What is it with people and the immortal dog?

Crni Vuk said:
For example notes left behind by the dead NPC somewhere in his room that would tell the player the information they required. That's simply game design.

But of course. That would actually require from the designer to think about all the possible ways to play his game. It is much easier to just say, naaay, let us just make this NPC immortal.
Click to expand...
It's not so simple... or... rather it IS so simple... They are not so stupid or lazy as their solution implies. It is (I think) that they have a very low ~and very accurate opinion of their target consumer.

It's sickening, and it feels like a kick to the teeth, but haven't you noticed that all of BI/Troika/Obsidian's [albeit unpolished] best work in RPGs... pales in sales comparison to the impeccably polished turd RPGs that other studios pinch out? And even works derived of masters (like gluing tempera covered macaroni to Rembrandt copies) sells better when devolved into forgiving and servile power trips.

That's no accident. A good RPG is like a good [hardware] scientific calculator, and how many typical consumers choose or appreciate one of those over the dime-store wallet styles, or the one that comes on their phone for free ~that they never use?
 
Last edited:
HARDCORE GAMERZ (tm) need to have the game hold their hand all the way, it's not their fault that they suck.
 
Fallout is supposed to be a brutal and cruel game and it needs to punish you with permanent consequences for actions that would not be punished in lighter toned games. This goes for your companions dieing for good just as much as it goes things like failing a skill check busting access to an certain area for good or failing conversations making some characters attack you and even the little things like taking a tattoo making several NPCs becoming hostile towards you (Fallout 2).
 
TorontRayne said:
What I hate is if I want to enjoy the game I have to add so many mods to even make it challenging or fun as a RPG. I have to look at the game as a hiking simulator or adventure game with RPG elements, which sours the whole experience. At least with New Vegas you had some consequences for your actions. The combat might not be as great(compared to Fallout 2), but the story was interesting, it didn't fuck up the lore, there was overall more care for the franchise. Yet Bethesda doesn't even speak of it. Obsidian is a developer that I have grown to trust. Bethesda has completely destroyed any goodwill I ever had towards them.
Click to expand...
I'd like it if games like NV actually had consequences for being crippled. In first person, a limp should move the head, need basic head-bob anyway, and that's not mentioning just being a floating head. And you're a bullet sponge on hardcore. And any sort of head damage or addiction just makes a filter go over the screen. Needs to be more significant, more intrusive.

Also, the more hurt you are, the more easily hurt you will be from thereon, as your skills are weakened, you can't aim as easily, you can't focus or move as well. You just breeze through it. Need to make it so getting hit REALLY slows you down, across the board.
 
Gizmojunk said:
Crni Vuk said:
For example notes left behind by the dead NPC somewhere in his room that would tell the player the information they required. That's simply game design.

But of course. That would actually require from the designer to think about all the possible ways to play his game. It is much easier to just say, naaay, let us just make this NPC immortal.
Click to expand...
It's not so simple... or... rather it IS so simple... They are not so stupid or lazy as their solution implies. It is (I think) that they have a very low ~and very accurate opinion of their target consumer.

It's sickening, and it feels like a kick to the teeth, but haven't you noticed that all of BI/Troika/Obsidian's [albeit unpolished] best work in RPGs... pales in sales comparison to the impeccably polished turd RPGs that other studios pinch out? And even works derived of masters (like gluing tempera covered macaroni to Rembrandt copies) sells better when devolved into forgiving and servile power trips.

That's no accident. A good RPG is like a good [hardware] scientific calculator, and how many typical consumers choose or appreciate one of those over the dime-store wallet styles, or the one that comes on their phone for free ~that they never use?
Click to expand...

True. I am just saying it to the people that feel the Beth way is the only way or that EA/Biowares storytelling for example is he only way to make it happen.

In the end, it's all a design choice I guess. And that is the sickening part. Beth, EA/Bioware and the others know their target audience just to well ...
 
Moosick said:
I'd like it if games like NV actually had consequences for being crippled. In first person, a limp should move the head, need basic head-bob anyway, and that's not mentioning just being a floating head. And you're a bullet sponge on hardcore. And any sort of head damage or addiction just makes a filter go over the screen. Needs to be more significant, more intrusive.

Also, the more hurt you are, the more easily hurt you will be from thereon, as your skills are weakened, you can't aim as easily, you can't focus or move as well. You just breeze through it. Need to make it so getting hit REALLY slows you down, across the board.
Click to expand...




That's why I installed Project Nevada and Enhanced camera.
 
Same, and they're good, but honestly it's not enough for me. Not enough significance to literally having your leg broken, or skull fractured. Or bleeding out. Most of the time it's like roleplaying as Deadpool.
 
I don't know, I die pretty fast with Project Nevada if I am not careful (altho I also have a preference towards light armor rather than heavy armor). I also have the AI overhaul mod so ranged combatants always keep their distance and they even take potshots at me from afar.
 
I tend to snipe folks, but the mid-weight combat armour is enough for me, usually. Once you get an inversal axe from owb even deathclaws stop being a problem if you prep with chems and stimpaks. I haven't played it in a while, mind. I may go back to it to lead up to 4.
 
