The Vault and Fallout 4 at Gamescom

[Hassknecht]

Weren't many of the books already in the games since Morrowind?

 

[MaulYoda]

Weren't many of the books already in the games since Morrowind?

Probably. Bethesda also probably wrote new books as well.

It's like with the music in Fallout 4. I swear during the demo footage they used to make the E3 preview, I heard "I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire." That means they're using some of the music from Fallout 3, but that doesn't mean they won't have new music too. I guess a more definite thing was that Bethesda used "Maybe" in Fallout 3 but also had a ton of new music.

 

[TorontoReign]

I won't bother quoting since it will get long fairly quickly. I'll try to address each point the best I can. I'll say before I go deep into this that I am a huge Morrowind fan. I loved that game and every single thing in it, so I'm not a rabid Bethesda hater. They just happen to fuck with games I care about. They did it with Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and now it looks like Doom has been morphed into something I don't care for, but that isn't their fault. That being said...

I am jumping to conclusions. We have little to go off of. You are right in assuming I am seeing the worst in this because I didn't need his statement to think this way. I'm not making a definitive statement here either. I can't properly judge Fallout 4, so I can't say for sure, but I know they have changed enough of the franchise for me to not have high hopes. Bethesda has to try in some way to make a coherent story, but my point is they don't focus on it. Their focus is on the world building first. I thought I made that clear? Maybe in my rant I didn't tie that all in together. I don't like their whole design philosophy. They took the worst elements of Fallout 2 and turned it up to 11.

The dialog comment wasn't taken out of context. They said they didn't have the time to work on a new dialog system so they focused on the combat. They chose to focus on less important parts of the game like how many plungers they could stick on the bathroom walls in certain areas. Even then it doesn't matter because THE DIALOG WAS AWFUL. That can't be argued but I know that you aren't. It just really brings things full circle reading that interview (thanks for pulling it up, I meant to bookmark it the other day) since I was unsure around the launch of Fallout 3, as I was when Fallout 4 was announced. I at least had hopes that they would take a few pointers from a RPG developer I actually respect.

It is painfully obvious they make their primary focus on the world. When I say the world I'm speaking of the terrain, clutter, towns, dungeons, things like that. It is their strong point so who can blame them? I think the story in Skyrim had little chance of being worse than Fallout 3. I will give them that. They do make improvements in some areas while the ones I care about often go unnoticed. I'm not saying they are the worse developer around, or they can't make a decent game. All I am saying is they make sub-par RPG's when compared to other standouts in the genre, with the writing being one of my PRIMARY complaints.

They are all about player freedom trumping consequences of your actions. They don't like pissing the players off by actually making conversations unpredictable like in real life. As others have mentioned, you won't see a NPC like Lynette from Fallout 2 in a Bethesda RPG. It just won't happen. That would wrestle control away from the player who might get mad that they have to reload (guess save scumming is for the 90's), which Bethesda wants to do away with. Companions got killed? Not in this game! Don't want you to reload to see what that character might have said, or what this action might cause - you can see it all in one playthrough!!!

I know Hines is not the end-all-be-all of Bethesda. His opinion doesn't necessarily align with Bethesda's. Bethesda is a company comprised of hundreds of people, so it would be foolish to think he speaks for all of them and he has any real pull when it comes to the game. I just find it rather telling when some of these guys speak about their companies games. It also doesn't help that they constantly use buzzwords to sell their games like they are advertising to morons. It really is insulting to me.

My problem with the spoken dialog is the simple fact that they will cut down on lines despite what they say due to cost. There are already a handful of voice actors, now we get to hear a grand total of 15 or so people speaking for the entire wasteland, with your dialog choices being (apparently) limited to a few words for you to go off of. I don't like it. It isn't Fallout. I want to see the dialog. I don't care what the fucking player sounds like. I want to read. I just want to read words in my RPG's. I don't want to be TOLD what my character will say based upon a couple of words that may or may not convey what I want it to say.

