Update 1.3 Lies

BairdEC said:
I would've preferred they fixed the copper problem by balancing the resource requirements. One light bulb should not use as much copper as ten feet of power line.
Click to expand...
Multiplying all resource numbers by ten would be a good start (both what things give and require) that would allow for variations that aren't all gigantic.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
Let's ask, though, would you prefer a broken game you can mod to your wildest desires of a functional and good game you can't mod all that much? And before you say it, YES, at this point in technological progress, those two are mutually exclusive. Even the Source engine proves that to be easily modifiable you have to sacrifice large-scale worlds.
Click to expand...
I have 7 mods installed on TW3, and in the couple hundred hours I have into it I never thought I needed any more; compare that to 170-200 mods I need to make Skyrim playable and I'll take an awesome base game that I use mods to simply tweak as opposed to overhaul.
 
I've played Underrail without mods, Deus Ex with the GMDX mod, Fallout 1 with only Fixt mod, and Fallout 2 with the restoration patch. I didn't need over 200 mods like Skyrim(which I eventually uninstalled when I learned mods can't fix boredom and a boring game). I'll trade modability for a fully functional game always, if it needs mods to be enjoyable then that's sad.
The problem with Bethesda's games post Morrowind is that mods are needed to make it semi functional and semi playable but even then they're still boring.
 
Spacemunkey said:
I have 7 mods installed on TW3, and in the couple hundred hours I have into it I never thought I needed any more; compare that to 170-200 mods I need to make Skyrim playable and I'll take an awesome base game that I use mods to simply tweak as opposed to overhaul.
Click to expand...

MercenarySnake said:
I've played Underrail without mods, Deus Ex with the GMDX mod, Fallout 1 with only Fixt mod, and Fallout 2 with the restoration patch. I didn't need over 200 mods like Skyrim(which I eventually uninstalled when I learned mods can't fix boredom and a boring game). I'll trade modability for a fully functional game always, if it needs mods to be enjoyable then that's sad.
The problem with Bethesda's games post Morrowind is that mods are needed to make it semi functional and semi playable but even then they're still boring.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but say, if Skyrim was fully functional on release, The Witcher 3 would have no way for players to add new items, dungeons and characters to the same extent that Skyrim allows. That's more of my point - it's not that I prefer a buggy but easily modifiable game, it's just reasoning for why Bethesda would want to stick with the Creation engine, especially considering how much money they want to make off mods.

There is literally no other modern RPG that allows modding to the extent that Bethesda games allow. If there is, please name one.

Even all the games you named Deus Ex, Fallout 1 and 2, and Underrail doesn't allow players to add their own user-made content as much as the Gamebryo/Creation allows. This is the biggest indicator I could find of how unique Bethesda's engine is. I would rather prefer that they spend time on making the engine work rather than switch to a new one.
 
Seeing a fully functional game is what I prefer, I could care less about fat and naked females or Machoclaw mods. If the game is a hollow shell in some ancient engine then I'm going to uninstall and want my money back, I don't care if I could install a mod that adds a bajillion guns since at the end of the day it just becomes a shallow game with a bajillion guns wasting gigabytes after gigabytes of space for better games that don't need any mods.
The engine is shit and needs trashed. Almost every building needs a loading screen, the game runs like shit, animations are crap, and the game looks like it came from 2008.
I understand what you want but I don't want to install 20 GB of mods to attempt to pretty up a titanic shallow dog turd.
 
Easily moddable games full of gamebreaking bugs and with shallow game system VS hard to mod games that have little gamebreaking bugs with deep game system.

Why does it have to be one or the other, if Bethesda games are easily moddable and modders will be able to improve it a lot in the future how come Bethesda has any excuse to serve it as a pile of bugs with shallow game system and shallow story and whatever? If modders a few months after the game was released and without having access to a Creation Kit already made some mods that improve FO4 then what the hell have Bethesda made in the many years they were making FO4?

The way I see it or they sell a game without game breaking bugs and at least a good story (it doesn't even need to have awesome indepth RPG elelments) that took these many years to make but is still moddable for $60-$70 or they just sell the Creation Kit without a game attached which will probably only take them one year to make for $30-$35, let modders buy the CK and make their own games.

There is no excuse for an entire Game Dev company to take so much time to make a game and then it is buggy as hell even 3 months after release, and then on the other hand we see one lone modder improving that game or fixing bugs without the base CK in a couple of weeks, it just sounds stupid and lazy.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
I understand that, but say, if Skyrim was fully functional on release, The Witcher 3 would have no way for players to add new items, dungeons and characters to the same extent that Skyrim allows. That's more of my point - it's not that I prefer a buggy but easily modifiable game, it's just reasoning for why Bethesda would want to stick with the Creation engine, especially considering how much money they want to make off mods.

