Would Fallout 4 have been better as a Settlement focused Spin off?

[Irwin John Finster]

I'm hugely interested in seeing where I called you stupid. Not your stupid (and it really is) comparison of turning a game where you build rollercoasters into a gritty fps with nothing to do with rollercoasters being the same thing as a post apoc crpg becoming a post apoc fps, but where I called you stupid.

I'm sorry you can't understand the abstract analogy, but there is no reason to resort to name calling.

I respectfully disagree. For your knowledge, this forum has an Edit function so you don't need to double post.

 

[SpecialHands]

I'm sorry you can't understand the abstract analogy, but there is no reason to resort to name calling.

I respectfully disagree. For your knowledge, this forum has an Edit function so you don't need to double post.

Please point out where I called you stupid.

 

[Izak]

There's a hefty number of quests like that in 4.

I agree with Irwin John Finster.

The Cabot quest

Go to Cabot House, go to asylum, kill at asylum, loot serum, return to Cabot House, go to ampitheatre, kill people at amphitheatre, return to Cabot House, go back to Asylum, kill at Asylum, return to Jack.

retaking the Castle

Go to Castle, kill at Castle, return to Garvey.

the Silver Shroud

Go to ghoul, go to comic book place, kill at comic book place, loot comic book place, return to ghoul, go to raiders, kill raiders, go to Hancock.

the first Finch Farm quest with the forged

Go to Forged, kill forged, return son (which is the human equivalent to LOOT and RETURN).

the diamond city mayor being a synth

Go to Mayor, defeat Mayor, return.

Didn't play the other quests but I imagine they follow similar structures.
Should Bethesda really be commended for occasionally splicing the formula anyway? I remember several quests in Fallout 3 and NV that could be completed in innumerous ways, Fallout 4 doesn't have that, if anything they tack on an extra step or give you the option to talk someone down (not that this changes anything, your choices, without fail, don't have consequence), this certainly isn't the ROLEPLAYING game that I remember at the least.

 

[SpecialHands]

I agree with Irwin John Finster.

Go to Cabot House, go to asylum, kill at asylum, loot serum, return to Cabot House, go to ampitheatre, kill people at amphitheatre, return to Cabot House, go back to Asylum, kill at Asylum, return to Jack.

Go to Castle, kill at Castle, return to Garvey.

Go to ghoul, go to comic book place, kill at comic book place, loot comic book place, return to ghoul, go to raiders, kill raiders, go to Hancock.

Go to Forged, kill forged, return son (which is the human equivalent to LOOT and RETURN).

Go to Mayor, defeat Mayor, return.

Didn't play the other quests but I imagine they follow similar structures.
Should Bethesda really be commended for occasionally splicing the formula anyway? I remember several quests in Fallout 3 and NV that could be completed in innumerous ways, Fallout 4 doesn't have that, if anything they tack on an extra step or give you the option to talk someone down (not that this changes anything, your choices, without fail, don't have consequence), this certainly isn't the ROLEPLAYING game that I remember at the least.

I'm aware they're fetch quests, that's why I responded to a comment about a Witcher 3 fetch quest that was apparently fun because it had some back story whereas apparantly no fetch quest in FO4 has any back story, hence why I mentioned several with actual story and most of them
With variable choice paths. Please read what post I actually quoted.

 

[CerberusGate]

I'm aware they're fetch quests, that's why I responded to a comment about a Witcher 3 fetch quest that was apparently fun because it had some back story whereas apparantly no fetch quest in FO4 has any back story, hence why I mentioned several with actual story and most of them with variable choice paths. .

FTFY. The "with" did not need capitalization.
The choice in the Cabbot House quest () was inconsequential to the game due to a lack of impact and to the lore, it only acts like a rusty knife to the established lore as many on NMA will attest to.
The Castle quest did not have any variable choice path and the story is very minimal with little lasting impact (even if it opens up an extremely dull ending route).
The Forged quest does not have impact on the world in the long run and the variable choice paths were dull.
The Silver Shroud quest does not impact the world much.
Killing the Mayor does not have an impact on the world in the long run. (I don't recall any changes to Diamond City)

The common thing here is a lack of proper impact on the game world and Fallout 4's quests each suffer from this even if there is a backstory to them (though most of them are rather dull to be honest). At least there is some visible and significant impact from doing (or refraining from doing) certain quests in Witcher 3.