I don't think any of what I said is misconstrued. Can you specifically point out what I said, so I can have a better idea? Hines may or may not have meant what many are thinking he did, but he did say things which lend credence to various opinions on Bethesda's design process.

We have ample evidence to show us what Fallout 4 might look like. I can't claim to know for sure how Bethesda thinks or operates, but I can go off what they give us to look at. It will be like Skyrim in more ways than I like. At this point Oblivion with Guns sounds better. At least Oblivion had skills. I don't even want to think about that part.

CD Prokect and Obsidian have good writers. The Witcher isn't some amazing series of books, so I wouldn't say that is the reason their story is put together so well. They just have a better grasp on what RPG's should be about.

Yes, I am being slightly hyperbolic. This isn't all based on what Hines said. This is years of Brahmin shit piled on top of a nuclear bomb sitting in the middle of NMA just waiting to go off.

Weren't many of the books already in the games since Morrowind?

They were and most of the new ones were inferior.

 

[Mr Fish]

There are a couple of articles I don't feel like digging up that basically says the quest designers for many of these games are limited by silly rules like "The quest outcome should be obvious to the player when picking it."

I honestly didn't see the ghoul-killing-everyone outcome coming from the Tenpenny Tower quest. I thought it was going to be reversed if anything.

 

[TorontoReign]

There are a couple of articles I don't feel like digging up that basically says the quest designers for many of these games are limited by silly rules like "The quest outcome should be obvious to the player when picking it."

I honestly didn't see the ghoul-killing-everyone outcome coming from the Tenpenny Tower quest. I thought it was going to be reversed if anything.

I guess I expected it since it looked like a reference to Fiddlers Green from Land of the Dead. Aside from the Lovecraft angle.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It is painfully obvious they make their primary focus on the world. When I say the world I'm speaking of the terrain, clutter, towns, dungeons, things like that. It is their strong point so who can blame them?

Is it really though? I can't say why but I always feel that games from Bethesda age very very poorly. Like Oblivion, Fallout 3 and soon enough Skyrim. I don't have this feeling with for example KOTOR or no clue to name some open world games GTA and Morrowind. But Beth worlds are very generic from the setting to say the least. Morrowind was extremly interesting visually and it felt different. And I really liked how they approached slavery on Morrowind not hamfisting it to you, but giving you a chance to help the small resistance, it made it actually feel believable!

But both Oblivion and Skyrim are when it comes to the setting almost a clone of Lord of the Rings. I mean if I remember correctly the TES lore describes Cyrodil as some kind of jungle or something like that. No Clue. That would have been very interesting.

I think the story in Skyrim had little chance of being worse than Fallout 3. I will give them that.

Heh, yeah those few lines that you can describe as story, evil draguns attacking woooorld! The only thing missing was the damsel or something . The really decent part is parthunax. Sadly it's the only one.

I really don't have high hopes to see even a somewhat sophisticated story in Fallout 4. Nothing that is even close to Vegas and goes further than "HERE IS YOUR OBJECTIVE BLA BLA BLA SECRET BASE BLA BLA BLA BLA PLANE BLA BLA BLA BLA NUCLEAR MISSILE BLA BLA BLA COUNTING ON YOU!"

I know Hines is not the end-all-be-all of Bethesda. His opinion doesn't necessarily align with Bethesda's. Bethesda is a company comprised of hundreds of people, so it would be foolish to think he speaks for all of them and he has any real pull when it comes to the game. I just find it rather telling when some of these guys speak about their companies games. It also doesn't help that they constantly use buzzwords to sell their games like they are advertising to morons. It really is insulting to me.

Well if game development works similar to movies and other creative industries than I guess they have a hierarchy. So someone like Hines, Emil and Todd have the similar position of what directors, lead writers and other executives have in movie making. Even with 100 different people working on Fallout 4 Todd and the other leading figures give the tone and direct the work in a creative direction they feel fine with. They decide as last instance what dialog will be chose, which concept art to follow and where the goal of the project - aka I want a story abot sacrifice!