There is literally no other modern RPG that allows modding to the extent that Bethesda games allow. If there is, please name one.

Even all the games you named Deus Ex, Fallout 1 and 2, and Underrail doesn't allow players to add their own user-made content as much as the Gamebryo/Creation allows. This is the biggest indicator I could find of how unique Bethesda's engine is. I would rather prefer that they spend time on making the engine work rather than switch to a new one.
Click to expand...
Like I said once in a different topic.

Bethesda should just make the engine stable and release only an empty world with the GECK. Kinda like Minecraft!

Let the community do the work ...

I also think the fact that so many people mod stuff for Skyrim has less to do with the fact that they use the gamebryo engine. It might be more mod friendly than other engines. I am not an expert. But I saw a lot of mods and amaizing content for Half Life 1 and Unreal as well. I mean like many others here, I could totally live without many mods, if the core game would be stable and well done. Like the Witcher.

The large modding community, I think, has more to do with the release of the GECK/Development tools. And the huge popularity of the Bethesda titles. How many people bought Skyrim in the end? Was it 20 or 30 million? This means more players, more interest, more prestige. And the release of the tools not only saves time, but it gives the modders the same access to all the resources as the developers. Otherwise a TEAM of people would have to spend several months on creating the tools and correct environment for development, all by them self.

And yet ... even HERE, modders have STILL to improve the engine with scripts and fixes to make some of the really interesting stuff. Skyrim without script extender? You could probably forget half of the mods out there. You would never see much more than a few weapons added to the game and texture changes. Strange enough, which is what you can get with many other games as well.

I never saw Bethesda as this huge mod supporter to be honest. Infact, the mod community seems to be even rather split about Bethesda. On one side, well they do love modding. But on the other they also complain a lot about Bethesda.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
Like I said once in a different topic.

Bethesda should just make the engine stable and release only an empty world with the GECK. Kinda like Minecraft!

Let the community do the work ...
Click to expand...
That's an impossibility, mod's are much more limited on consoles and Bethesda get a large chunk of their profits from console users. Maybe as a little passion project that's released for $5 or free but otherwise there's no reason for them to alienate a large percentage of their fan base...
 
I see no reason why a company that consistently churns out lazy shit and spends twice as much marketing it as they do on making it playable shouldn't be flamed.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
Let's ask, though, would you prefer a broken game you can mod to your wildest desires of a functional and good game you can't mod all that much? And before you say it, YES, at this point in technological progress, those two are mutually exclusive. Even the Source engine proves that to be easily modifiable you have to sacrifice large-scale worlds.
Click to expand...

As you've described, in an engine as easily modifiable as the one Bethesda uses, bugs are bound to come up. However, the issue with them I find most irritating (and, based on the OP, I assume most posters here do as well) is the sheer lack of effort Bethesda undergoes to fix these bugs.

I won't pretend to know why that is, be it sheer laziness or issues with release date; I assume it is the latter, as I recall them having to delay the game and it being surprisingly functional on release (by Bethesda standards, anyway).

But let's take a few of these fixes here:

DirtyOldShoe said:
- Fixed an issue where subtitles would occasionally not update properly
Click to expand...

I first experienced this bug with the Vault-Tec representative. That's literally the first dialogue you have in the game; not only it should've been fixed before launch, but at the very least it should have been fixed with the first patch, not the second one.

I'm not going to go through the rest of the bugs OP listed, mostly because I basically agree with everything they've said and I'd rather not waste anybody's time repeating myself.

Rather, let's take a look at the bugs fixed by the mod 'Simple Bug Fixes' on the Nexus by MookittyBonnie.

http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/2142/?

-Big Leagues 5 gives its damage bonus correctly.
As pointed out by the mod author themselves, this bug was explained as a display bug; however, this was a lie, showing a distinct lack of play testing and professionalism.

-Targeting HUD now turns off in dialogue, allows you to use pacify effects, and no longer causes neutral NPCs to go hostile.
This is also another very infamous bug; the Targeting HUD is a power armour helmet mod that allows you to highlight living targets but, for some odd reason, would cause friendly NPCs to turn hostile if highlighted. This isn't a hard-to-find hidden bug, this is a quite obvious oversight in the game's programming, and should have immediately been found when testing the mod (the power armour mod, not the bug fix mod).

-Killshot reduced from 2000% to 20% accuracy bonus.
Another infamous one, and pretty self-explanatory I like to think.

The list goes on, but my point is that Bethesda clearly didn't play-test this game to acceptable levels. Most of these bugs are easy fixes (as shown by the fact that somebody with none of the tools the developers are using managed to do it) and shouldn't take more than a few minutes each to fix for someone using the developer's tools.