 

[Izak]

Please read what post I actually quoted.

Oh, sorry about that.
Still, Fallout 4's quests all boil down to cockamaney popamole bullshit, definitley doesn't fit into a comparison with Fallout 3 and NV quests where you could go through an entire quest without engaging in combat (fuck this is common in New Vegas, less so in 3 but it's still there). If you stripped Fallout New Vegas down to its core elements and compared it to a similarly stripped Fallout 4 you wouldn't imagine they were in the same series.

 

[SpecialHands]

Oh, sorry about that.
Still, Fallout 4's quests all boil down to cockamaney popamole bullshit, definitley doesn't fit into a comparison with Fallout 3 and NV quests where you could go through an entire quest without engaging in combat (fuck this is common in New Vegas, less so in 3 but it's still there). If you stripped Fallout New Vegas down to its core elements and compared it to a similarly stripped Fallout 4 you wouldn't imagine they were in the same series.

If you're talking core mechanics in terms of gameplay and progression then sure, I agree. If you're talking about core elements of story then sorry, but we're in disagreement.

With that said, I would really rather we actually talked about what I originally posted instead of arguing every minuscule quest element that is or isn't in F4. I know you didn't start the derailing and I'm not blaming you for it, its just yours is the last comment that isn't to do with the OP that I intend to address.

 

[Shardik]

This is getting completely off topic to the point of no return now but

There's a hefty number of quests like that in 4. The Cabot quest, the Quest to finish Valentine's case his friend started, retaking the Castle, the Silver Shroud, curing Cait, the Eddie Winters tapes, the first Finch Farm quest with the forged, the diamond city mayor being a synth etc

Fallout 4 has a bunch of problems, terrible writing, an awful dialogue system, pointless characters, plot holes, a massively dumbed down S.P.E.C.I.A.L system etc. But to suggest every quest is a rinse and repeat radiant without any back story or character motives is simply not reflective of the truth.

I probably should have waited to reply to your post when I had more time to elaborate, and I'm going to have to come back again later, when I get home and can post on something besides my phone.

ETA - I didn't mean to imply that every single quest in Fallout 4 was a simple Kill-Loot-Return one, but from re-reading what I posted I can see how I left that impression. Let me revise to say that while they all aren't Kill-Loot-Return, too damned many of them are. And if they had made just a bit of an effort to flesh out even a few of the KLR quests, the finished game would have been much better for it. That was the reason I brought up that Witcher 3 example.

My biggest concern about Fallout 4 when the details about crafting, settlements, voiced PC, etc. started leaking out was that Bethesda was trying too hard to please everyone, and as a result the developers would lose their focus. Well, looking at the finished game, that sure as hell seems to have happened. A focused, disciplined design team with a good leader willing to exert some control over the content would have never given us something like Kid in a Fridge.
[/ETA]

To answer your original question - yes, I think FO4 would have been a better game if they had concentrated on making it a settlement-based game instead of taking the scattershot, try-to-please-everyone approach they did take, which ended up throwing together a bunch of half baked and poorly executed ideas that don't always play well next to each other, and gave us too many examples of lazy writing and quest design, not to mention complete retconning of huge parts of the lore, in an attempt to jam as much pablum for the masses in as possible.

Would it have been a good Fallout game? On that I'm not so sure. And marketing it as a spin-off would have probably pissed off a bunch of Bethesda's fans.

 

[0wing]

Another late, another thread.
Nope, with half-assed bethesdian approach nothing will work. And settlement building should be done with somewhat isometric camera, not the 1st person like in F4. The problems are in weak foundation.

 

[Chud]

The majority of players wanted a proper Fallout game, one that involved exploring a vast area, meeting people, doing quests with differing outcomes, in other words pure roleplaying. Tactics was a spinoff game, and many didn't like the focus on combat then and even to this day. It feels like a lesser Fallout in comparison to the likes of 1 and 2. Not that Tactics isn't a good game, I personally enjoyed it for what it was. It's just overall not what most players want in a Fallout game.

Fallout 4 as some sim-focused spinoff game would not entice me at all, and I'd imagine most players as well. And that's regardless if they were to somehow managed to make the settlements into something bigger and better than they currently are. I have a hard time imagining they could, just by how clearly lazy things like quests and DLC ended up being. I don't think they have their hearts in this franchise at all. It's work, nothing more.