They pretty much have the key role when it comes to the development of the game, as they set the priorities - like World building uber alles!. All the others, from concept artists, to writers and 3D artists/level designers are just service providers at that point. Even though I am sure their opinion is important, but heh I would not be surprised if there are ... often enough dissensions about how something should be done. I mean I really can hardly believe that no one ever mentioned the possible issues of the high focus on sacrifice at all cost in F3.

 

[TorontoReign]

It is painfully obvious they make their primary focus on the world. When I say the world I'm speaking of the terrain, clutter, towns, dungeons, things like that. It is their strong point so who can blame them?

Is it really though? I can't say why but I always feel that games from Bethesda age very very poorly. Like Oblivion, Fallout 3 and soon enough Skyrim. I don't have this feeling with for example KOTOR or no clue to name a some open world games like GTA and Morrowind. But Beths worlds are very generic from the setting to say the least. Morrowind was extremly interesting visually and it felt different. But both Oblivion and Skyrim are when it comes to the setting almost a clone of Lord of the Rings. I mean if I remember correctly the TES lore describes Cyrodil as some kind of jungle or something like that. No Clue.

Some of the areas Bethesda created were very good. The Pitt in Fallout 3 had a good atmosphere going on at the very least. With competent developers that could have been a good DLC. The one Skyrim DLC that took place on Vvardenfell was visually appealing as well. Granted most of their other stuff is not that great, but they have a good grasp on making a fun world to mess around in - if you turn your brain off. They just need to work on the RPG aspect of their games, which is awful, making their games really hard to enjoy without mods - even then they often disappoint.

I say it is one of their strengths, but that is in relation to the other aspects of the game you see. I didn't say it was original or great. That is the selling point of their games to a large part of their audience. They seem to enjoy the Bethesda style which is to rip off every single thing they can, from LotR, Lovecraft, King Arthur, furry stuff, etc.

 

[MaulYoda]

Points

1. I totally get why you have low expectations of Bethesda

2. It's out of context to say that Bethesda doesn't care about dialogue based on that quote. Hines also said that they felt the traditional dialogue system fit the game better. But Bethesda now has the resources to make a new dialogue system in Fallout 4 - the same one they would've made it Fallout 3 - and you all dislike it. That's not a winnable situation for them.

3. I agree that Bethesda games are not great RPG's these days. They're consistently fun, but they come up short in that genre.

4. So you agree Hines's opinions don't represent all of Bethesda. Cool. As to the guy who posted after you with the Alien avatar, even if Hines has closer ties to the corporate heads, that doesn't mean their opinions align. Honestly, I bet the corporate guys aren't even big gamers. Of course they use buzzwords also, they're not mainly advertising to you.

5. I agree with your problems with spoken dialogue.

6. You misconstrued the quote from that Eurogamer article to mean Bethesda didn't care about dialogue, and said there were multiple interviews when I found only one. That doesn't lend credence to anything. You are also criticizing Bethesda for not investing resources into developing a new dialogue system when the one they would've developed for Fallout 3 is the exact one you hate in Fallout 4.

7. I'm not terribly optimistic about the RPG side of Fallout 4, although it sounds better than I initially thought it would be from this preview.

8. Fair enough about Obsidian and the Witcher, although I still think having a book helps with the writing. Not any other elements obviously.

9. You're allowed to be upset with Bethesda. For what it's worth, maybe all you're ranting got us New Vegas.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I say it is one of their strengths, but that is in relation to the other aspects of the game you see. I didn't say it was original or great. That is the selling point of their games to a large part of their audience. They seem to enjoy the Bethesda style which is to rip off every single thing they can, from LotR, Lovecraft, King Arthur, furry stuff, etc.

It does get its fair share of criticism though, even by those that enjoy open world games a lot. Granted, a lot of people love this sand-boxy-hiking-simulation Bethesda offers with their games. I belive though that one big appeal to the crowd is the whack-a-mole style. You know the, Whiterun is so empty right now becaues I killed everyone yesterday people.

