Things Fallout 4 Got Right

JO'Geran said:
That raises a good point tho. Can Supermutants get drunk?
Click to expand...

"Drunk" is the effect of toxicity in the blood from alcohol (alcohol is of course, toxic to most forms of life).

IIRC poisons still work on Supermutants, therefore they can get drunk.
 
Look, I'm not trying to defend Bethesda, the corporate entity that has grown too big for its own good, the people who are not willing to listen to feedback or even look back and learn from their own success. However, there is a distinction to be made between the corporate machine and the people who might have worked tirelessly on their jobs for years to get this game made. In terms of the quests and the characters it's a poor game, but it tries to do so much more on the side: from the pip-boy holotape games to the extensive, while underutilized and unfinished settlement system. No other studio would try to do so many things at once. It's the lack of focus that I think Fallout 4 suffers from the most.

I couldn't agree more that the game lacked substance. I've spent close to 100 hours in Fallout 4 and I have had less memorable moments than I would in 10 hours in one of my 6 playthroughs of New Vegas. Even Fallout 3 was more immersive to me.

But that's how I think. The game doesn't meet MY standards as a fan of the franchise and other role playing games. This game was clearly not marketed towards us. Bethesda knew we are getting these games far too rarely and we would buy in on the very idea of another game in the franchise. This game could have been called Fallout: Family Affairs while Collecting Scrap and the fans still would have bought it, if nothing else to see how bad it is and then trash talk on forums 1 and a half years later.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people who enjoyed the game, who might have never played a Fallout game ever before, who loved Skyrim and were looking for a BIG game in which they can spend hundreds of hours while waiting for TES VI. I don't have to approve of the changes that were made to the game to appreciate the amount of work that was put for those people, because, let's be honest: the enjoyment of those people comes from the work of the actual game designers at Bethesda, the hundred or so people who worked on the game for a few years, not Todd Howard, Pete Hines or any of the unknown corporate commanders at Zenimax.

So, yes: It is disrespectful to suggest that everyone working at Bethesda is a lazy talentless hack and they have somehow grown to be one of the biggest game studios through sheer luck or good marketing.

+++
I highly doubt this was the only game Bethesda has been working on since Skyrim's DLC. No one really knows how much time was taken from the development of Fallout 4 for the other unknown projects they are going to release over the next few years. For all we know, only half of their team might have been working on Fallout 4. Also, don't forget Fallout Shelter (I almost have). Every time a studio decides to add another one of these systems or in this case even make a separate game for mobile devices, the development time is increased more and more and design goals are being removed.
 
Last edited:
Mellow Mute said:
Look, I'm not trying to defend Bethesda, the corporate entity that has grown too big for its own good, the people who are not willing to listen to feedback or even look back and learn from their own success. However, there is a distinction to be made between the corporate machine and the people who might have worked tirelessly on their jobs for years to get this game made. In terms of the quests and the character it's a poor game, but it tries to do so much else on the side: from the pip-boy holotape games to the extensive, while underutilized and unfinished settlement system. No other studio would try to do so many things at once. It's the lack of focus that I think Fallout 4 suffers from the most.
Click to expand...
Yes, lots of people worked tirelessly on it, but the problem is if the high-ups are crap, or the company doesn't have a clear sense of direction, the whole thing suffers for it.

It's possible for lots of people to have done an excellent job, but the game itself coming up crap.
This game was clearly not marketed towards us. Bethesda knew we are getting these games far too rarely and we would buy in on the very idea of another game in the franchise. This game could have been called Fallout: Family Affairs while Collecting Scrap and the fans still would have bought it, if nothing else to see how bad it is and then trash talk on forums 1 and a half years later.
Click to expand...
They should still try and make it a good addition to the franchise, even if it would have sold anyway. Assuming your fans are going to buy it anyway, so not caring about marketing it to them is bad business practice.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people who enjoyed the game, who might have never played a Fallout game ever before, who loved Skyrim and were looking for a BIG game in which they can spend hundreds of hours while waiting for TES VI.
Click to expand...
It's not mutually exclusive to make a big game AND a good Roleplaying game.

They could very easily appeal to both crowds there, were they even slightly competent.
No one really knows how much time was taken from the development of Fallout 4 for the other unknown projects they are going to release over the next few years. For all we know, only half of their team might have been working on Fallout 4.
Click to expand...
If half there team was working on another project, and half was working on Fallout 4, obviously both games are going to come up short.

It's obviously better to focus your resources on making a great game, then two mediocre ones.
Also, don't forget Fallout Shelter (I almost have). Every time a studio decides to add another one of these systems or in this case even make a separate game for mobile devices, the development time is increased more and more and design goals are being removed.
Click to expand...
If they are taking resources away from a big release to create a shitty mobile app, I have no sympathy for them when they get ripped on.
 
