CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
100% agreed.
Who else here LIKED Fallout 4?
- Thread starter Arenchac
- Start date
Carbon Dated and Proud
100% agreed.
DirtyOldShoe
Some kind of lucky
Open worlds can be broken up into categories, as you're new here, I'll help you out.
Open worlds are, or should have:
- A set of rules that apply that make up the fiction of that universe.
- Inhabitants that follow the world rules.
- Structures that follow the world rules.
- Foliage/Nature that follows the world rules.
- Scale.
- Resources.
- Hazards.
Fallout 4 is a Bethesda game but there are individual groups that work on specific aspects, for example Joel Burgess is the Buildings, junk and more, scenic guy (level designer)
You have the people that make the models for the level designers crew(They never get much attention)
And the mental midget crew that connects it all with story, which can be broken up in to two groups, Writers, Alan Nanes and Emil P. And producers that say "Make it like this."
One of the rules of that 'open world' is that super mutants eat humans, I know, this is really making them one dimensional, but that rule is broken when humans complain the the west side thugs aka super mutants are stealing their tatos or asking for ransom for their friend.
10% of the inhabitants are not able to die and break that worlds rules, the other 90% make up for hostiles that want you dead for no actual reason.
The scale of the world is very small considering previous entries and to say that you like Bethesda's effort when considering scale, Skyrim is bigger, Fallout 3 is bigger, Oblivion is bigger, Morrowind is bigger.
The resources in the world replenish and subtract from any suspension of disbelief that there is a resource shortage. The 10% non hostiles that can't die do not look for a way of protecting themselves or gearing up because they are gods.
A barrel of acid produces more radiation then the majority of the Glowing Sea, an area ravaged by being ground zero. Most of the Glowing sea delivers radiation based on the weather not on the area.
What aspect of the "open world" do you like? Do you like it because it's Boston? Do you like the downtown lag? Please, tell me what makes an open world to you.
a721402
Played FPS for decades still suck at it.
Shooting is handled by id software, and most likely lots of graphic improvement, 2 of them are pretty much the only 2 decent part of it.
So please at least give id some credits, life is hard enough when your boss have the tendency to ask you to do something you are not professional of(Rage) and ask you to fix a seriously broken old engine(Gamebryo).
Last edited:
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Meh even the shooting was poor.
a721402
Played FPS for decades still suck at it.
Explain it, and don't mistake enemy design as combat mechanics, enemy take hundred of bullets to take down just one is not the same as a gun don't works like a gun.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
1. I'm a big fan of realistic combat so I don't like combat where you awkwardly walk/run around shooting enemies that see you while being right in the open, impervious to bullets. I prefer cover based combat but not to the extent present in cover based shooters, just make it so cover is important but don't make the game turn into whack a mole.
2. Melee... well swinging a sword and hitting something constantly without end is both boring and annoying. Blocking is limited and there's no sense of a real vicious close combat.
a721402
Played FPS for decades still suck at it.
1. Are you the kind of person who will claim Gear of War better than Doom or Quake? And what you talking here is about your own preferences, not why the shooting part is poor like what you said up there.
2.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
No... I'm kind of person who thinks that Arma and Red Orchestra are much better. Let's spin this around, because I honestly don't have anything that personal preference. Why is the shooting decent?
2. I realized that. Let me say, the combat is poor.
a721402
Played FPS for decades still suck at it.
What you doing up there is talking about your personal preference.
And you still don't have say why the shooting is bad, you only say you play games like ARMA and Red Orchestra and you don't like the way how combat work, you don't like it doesn't mean it's poor or bad.
The shooting mechanics is decent because the gun actually work like a gun unlike what gun works in the 3, not as realistic like those top notch military simulator level shooter, but for a FPS is decent enough already.
And by your logic, every FPS don't feels like ARMA or Red Orchestra all have poor shooting mechanics? how many FPS players you are trying to pissed?