 

[MaulYoda]

You know the, Whiterun is so empty right now becaues I killed everyone yesterday people.

Wasn't that an appeal of the first two Fallout games? Not that most of us killed everyone in a settlement, but if Lynette was snobby enough to us, we could blow her head off, along with everyone else in Vault City (including the kids)?

 

[Crni Vuk]

There is a difference between the Bethesda whack-a-mole simulator and the urge to kill Lynette.

See, Lynette was writen in such a way that you HATE her - in a good way, she is one of the best NPCs in F2 with some of the most awesome conversation options. That's quality writing right there.

If we would be talking about the same situation in Fallout 3 you would have some NPC on the level of Moira Brown beeing your Lynette as unkillable character in an empty town full of dead bodies no one cares about when you come back 2 days later.

The thing is, it is just a feeling of course, but I always get the impression that Bethesda is making games for this kind of players first and than for the rest.

I mean there is, only one way to play Skyrim!

 

[Walpknut]

The snowy landscapes in Skyrim are cool, what makes their games not age well is how repetitive and samey all the content is. On the visual aspect they excell (As long as you don't look at things too closely, some of their UV work is amateurish or probably just rushed to fuck).
All their worlds feel like a theme park, you never feel anything for killing any character, and the world itself tells you not to care because there is rarely any change or consequence for doing so.

Recently I completed Run Goodsprings Run for the second time ever in my 5 years of playing New Vegas, felt really like a piece of shit for helping the Powder Gangers and killing Trudy, Sunny, Easy Pete and Doc Mitchell, the fact that the surviving settlers all lament the death of so many good people really nailed it for me. THere is even an ending for that.
That's the difference between both games in one you kill people because you can't be bothered to give a shit and half of them are immortal, in the other a great majority of characters feel like characters and you even see the consequences of your killing spree.

 

[MaulYoda]

There is a difference between the Bethesda whack-a-mole simulator and the urge to kill Lynette.

See, Lynette was writen in such a way that you HATE her - in a good way, she is one of the best NPCs in F2 with some of the most awesome conversation options. That's quality writing right there.

If we would be talking about the same situation in Fallout 3 you would have some NPC on the level of Moira Brown beeing your Lynette as unkillable character in an empty town full of dead bodies no one cares about when you come back 2 days later.

The thing is, it is just a feeling of course, but I always get the impression that Bethesda is making games for this kind of players first and than for the rest.

I mean there is, only one way to play Skyrim!

Lynette is just an example. My point is that in Fallout 1 and 2, you can walk into any town and kill any character. You don't have to have a reason; you could just choose to be a sadistic psychopath. It's probably more challenging in turn-based combat, but it's still possible. I guess your point is that more of Bethesda's fanbase chooses to murder everyone in a town than the people on this forum, which I agree with (and that begs an interesting psychological question regarding their fanbase). Still, the option was in both games. And to be fair, one playthrough of Skyrim can last you hundreds of hours. If you want to keep playing without starting a new character, it's a way to keep yourself occupied. Or sometimes, you like to pretend your wife in Skyrim is cheating on you with the house bard because your adventuring has left you emotionally unavailable, and so you shout the bard to bits in a Skooma-infused rage because you're the Dragonborn and you do what you want. Isn't that what role-playing is about?

I see your point about Lynette versus Moira Brown; Lynette was more conceited and generally an awful person, which prompted you to hate her and want to shoot her, where as Moira Brown was cooky in an annoying way. However, you could argue that making an irredeemably awful person who you're supposed to hate unconditionally isn't any better than making an annoying person (although I know Lynette was redeemable). It's a matter of opinion I believe (although I liked Lynette better). My problem with Fallout 3 was not that you couldn't do away with whoever you wanted, but that the karma system meant there were no real consequences. That is, I could kill everyone in Megaton but then donate a bunch of caps to the church in Rivet City and be hailed the messiah of the wasteland. The permenancy of reputation in New Vegas fixed that since if you killed Caesar, you wouldn't be able to give the Legion a bunch of NCR dog tags to redeem yourself because they'd just shoot you on sight. And there's also different endings depending on those choices.