I enjoyed the crafting stuff to an extent, yet what I really wanted was a story, a chance to roleplay. What I wanted was Fallout.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Well for me, it's been 8 years since Fallout 3 and I think 6 since New Vegas. If I waited that long and they released a "settlement focused spin off" instead of a Fallout Role Playing Game I'd be pretty disappointed.

Oh wait, that's exactly what Bethesda did.

Trying to stay on topic here - if Fallout is an RPG franchise, and every previous game (Fallout 1, 2, 3, New Vegas) has been an RPG, then it should be pretty obvious that making fans wait 7 years for a new game and putting out some weird spin off that has nothing to do with a Fallout RPG is going to rustle many jimmies.

Imagine if Mass Effect Andromeda is a casualized FPS with no dialogue or choices at all. That's going to disappoint a lot of people.

 

[Deeves]

I get what you mean. You mean instead of the whole Cryogenics / Shawn bullshit it was just sidequests dotting the world and building your faction with no main 'story'. Yeah, that would be more ideal than all the contrived gymnastics this game has to go through in the main quest. There could be a choice system where as chief your rule can be benevolent or you can be a prick, and it would have actual relationship affects with the rest of the denizens on the map. Like a first person Civ 5. Though that would get boring quick without opposition. There would need to be some counter balance like a raider gang with true RTS campaign AI that can mobilize squads to take settlements away, not the pretend little ambushes Beth put in. And then this thing becomes a RPG-FPS-RTS . Shardik is exactly right, Fo4 is already to scattershot and brad as it is.

There is a point where if you apply enough dilution, there is no point in fooling yourself that that compound is the same compound. Not that it wouldn't work, I just would have a problem with Beth calling it Fallout. At some point you are just better off making a new IP in a post apoc setting.

If the Fallout branding on the box is what's hindering keeping me from enjoying their non-fallout frankenstein, and if just doing the core pillars of what made Fallout the franchise it was extremely well are just too fundamental and blasé for the space cadets at Bethesda, how about we just compromise and drop Fallout from the title, huh?

 

[SpecialHands]

I get what you mean. You mean instead of the whole Cryogenics / Shawn bullshit it was just sidequests dotting the world and building your faction with no main 'story'. Yeah, that would be more ideal than all the contrived gymnastics this game has to go through in the main quest. There could be a choice system where as chief your rule can be benevolent or you can be a prick, and it would have actual relationship affects with the rest of the denizens on the map. Like a first person Civ 5. Though that would get boring quick without opposition. There would need to be some counter balance like a raider gang with true RTS campaign AI that can mobilize squads to take settlements away, not the pretend little ambushes Beth put in. And then this thing becomes a RPG-FPS-RTS . Shardik is exactly right, Fo4 is already to scattershot and brad as it is.

There is a point where if you apply enough dilution, there is no point in fooling yourself that that compound is the same compound. Not that it wouldn't work, I just would have a problem with Beth calling it Fallout. At some point you are just better off making a new IP in a post apoc setting.

If the Fallout branding on the box is what's hindering keeping me from enjoying their non-fallout frankenstein, and if just doing the core pillars of what made Fallout the franchise it was extremely well are just too fundamental and blasé for the space cadets at Bethesda, how about we just compromise and drop Fallout from the title, huh?

That's exactly the kind of game I mean. I just feel what we have is a bunch of half done ideas thrown together that all at some kind of level probably started out good but just weren't executed well and/or didn't mesh together. The Minutemen were criminally under developed, there's a chunk of back story about Quincy that just never goes anywhere. I don't feel Bethesda can make a decent Fallout RPG so really I think they should of focused on the other elements and just made a spin off. Some of the other guys mentioned using an isometric view which I think would of been cool. It could of stuck to the overall lore of Fallout whilst not interfering with established canon. Hell, you could choose from the start if you wanted to be a Minuteman, Super Mutant, Raider etc. Build the Boston you want. That would of been decent in my eyes. People liked Shelter, and Bethesda clearly are banking on their settlement stuff because that seems to be what the bulk of DLC is, so really they should of just made a spin off to begin with that existed in the same kind of space Tactics does.