JO'Geran said:
It's not mutually exclusive to make a big game AND a good Roleplaying game.

They could very easily appeal to both crowds there, were they even slightly competent.
Click to expand...
I guess I wasn't very clear. It really depends on what you would call a "big" game.

There were a few crowds that (I think) Bethesda were trying to appeal to:

1. There were the Fallout fans. The game lacks the substance of a good Fallout game, but thematically, visually it's almost every bit "Fallout" as any of the other games. I joked earlier about the titles of the game, but Fallout 4 is called that because it's to be treated as a continuation of the series.

2. There were the Bethesda fans, or sandbox fans. I have a friend who falls under that category. You have to accept that the very act of exploration and a relatively satisfying core game loop is enough for some people. Some are willingly looking for such games and they simply want to switch off their brain, explore this unknown world and shoot some enemies while they're at it. People like these LOVE the promises that Todd Howard likes to toss around about "a game that can be played forever" "endless quests" etc. In their eyes it's a good value for their money: If you can spend 100 hours in a game then that game is excellent because it has provided you with a form of entertainment for that long. Some players even avoid the quests in Bethesda games and make up their own stories just from exploring the world.

3. There are the "Minecraft kids". Bethesda might have noticed the growth in popularity of those type of games, hence the system.

What Bethesda might have aimed for is a game that provides enough value for all three types of target players. BUT:
The reality is that:

You can't have only well written interesting quests (1) and an endless amount of quests and collectibles (2). Bethesda fans will complain when a game finishes, because they have come to expect to be able to play games from that company seemingly forever; Fallout fans will complain when a game doesn't have a satisfying ending, because the previous games were so good at that.

You can't have dozens of empty plots to be built upon for the settlement system (3) and still have those settlements as fleshed out locations with interesting characters (1). The settlement system leans itself on randomly generated NPCs and "settlements" that the player can clear from hostiles to claim for the system. The very existence of this system prevents the existence of interesting settlements with unique characters.

I do agree on the incompetence to see the conflict between these, and would summarize the entire development process for Fallout 4 with that: Incompetence in design direction. (not necessarily incompetence in design)
 
Mellow Mute said:
but thematically, visually it's almost every bit "Fallout" as any of the other games
Click to expand...
It's only superficially thematically Fallout.

Sure it's got "War-Never Changes" and a little 50s vibe, as well as the cliches of the series, but the way Bethesda treats everything from Supermutants(Which they treat as Orks),to the "War Never Changes speech"(Which they just put in for Nerd Brownie Points) shows that it's only thematically Fallout if you look at the surface.
You can't have only well written interesting quests (1) and an endless amount of quests and collectibles (2). Bethesda fans will complain when a game finishes, because they have come to expect to be able to play games from that company seemingly forever; Fallout fans will complain when a game doesn't have a satisfying ending, because the previous games were so good at that.
Click to expand...
Solution: Make well written quests AND radiant quests. It's ok to have some radiants, so long as there is some flavour beyond that(Since Bethesda's Non-radiant quests all have very simple go here/kill that premises, have poor-as-shit writing, and contradict the lore of the universe, clearly there is something that can clearly be improved upon)

Also, Make a strong slideshow ending AND play after end(Like Fallout 2 did), or alternatively make it so that you can complete the main questline without triggering the ending slideshow, and decide for yourself when the game ends(Like Underrail did)

Both camps satisfied.
You can't have dozens of empty plots to be built upon for the settlement system (3) and still have those settlements as fleshed out locations with interesting characters (1). The settlement system leans itself on randomly generated NPCs and "settlements" that the player can clear from hostiles to claim for the system. The very existence of this system prevents the existence of interesting settlements with unique characters.
Click to expand...
Most Dungeons in the game are modular(As in, they reuse the same objects but in different contexts to create rooms).

The Solution here is to make the Settlements which you build upon modular(Or alternatively make them entirely flat stretches of land so that there's no objects getting in the way of the player's creativity). Keep the customly designed areas limited to special Dungeons and Quest Settlements, so you can focus resources on the important areas.

Also, you don't need to have the Settlements be actual Settlements to appeal to the "Minecraft Kids". I'm sure they'd be just as happy with base building. Keep settlers out of the mix, and focus all the writing towards NPCs to the genuine quest NPCs and fleshed out characters.
 
Diamond City Blues. It was a decent quest line that had some varying outcomes. Different characters became involved based on how you chose to solve problems.
 
Is there a point to discussing what Fallout 4 did right, when it's overshadowed by an immense pile of what it did WRONG?

Sure, whatever, smooth gameplay and what-not...

It also plagiarised mods, other games, and even a previous fallout concept art.

That alone is such a disgusting act of ethics, I cannot say anything good about the game.