 

[Walpknut]

Gotta wonder the implications of someone whose first and last impulse when dealing with an annoying person is to shoot them.

 

[MaulYoda]

Gotta wonder the implications of someone whose first and last impulse when dealing with an annoying person is to shoot them.

Like I said, it's an interesting psychological question. I think Trevor from GTA V is supposed to represent the psyche of many modern gamers

 

[generalissimofurioso]

And yet, there's loads of people who like Trevor.

Kind of like how there's people out there who love Rorschach.

People find emotionally stunted psychopaths entertaining for some reason.

 

[MaulYoda]

And yet, there's loads of people who like Trevor.

Kind of like how there's people out there who love Rorschach.

People find emotionally stunted psychopaths entertaining for some reason.

I'm not saying people don't like him or shouldn't (he's a compelling character). I'm saying I think Rockstar created him to satirize their audience, namely those players who enjoy mindless violence and gunning down hordes of cops just because they can. And that same mindset carries over to many of Bethesda's fans who choose to murder entire towns because they can. Or even Black Isle fans who killed children in Fallout 1 and 2 because they could.

 

[generalissimofurioso]

Well, I enjoy Trevor because he's basically the exact sort of person you would expect to do the insane shit a GTA protagonist would do.

A drug-addled psychopath with severe mommy issues and the personal hygiene of the dumpster behind a crappy Taco Bell in the bad part of town.

You're not supposed to excuse his actions or find him to be a role-model like some people do, but you kind of find him entertaining to watch.

Kind of reminds me of Wolverine.

Except taller.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Lynette is just an example. My point is that in Fallout 1 and 2, you can walk into any town and kill any character. You don't have to have a reason; you could just choose to be a sadistic psychopath. It's probably more challenging in turn-based combat, but it's still possible. I guess your point is that more of Bethesda's fanbase chooses to murder everyone in a town than the people on this forum, which I agree with (and that begs an interesting psychological question regarding their fanbase). Still, the option was in both games. And to be fair, one playthrough of Skyrim can last you hundreds of hours. If you want to keep playing without starting a new character, it's a way to keep yourself occupied. Or sometimes, you like to pretend your wife in Skyrim is cheating on you with the house bard because your adventuring has left you emotionally unavailable, and so you shout the bard to bits in a Skooma-infused rage because you're the Dragonborn and you do what you want. Isn't that what role-playing is about?

The problem is that you can't even do that, thx to the immortal schmocks that populate most of Bethesdas games.

See, I am talking about what crowd you have in mind when you design your game. Pretty much any game designer worth his salt has one. A demographic or target audience, call it what ever you want. The people that buy his games.

This is just me talking out of my ass of course. I have no clue what Bethesdas intentions are. But I have a feeling their game is aiming at a very particular gamer here, trying to please HIM (or her) first:

Where in Fallout 1 and 2 it is a feature of role playing where the target audience are role players and wanna be psychopaths later.

I mean basically that is all you actually can do in Bethesda games. Killing everyone till you get to the immortal idiots.

To say it with other words, Bethesda games are designed as theme parks with lots of whack-a-mole tables where Fallout 1/2 was made as role playing game.

 

[MaulYoda]

Well, I enjoy Trevor because he's basically the exact sort of person you would expect to do the insane shit a GTA protagonist would do.

A drug-addled psychopath with severe mommy issues and the personal hygiene of the dumpster behind a crappy Taco Bell in the bad part of town.

You're not supposed to excuse his actions or find him to be a role-model like some people do, but you kind of find him entertaining to watch.

Kind of reminds me of Wolverine.

Except taller.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm glad you like Trevor. I find him entertaining and hilarious as well.