RevBladeZ
First time out of the vault
The shooting is pretty good though as pointed above, Bethesda did not make the shooting mechanics. The main issue is the lack of really challenging enemies in a very Bethesda way. The open world also at least makes some sense this time around since we don't have shit like people building towns around a live nuclear bomb, though one thing that still doesn't make sense is that the Commonwealth is in about the same state as South California was less than 100 years after the war, you would think people would have started properly rebuilding 200 years after the war as they have in California. But like i said, its just decent, its not great.
RevBladeZ
First time out of the vault
True, Skyrims world was better and i guess Bethesda has a better idea on how to build worlds in that universe since they created that universe. But as i said, i think its decent, not great.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
I agree, I have no clear reason against it... but, so don't you (I was waiting for this).
Saying that guns work like a gun isn't a legitimate reason that shooting games are decent, as many good shooting games have absolutely unrealistic weaponry. So basically, unless you have any other reason you're just as subjective and preferential as I am.
a721402
Played FPS for decades still suck at it.
I say the shooting mechanics, not game, what make you think i am saying Bethesda's FO4 is decent?
Dr Fallout
Centurion
So? That changes nothing, as a good shooter has to have good shooting mechanics to be good right?
a721402
Played FPS for decades still suck at it.
Stop change subject and start talking what we actually was talking about, i am talking about id shall get the credits for the part of Bethesda's FO4 been praise a lot, and you come and say the part is poor, i ask you why you think so and til now you still haven't give me any real answer why you think the shooting mechanics is poor, and now you change the subject to whole game.
You are using the same tactics as those who blindly defend Bethesda's FO4 right now, don't become like them and start to answer something match the actual subject.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Fine, I think the shooting is poor because it's not realistic and amounts to you standing still and shooting enemies till they die. Running around is fine but you have a high damage resistance and can weather their shots till you kill them. Also, you're acting like a Bethesdian fanboy by emphasizing one ONE word mistake and ignoring my entire point which was you have no actual reasons to say that the combat is decent that doesn't end up being subjective or preferential.
Even the so called 'good' parts of Fallout 4 are just mediocre, and I think the real reason why everyone is saying the shooting is so awesome, is because it was so shitty in Fallout 3. I mean Fallout 4 is offering you a mechanic that 90% of shooters contain and that is the bare minimum of what the game should offer to work, it's like applauding a racing game that you have finally a decent driving mechanic. Would you not kinda ... take that for granted? Since when has it become a thing to congratulate a developer like Bethesda that they reached the absolute minimum of what you can expect. In Fallout 4, you whack or shoot something till it's dead. Yay! I guess? Bethesda finally managed to reach the standard of the shooter genre! You know, that somehow reminds me to this, "No Timmy! You're not a looser! Everyone is a WINNER!", that moms tell their kid, because they know they are just mediocre 
. But where is the diversity? The excitment, or any kind of complexity in their game? There are not even different types of amunition and defences, as far as I can tell, and the melee mechanic is really the absolute BASICS of a melee mechanic. And on top of it, they made sure that the weapons pretty much all feel and handle the same. What is the difference between energy based weapons and machine guns for example? It kills stuff with a different kind of colour I guess ...
. But where is the diversity? The excitment, or any kind of complexity in their game? There are not even different types of amunition and defences, as far as I can tell, and the melee mechanic is really the absolute BASICS of a melee mechanic. And on top of it, they made sure that the weapons pretty much all feel and handle the same. What is the difference between energy based weapons and machine guns for example? It kills stuff with a different kind of colour I guess ...
Last edited:
Yes, congratulations, you've proven to all of us that we are simply nostalgic. We all thought that we had valid reasons to prefer the older games, but you proved it was 100% nostalgia.
View attachment 5696
Yes, it's the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge what makes the Bethesda games good. I'm not saying they compare all that well, but they are still great games and need another chance.
Yeah, it's really just that I'm probably one of the few who even bothers trying. Know I'm not exactly important, just that most people consider this forum a lost cause.
DirtyOldShoe
Some kind of lucky
Source please. Where are these 'most' and what demographic do they represent.