Bethesda's faults isn't in the existence of bugs in their games; that's a well-known engine limitation, and the price they pay in exchange for an easily moddable game. Their fault lies in their blatant neglect to actually put any effort into fixing these bugs in a fast and efficient manner.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Like I said once in a different topic.

Bethesda should just make the engine stable and release only an empty world with the GECK. Kinda like Minecraft!

Let the community do the work ...

I also think the fact that so many people mod stuff for Skyrim has less to do with the fact that they use the gamebryo engine. It might be more mod friendly than other engines. I am not an expert. But I saw a lot of mods and amaizing content for Half Life 1 and Unreal as well. I mean like many others here, I could totally live without many mods, if the core game would be stable and well done. Like the Witcher.

The large modding community, I think, has more to do with the release of the GECK/Development tools. And the huge popularity of the Bethesda titles. How many people bought Skyrim in the end? Was it 20 or 30 million? This means more players, more interest, more prestige. And the release of the tools not only saves time, but it gives the modders the same access to all the resources as the developers. Otherwise a TEAM of people would have to spend several months on creating the tools and correct environment for development, all by them self.

And yet ... even HERE, modders have STILL to improve the engine with scripts and fixes to make some of the really interesting stuff. Skyrim without script extender? You could probably forget half of the mods out there. You would never see much more than a few weapons added to the game and texture changes. Strange enough, which is what you can get with many other games as well.

I never saw Bethesda as this huge mod supporter to be honest. Infact, the mod community seems to be even rather split about Bethesda. On one side, well they do love modding. But on the other they also complain a lot about Bethesda.
Click to expand...
It's definitely mod friendly. The Esm/Esp system means you can basically slot stuff in at will, and the additions of mod tools (GECK, creation kit, ect) does help a lot. And it's damn easy to learn too (I learned how to make, and finished a radio station in NV in a few hours). The thing is, none of these things couldn't be made in different forms in a new engine, written from the ground up. It's just that very few largeish game companies really support modding, so they don't dedicate any resources to it.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
Let's ask, though, would you prefer a broken game you can mod to your wildest desires of a functional and good game you can't mod all that much? And before you say it, YES, at this point in technological progress, those two are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a single person who is going to say "why yes I want a broken game."

You can't mod out bad writing, dialogue, and quests.
 
MercenarySnake said:
You can but you'll just end up with something similar to Fallout 4's case.
Click to expand...
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is a great example of a really wonky, somewhat "broken" game that fans love so much they did a Stalker Complete Overhaul Mod for all three games. The Stalker games are generally considered to be among the best PC games and usually appear on peoples' Top 10 lists of PC games, even with the wonky gameplay and bugs which had to be fixed by these Complete Mods (The second game in the series, Clear Sky, is NOTORIOUS for game breaking bugs that required the Complete Mod to fix).

I sincerely doubt FO4 is going to be remembered the same way or be modded in the same way, because Stalker had a weird but good story, atmosphere, and coherent universe. The writing all fit within the Stalker universe, and it has the best atmosphere I have ever seen in a post-apocalyptic styled game with the exception of Metro (which has a lot of similarities with Stalker). I will say that FO4 has excellent atmosphere, however.

No one had to change the writing, dialogue, or quests of Stalker. It was a coherent, immersive world. FO4 is utterly non-immersive and how are you supposed to mod in immersion?
 
Izak said:
That's an impossibility, mod's are much more limited on consoles and Bethesda get a large chunk of their profits from console users. Maybe as a little passion project that's released for $5 or free but otherwise there's no reason for them to alienate a large percentage of their fan base...
Click to expand...
Then they should release the empty world and mod tools along side the base game at a discount price. The fact that someone chose to spend money on a closed platform doesn't mean that those of us that didn't should suffer for that decision.
 
Lanfear said:
I see no reason why a company that consistently churns out lazy shit and spends twice as much marketing it as they do on making it playable shouldn't be flamed.
Click to expand...
make a game yourself, see how it works, maybe then you will appreciate work of all those people on bringing up new games.
 
Martin said:
make a game yourself, see how it works, maybe then you will appreciate work of all those people on bringing up new games.
Click to expand...
So if you bought a brand new car, it had a bunch of features stripped out that were there the last time you bought that kind of car, and you immediatley had to take it to a mechanic, would you accept someone saying to you "why don't you try and make a car, and maybe you'll appreciate what you have?" Bethesda is a brand, a corporation, and I'm not sure when it became acceptable in any retail situation to attack the consumer for complaints with a product;THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT, what happened to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top