to have.
[Sarcastic] Yes I just love bragging about how bad the game is.

In all seriousness I'm just having a conversation about a bad game with others, not my fault that Fallout has amounted to a popamole. I don't need to brag about how awful the game is when even fans on the Bethesda forums are talking about how "AI is stupid like that mutt Dogmeat standing in my way", "Settlement building is useless along with enemies spawning in my walls", and "Minutemen quests are repetitive".

If you don't like criticism then I'm sorry I don't like a game that you happen to like.
Click to expand...
no, you say "no" and quest doesnt start. like not even in quest log. it stays not started. and you can decide whether to return later or ignore the quest. whats with you people?
 
Martin said:
no, you say "no" and quest doesnt start. like not even in quest log. it stays not started. and you can decide whether to return later or ignore the quest. whats with you people?
Click to expand...
Let me tell you what a better casual Bethesda game would have done, in Oblivion when you are approached by Luchen Lachance(sp) to join the Dark Brotherhood, if you kill him you close off all links to the guild. FO4 should have left the quest in your journal for a period of time after refusing to help them at the museum and then failed it and every other MM quest when raider reinforcements came from the Corvega factory and wiped them out to get the old lady.
 
Spacemunkey said:
Let me tell you what a better casual Bethesda game would have done, in Oblivion when you are approached by Luchen Lachance(sp) to join the Dark Brotherhood, if you kill him you close off all links to the guild. FO4 should have left the quest in your journal for a period of time after refusing to help them at the museum and then failed it and every other MM quest when raider reinforcements came from the Corvega factory and wiped them out to get the old lady.
Click to expand...
yea, would be great addition. sadly, as we all hopefuly know, game was released before it was fully finished, as we can find numerous unfinished things here and there. suits probably needed money so they pressured devs to release the thing. sad. we could have had tanks... and maybe working MM faction.
 
Thing is, walking away from dialogue is the new replacement from exiting conversation. Fallout 4 was outright designed in the sense that if you don't want to continue dialogue, you walk away from it. This is especially prevalent when you notice that nearly every NPC has different dialogue when you walk away and return to speak with them again.

Like I said before, saying goodbye or saying no to a quest (with the exception of the Garvey quests, which I think was implemented that way unintentionally) has been replaced with walking away mid-sentence. Just not talking and strolling off is now the equivalent of telling someone you're done talking. Bethesda did that because, well, they're saving on not using voice acting when they don't need to.

Essentially, in most quests if you want to say no, just walk away. It's a feature. A direct, advertised, implemented feature that you're insisted to use multiple times. It's crap design, sure, but I'm just pointing out that walking away isn't a gimmicky thing you can do what you want. It is the replacement for saying no to quests.
 
Martin said:
no, you say "no" and quest doesnt start. like not even in quest log. it stays not started. and you can decide whether to return later or ignore the quest. whats with you people?
Click to expand...
Maybe because usually saying no means shit like when you tell the Vault Tec guy to "Go away" he keeps talking anyways. Another is telling that rip off guy trying to sell you some sort of currency ticket and told him the equivalent of "fuck off" yet he's not concerned or even cares because you can initiate the same dialogue as before. I can't say what happens if you tell Gravy boy "No" but I was assuming it resulted in the same outcome like the majority of these shit quests.
 
I know for a fact that when you turn in a quest to Gravy(I like that btw) he gives you another one; don't even go to the castle, just being there will initiate settlement rescue quests. At no point in the MM quest line, the short time I could stand playing it, did I ever feel the leader of that faction. I'll tell you what's worse is Gravy as a companion, that laser musket sucks even in the hands of aim bot super companions.
 
MercenarySnake said:
Maybe because usually saying no means shit like when you tell the Vault Tec guy to "Go away" he keeps talking anyways. Another is telling that rip off guy trying to sell you some sort of currency ticket and told him the equivalent of "fuck off" yet he's not concerned or even cares because you can initiate the same dialogue as before. I can't say what happens if you tell Gravy boy "No" but I was assuming it resulted in the same outcome like the majority of these shit quests.
Click to expand...
i!m pretty sure that start of the game must happen that way, or you can ofc die as well, if it pleases you. thats just how it is. and for other talks, you can walkaway form annoying asses.
 
Spacemunkey said:
I know for a fact that when you turn in a quest to Gravy(I like that btw) he gives you another one; don't even go to the castle, just being there will initiate settlement rescue quests. At no point in the MM quest line, the short time I could stand playing it, did I ever feel the leader of that faction. I'll tell you what's worse is Gravy as a companion, that laser musket sucks even in the hands of aim bot super companions.
Click to expand...
yea, thats true. i was reffering to start of the game, before you become general. also, if you tke role of the general, you just cant walk away. well, you can. but its not expected. and if you do walk away, game will simulate it, by failing the quests. thats actually good thing. possibility to ignore quests with consequences. not that deaths of few settlers will make any change in the world of unlimited NPCs
 
So there is gay marriage? You describe the relation between the player and preston much like a marriage.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
All in all, it's all in context of what Bethesda tried to make. If they were aiming to make a serious RPG, they failed in such ways I didn't think was logically possible. But if they were legitimately aiming to make fun of modern gaming and popular culture? They did it. Perfectly.
Click to expand...
How big is the chance that this is their intention, particularly when you consider their history as game developer. I am afraid, the sad truth is, Todd, Emil and Pete are very serious about their work and making "true" RPGs, rather than shooters with RPG elements thrown in here and there. The context of what they tried to make, is rather clear I think.

As fun as this idea of "Hey! We want to troll popular stuff" might be and the, "their fanbase just doesn't get it" sounds, I think it's just reading into something that's not there. - Infact, Bethesda is rather mocked by some of their players, for their dumbing down and behaviour.

Bethesda is mocking popular gaming and modern culture the same ways Mc Donalds is mocking cooking or Taco Bell Mexican food. - Hint, they don't. They run a business, and they sell non-rpg games as deep-hardcore-rpg experiences to people that don't even like RPGs. And ... the worst of it all. It fucking works. There are so many Bethesda fans out there that really think they are playing this deep, rich and complex games with great RPG narration. Fallout 3 got an award for it's writing ... so it must be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top