 

[Risewild]

I have said around here a few times that the Fallout universe has/had such a rich story, creatures, robots, factions, weapons, etc. That I don't understand why Bethesda doesn't make spin-offs using the Fallout lore in different game genres.
Fallout RTS (Like Starcraft), Fallout Tropico-like (like it was already mentioned before), Fallout TBS (Like Civilization), First person games, Isometric games, turn based games, real time games, even a Fallout card game could work well, there are so many possibilities that could take advantage of the rich lore.

So yeah, I think if they made a spin-off game based more on building your settlement and expand, protect, gather materials, hire and recruit people to be part of it (and I mean special people that will add special bonuses/penalties when they join your settlement and not the generic NPC), make laws, send expeditions to explore or scavenge, etc. It could be a good game.

The problem with this is that Bethesda has no experience in making these kind of games, so it would probably not be a very good game, but there would be solution for that, Bethesda could license a different studio to make the game.
On a different note, if Bethesda licensed Fallout for other companies to make games from. Imagine Paradox making a Fallout Grand Strategy game, or Kalypso making a Tropico-Like Fallout, Firaxis making a Civilization-Like game, etc.

 

[CerberusGate]

I have said around here a few times that the Fallout universe has/had such a rich story, creatures, robots, factions, weapons, etc. That I don't understand why Bethesda doesn't make spin-offs using the Fallout lore in different game genres.
Fallout RTS (Like Starcraft), Fallout Tropico-like (like it was already mentioned before), Fallout TBS (Like Civilization), First person games, Isometric games, turn based games, real time games, even a Fallout card game could work well, there are so many possibilities that could take advantage of the rich lore.

So yeah, I think if they made a spin-off game based more on building your settlement and expand, protect, gather materials, hire and recruit people to be part of it (and I mean special people that will add special bonuses/penalties when they join your settlement and not the generic NPC), make laws, send expeditions to explore or scavenge, etc. It could be a good game.

The problem with this is that Bethesda has no experience in making these kind of games, so it would probably not be a very good game, but there would be solution for that, Bethesda could license a different studio to make the game.
On a different note, if Bethesda licensed Fallout for other companies to make games from. Imagine Paradox making a Fallout Grand Strategy game, or Kalypso making a Tropico-Like Fallout, Firaxis making a Civilization-Like game, etc.

Or Colossal Order making a Cities:Skylines-like Fallout game?

 

[Deeves]

I still honestly believe that the Quincy was supposed to be a much bigger thing. Like, instead of Battle for Bunker Hill in the mid-game that came out nowhere it was supposed to be the battle of Quincy, and then after you could meet back up with Preston and the survivors and choose to rebuild them. Beforehand you could of seen Minutemen at their height, have some pre-existing history with Preston and his faction, and actually feel something for his loss. You know, it would be like their Kvatch 2.0. But they either ran out of time, or the settlement system was getting too big as a feature to just be a random thing to do at the end, so they just copypasted Concord to level 2.

With jumping to another genre, I /guess/. Halo Wars is cool. But I just have to ask why? I don't play Fallout games just to march iconography around and pew lasers, I don't really want Pipboy's retro isometric adventure done in the art style of Fallout shelter as a Pipbuck game. There is a perfectly serviceable formula right there just begging to be made if Bethesda weren't so insecure about what they were making in the first place. Fallout doesn't need to be covered up, it's the show you came and paid to see, not something you should be ashamed of.

Hell, Todd and his whole team might get sacked because Fallout Shelter outperformed their critical flop despite being a fraction of the dev time and money. Perhaps the only piece of Fallout to carry on into the future will be Fallout Shelter's short lived sequels and Nick Valentine plushies. Like if the Lucasfilm / Disney deal never went through and the last Star Wars products ever made were Jar - Jar Binks cereal pops. But I don't really want to live in that world.

 

[Hassknecht]

Hm, I think they intended Quincy to be won back by the Minutemen. They start weak, but similar to taking back the Castle you were supposed to take back Quincy and turn it into a flourishing settlement again. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking, because Quincy is huge but serves absolutely no point. Its structure would have been great for a bustling city and trade hub between the south of the Commonwealth and Diamond City with the easily defendable highway as a valued marketplace/real estate and so on, but no, there's no way to take it back from the Gunners, who are always hostile.
Speaking of wasted space, why the hell is like 70% of Diamond City basically empty? Like, the back half of the stadium is just empty and inaccessible. It feels like the designers were all "Aww yeah settlement in a stadium!" but then were to lazy to think about how to justify people living on the slanted stands or something like that, so they just ignored the rest.