Try Project Nevada Rebalanced (I use max 5% of damage bleedthrough) with a mod called Realistic Weapon Damages... You get really hurt really easily, and at the same time makes armor behave they its supposed to (remember those Vault Security armors with bulletproof layers?). And just try to wipe out the BoS bunker...
 
Battlecross said:
TorontRayne said:
Battlecross said:
I personally don't care, and it's my understanding that you don't have to take the dog as a companion if you don't want to.
Click to expand...

A shit excuse. All of the companions are immortal. I'm seeing that said a lot.
Click to expand...

Huh? How is what I said an excuse?
Click to expand...

It is a a bad excuse to say you don't need to pick the companions up so it isn't a big deal. That is what a lot of the defenders have been saying. I understand that is your opinion, but I am saying I disagree with people that say that. Just not picking the companions up doesn't solve the immortal companion problem. It actually makes it worse because you are locked out of content if you don't want NPC's to be meat shields. Make no mistake. That is what companions are when they can't be killed.
 
I don't understand why Beth won't put in an option for players to choose wither or not they want companions to be essential or not. If players want their companions to die if their not careful and have there be consequences when having a companion and them dying then there should be an option for that. Likewise, if a player wants to have their companions be essential because they don't feel like babysitting their companions and just want to play the game casually then their should also be an option for that. This doesn't seem like something that would be hard to implement. Either these companions will essential to Fallout 4 story or Beth really does not care at all about player choice. I'm going with the latter.
 
RangerBoo said:
I don't understand why Beth won't put in an option for players to choose wither or not they want companions to be essential or not. If players want their companions to die if their not careful and have there be consequences when having a companion and them dying then there should be an option for that. Likewise, if a player wants to have their companions be essential because they don't feel like babysitting their companions and just want to play the game casually then their should also be an option for that. This doesn't seem like something that would be hard to implement. Either these companions will essential to Fallout 4 story or Beth really does not care at all about player choice. I'm going with the latter.
Click to expand...

You only have to listen for the applause to see what the truth is. Everyone at E3 cheered for essential companions with the number one reason being the companions are too stupid to keep alive.

This might help but it would require Bethesda to change the way they make games.

http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/50468/?
 
Then why not have there be an option to choose wither or not you want companions to be essential or not? Like I said before, its something that doesn't seem that hard to implement. NV had that option at the start of the game. I'm guessing that Beth wants to try to make Fallout 4 be as far away from NV as much as possible which is stupid and foolish. My earlier statements about them wanting to make Fallout 4 be Mass Effect in a post-apocalyptic setting is becoming more true with each passing day.
 
So many modders have worked on improving Ai and Companion control, and these are complete amateurs mind you, yet the "professionals" that have inflated budgets can't even be arsed to do any of that.
 
I just wish Bethesda would let people fail. My biggest issue with TES for the longest time is how I can't fuck up. Because of the lack of fail states I never feel like the world is real. I couldn't care less about companion AI if only because I consider them to be their own thing, and more often I feel it's pure luck of the draw that they get blown away. It's not like, say, Fire Emblem or X-Com, where the deaths are ALWAYS a result of shit playing on your part and feel like a punishment for poor planning. So essential followers in a game as hands-off as Fallout doesn't bug me. Though I'd prefer a toggle, which doesn't seem like a big ask.

The fact that all the quest giving/quest mandatory NPC's are essential is what gets me. Hell, even some that have next to nothing tied to them are and it pulls me out so much when my character reacts angrily and gets into a fight only to find out I'm fucked because the son of a bitch is just gonna pop up like a 13-year old's boner after every beat down. It's annoying and pulls me out of the experience so fast I get whiplash. What's worse is I'm mainly a console gamer. Especially since my PC can barely run a toaster. So I can't even modify the game. It's just a frustrating design decision and I see no positive outcome for it.
 
RangerBoo said:
Then why not have there be an option to choose wither or not you want companions to be essential or not? Like I said before, its something that doesn't seem that hard to implement. NV had that option at the start of the game. I'm guessing that Beth wants to try to make Fallout 4 be as far away from NV as much as possible which is stupid and foolish. My earlier statements about them wanting to make Fallout 4 be Mass Effect in a post-apocalyptic setting is becoming more true with each passing day.
Click to expand...

That Bethesda has a really weird notion of "freedom" and "choice" is the best answer I can give. Like you have the "freedom" to "choose" to do everything without any meaningful consequences regardless of what you do.

I'm now afraid that Fo4 won't have Hardcore mode. I mean, until the modders add it.
 
Last edited:
RangerBoo said:
Then why not have there be an option to choose wither or not you want companions to be essential or not? Like I said before, its something that doesn't seem that hard to implement. NV had that option at the start of the game. I'm guessing that Beth wants to try to make Fallout 4 be as far away from NV as much as possible which is stupid and foolish. My earlier statements about them wanting to make Fallout 4 be Mass Effect in a post-apocalyptic setting is becoming more true with each passing day.
Click to expand...
You are better off not questioning Bethesda's decisions and logic.
 
One big trouble I have with essential companions is that it makes it harder for me to relate to them, to care about them. If I know they can't die, there is nothing stopping me from using them as just bullet sponges and put them in the front, because I know that's a winning move. Is it that hard for players to have to reload from time to time? It isn't as if modern Fallouts lack the autosave feature...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top