This thread is as futile as saying 'well, sure the nazi's where bad...But what good things did they do?'
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Is there a point to discussing what Fallout 4 did right, when it's overshadowed by an immense pile of what it did WRONG?

Sure, whatever, smooth gameplay and what-not...

It also plagiarised mods, other games, and even a previous fallout concept art.

That alone is such a disgusting act of ethics, I cannot say anything good about the game.

This thread is as futile as saying 'well, sure the nazi's where bad...But what good things did they do?'
Click to expand...
I would say the only "good" thing about Fallout 4 is a 64bit engine, but it's overshadowed by an immense pile of shit such as the hard coded 4 dialogue options or limited function of the CK........

But what good things did nazi do? <Does handsome uniform count?
 
rockitten said:
I would say the only "good" thing about Fallout 4 is a 64bit engine, but it's overshadowed by an immense pile of shit such as the hard coded 4 dialogue options or limited function of the CK........

But what good things did nazi do? <Does handsome uniform count?
Click to expand...

An issue...Its a 64 bit engine...Made from an older shitty engine...And it has hardcoded bullshit in it.
 
Gosh, leave it to this site to bitch about what we hated about Fallout 4, in a thread about what we liked about it.

I think I've already stated what I liked about Fallout 4, but I remembered lately some other highlights:
-Vault Boy is more animated (literally and figuratively). He moves around in the upper-left HUD, walks or becomes injured in the Pip-Boy status (depending on the character's status). Better than the static Vault Boy icons in the previous games.
-The Pip-Boy minigames.
-Fuckin walk-in Power Armor being badass.
-Piper was a cutie.
-The Stimpak-using animation was a niiiiiiice touch. Wish consuming all other foods/chems had the same thing (imagine your PC chugging a Beer!)
-Personally, I loved modding my weapons and armor at the craft table. A lot less limited than New Vegas' mod system, and that's saying a lot.
-IMO I liked building settlements. I think that was the biggest thing FO4 had going for it, unfortunately. :|
-Goodneighbor was a great city, places like the Memory Den could've fit in FO2.
-Raiders weren't high-pitched little shits like in FO3.
-The game was very vibrant and colorful visually (although that's not good for a Fallout title)
-Legendary weapons could be badass (though most were shit)
-Some of the sarcastic options legit made me giggle, or even burst out laughing, like this one:
 
Last edited:
Fallout 4's 'sarcasm' was absolute garbage.

In fallout 1-2, it was references, or real snark, sometimes even comedic 4th wall breaking.

Fallout 4 is just stupid shit to make kids laugh.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Fallout 4's 'sarcasm' was absolute garbage.

In fallout 1-2, it was references, or real snark, sometimes even comedic 4th wall breaking.

Fallout 4 is just stupid shit to make kids laugh.
Click to expand...
IIRC most of Fallout 2's humor was just pop culture references. That being said, I enjoyed its humor better, cause I'm a pop culture nerd.
 
YeeCop said:
IIRC most of Fallout 2's humor was just pop culture references. That being said, I enjoyed its humor better, cause I'm a pop culture nerd.
Click to expand...

Some of it was pop culture, but that was mostly the special events.

The sarcasm the player says isn't all that much to do with pop culture of the time.
 
It's quite a lot of 4th wall breaking too. Albeit I'd dare say that it's just as noticable in Fallout 1.
 
Arnust said:
It's quite a lot of 4th wall breaking too. Albeit I'd dare say that it's just as noticable in Fallout 1.
Click to expand...

"Quite a lot" is an overstatement.

Its here and there, but mostly it doesn't exist.

There's a handful of times where you break the 4th wall.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
It also plagiarised mods, other games, and even a previous fallout concept art.
Click to expand...
Tbh, I think it's fine to, technically, recycling previous concept art. Although, once again, they didn't manage to implement it properly, and doesn't even executed well in context..
 
Black Angel said:
Tbh, I think it's fine to, technically, recycling previous concept art. Although, once again, they didn't manage to implement it properly, and doesn't even executed well in context..
Click to expand...

Its fine to use concept art...

But this is bethesda, not the people who actually drew the damned artworks.

Its like some asshole buying the rights to the Mona Lisa, then making a shittier version, and then selling it for millions going "I maed dis".
 
Mellow Mute said:
through sheer luck
Click to expand...
Feng.jpg

Luck has nothing to do with it. Bethesda (or Zenimax, at this point doesn't matter) stabbed Interplay, Arkane, people behing Call of Cthulhu DCotE and it's a growing list.
YeeCop said:
Gosh, leave it to this site to bitch about what we hated about Fallout 4, in a thread about what we liked about it.
Click to expand...
All of things to like in FO4 were half-assed or double-edged, except maybe for Pip-Boy apps, making changes made by bethesda more questionable than ever.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top