 

[SpecialHands]

Hm, I think they intended Quincy to be won back by the Minutemen. They start weak, but similar to taking back the Castle you were supposed to take back Quincy and turn it into a flourishing settlement again. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking, because Quincy is huge but serves absolutely no point. Its structure would have been great for a bustling city and trade hub between the south of the Commonwealth and Diamond City with the easily defendable highway as a valued marketplace/real estate and so on, but no, there's no way to take it back from the Gunners, who are always hostile.
Speaking of wasted space, why the hell is like 70% of Diamond City basically empty? Like, the back half of the stadium is just empty and inaccessible. It feels like the designers were all "Aww yeah settlement in a stadium!" but then were to lazy to think about how to justify people living on the slanted stands or something like that, so they just ignored the rest.

Yeah, Diamond City feels tiny for the space they have and Quincy is completely wasted, as are the Gunners.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

I have said around here a few times that the Fallout universe has/had such a rich story, creatures, robots, factions, weapons, etc. That I don't understand why Bethesda doesn't make spin-offs using the Fallout lore in different game genres.
Fallout RTS (Like Starcraft), Fallout Tropico-like (like it was already mentioned before), Fallout TBS (Like Civilization), First person games, Isometric games, turn based games, real time games, even a Fallout card game could work well, there are so many possibilities that could take advantage of the rich lore.

So yeah, I think if they made a spin-off game based more on building your settlement and expand, protect, gather materials, hire and recruit people to be part of it (and I mean special people that will add special bonuses/penalties when they join your settlement and not the generic NPC), make laws, send expeditions to explore or scavenge, etc. It could be a good game.

The problem with this is that Bethesda has no experience in making these kind of games, so it would probably not be a very good game, but there would be solution for that, Bethesda could license a different studio to make the game.
On a different note, if Bethesda licensed Fallout for other companies to make games from. Imagine Paradox making a Fallout Grand Strategy game, or Kalypso making a Tropico-Like Fallout, Firaxis making a Civilization-Like game, etc.

Before Bethesda starts making a bunch of random spin-offs of random genres, I think they need to figure out how to make an actual Fallout RPG first. Fallout fans are disappointed because instead of a Fallout RPG, we got what is essentially a cheesy settlement-crafting spin-off. And if that sounds "disingenuous" to call Fallout 4 a settlement-focused spin-off, then I will remind everyone that 50% of the Season Pass Price is Workshop DLC (including Automatron's Workshop).

I would worry that making even more spin-offs that have nothing to do with Fallout universe except the art style would devalue the brand. It's like having Spaceballs: The Movie, Spaceballs: The Lunchbox, Spaceballs: The racing game, Spaceballs: the platformer, Spaceballs: The Strategy Game. It kind of devalues the whole thing which is supposed to be a serious RPG franchise made for mature players who need better story than "Instatoot bad hurr durr you're the ultimate general of every faction!"

Then again, Bethesda kind of devalued the whole franchise for me with their newest addition anyway so it's not like they can do any worse.

 

[SpecialHands]

Before Bethesda starts making a bunch of random spin-offs of random genres, I think they need to figure out how to make an actual Fallout RPG first. Fallout fans are disappointed because instead of a Fallout RPG, we got what is essentially a cheesy settlement-crafting spin-off. And if that sounds "disingenuous" to call Fallout 4 a settlement-focused spin-off, then I will remind everyone that 50% of the Season Pass Price is Workshop DLC (including Automatron's Workshop).

I would worry that making even more spin-offs that have nothing to do with Fallout universe except the art style would devalue the brand. It's like having Spaceballs: The Movie, Spaceballs: The Lunchbox, Spaceballs: The racing game, Spaceballs: the platformer, Spaceballs: The Strategy Game. It kind of devalues the whole thing which is supposed to be a serious RPG franchise made for mature players who need better story than "Instatoot bad hurr durr you're the ultimate general of every faction!"

Then again, Bethesda kind of devalued the whole franchise for me with their newest addition anyway so it's not like they can do any worse.

Imaging if there had already been spin offs made like Fallout Tacti...oh.

Bethesda can't make a Fallout RPG, that's abundantly clear. They might as well use the licence to make a great spin off instead of a mediocre "RPG"