Longknife

I like to try and be positive. Bethesda bought this franchise. Why? I believe it was marketing reasons. They wanted a sci-fi series to compliment their fantasy one, and instead of starting a new IP, they wanted an insanely popular IP to kickstart sales. Marketing is the only reason I can name for insisting upon this, as a new IP wouldn't see them in limbo between adhering to FO's lore and blatantly breaking it apart. To that end, it's ****ing disgusting to know a great franchise is going to die (at least spiritually, as even if it remains and is successful, it won't be the Fallout we all know) for nothing more than a marketing gimmick. However...? Fallout New Vegas is the best god damned game I've ever played. And it's an amazing ending to the original series, too. Let's look at the writing on the wall: how do you possibly end Fallout as a series? It's impossible to avoid disappointment really, because Fallout games present this "challenge" of "War never changes." You as the player likely load up the game thinking "I'LL CHANGE IT," and then the game shows you exactly why you won't. I think for a grand finale, people would want to see war actually change once and for all; people love a happy ending. But this cannot be done, because the issue of "war never changes" exists in our own world. If the writers for Fallout figured out how to make war believably and reasonably change in a Fallout game, they'd be candidates for a Nobel Peace Prize in real life too; it's just not happening, and it's ridiculous to expect it from them. The point is I do think the Fallout franchise is doomed to hit a point where it starts becoming difficult to top the last one, simply because topping it demands superior insights to the last Fallout about how we can change war once and for all. Eventually, this will be next to impossible for humble game developers. But New Vegas was ambitious. New Vegas provided you with more control, choice and consequence and dramatic decisions (you can be single-handedly responsible for destroying or saving everything in the known Fallout West Coast universe) than any other Fallout game. If the next Fallout title did the exact same and copied this formula, with the potential to destroy or save everything AGAIN? It'd get old. But how the HELL do you top it? In some ways I think you don't, and I truly wonder if Obsidian made that game thinking "this may be our last Fallout game ever, so let's make it count." I once wrote up a theory about how if you look at Lonesome Road in particular, you can draw some rather interesting (though assuredly unintended) metaphors from it. ED-E? ED-E is the sole representation of Bethesda's Fallout in the entire game. Aside from Wasteland Survival Guide, ED-E is the only character that stems from a Bethesda Fallout game. He spends the DLC and likely much of the game shadowing the Courier, constantly by your side and - in the case of Lonesome Road - neccesary to progress. If you take the Courier to represent Obsidian, then ED-E could represent Fallout, showing how as things stand now, an Obsidian Fallout can not exist without Bethesda being around too, constantly watching over the shoulder to supervise decisions. Likewise, by the end of Lonesome Road, you're given a choice: nuke everything that Black Isle and Obsidian ever built, or spare it. In order to spare it? The representation of Bethesda must be destroyed for this to work. There is no other option. If you want that representation of Bethesda to survive? Then at least a portion of the originals must be destroyed. The two cannot co-exist. As I said, assuredly this is mere coincidence and really more insight into my pessimism regarding future fallouts with Bethesda at the wheel, but you get the idea. :D But I digress... I think New Vegas is the perfect ending to the series. It provides you with the tools to do whatever you want. War Never Changes and the devs can't help you find a way to make it change, but it can leave you with all the tools you need to carve out the future for the Core Region that you desire. In New Vegas' ending, you can either imply Fallout is a cycle, that everything will be nuked to hell and back again and humanity will once again rebuild and become war-torn, or you can imply that perhaps humanity has come just one step closer to remedy'ing the problem by avoiding that cycle, all while letting you choose which style of government you want at the wheel in the aftermath of it all. It would be very easy to sit here and ponder all the "what if" scenarios of if another company bought Fallout, but the truth of the matter is we don't know what we could've gotten. I for one? I'm just grateful we got New Vegas, because if you view FO1, FO2, and FO:NV as their own series independent of Bethesda's Fallouts? Then I think that was the best god damned ending they ever could've given us. And for that? I'm grateful. I'm still trying to put my finger on why Bethesda games do so well. I mean, don't get me wrong, they're fun in their own right. But they're constantly praised as though they're the pinnacle of what RPGs should be, and somehow sell millions of copies, despite their (obvious) faults. They really must have an awesome marketing department that's vastly superior to any of the other RPG developer/publishers. Because their games certainly aren't superior. Marketing. Marketing and sheer size. Part of it is that make no mistake, their marketing department is the best in the business. Bethesda's marketing team is the final boss of the gaming industry, cause I'll be damned if no other company can even hold a candle to what their marketing team does. The other thing is the sheer size of their games. I've experienced something similar with the Sims 3, where I have my disappointment with the game, but likewise can't deny how much potential the game has, thus I periodically pick it back up to try again. We've all bought games before that we've completed in under 10 hours, and then despite enjoyment, we can't help but feel disappointment with how quickly we put it on a shelf, never to be played again. Bethesda offers the opposite of this. The games are so content heavy that they're bound to AT LEAST get 50 hours out of most players, which is something most gamers aren't accustomed to. Now, you or I might be able to look at past Bethesda titles and realize we have over 1,000 in those but can't scratch 150 in their newest title, thus there's a sense of disappointment, but if this is someone's first Bethesda game, they'll marvel at the fact they've quadrupled the enjoyment they get from the average game and swear loyalty to Bethesda. The problem is the games seem designed just to provide content, but not QUALITY content. When you look past the smoke and mirrors, it's all very shallow and incomplete. But this doesn't matter, and the marketing team knows this. That disappointment you feel? It gnaws at you, bites at you, makes you anxious to give the game another shot. You KNOW the game has loads of potential, so you're hesitant to shelve it, telling yourself that perhaps you unknowingly strategically dodged all the best content in the game your first playthrough, so you give it another shot. By the time you're assured enough to conclude the game sucks and the cake is a lie, it's been months and your negative criticisms will not harm Bethesda in any way. And even after you conclude it sucks, you STILL feel disappointment with the wasted potential, wishing the game was just a bit better. Fast forward to the next game or DLC release, and you catch yourself wondering if perhaps this time, they'll get things right. They were so close (and yet so far) last time, right? It's possible they improved, right? Simultaneously you've got Todd Howard on a stage giving a very well rehearsed and orchestrated speech that the marketing team assures will improve sales, and in small interviews he is actively acknowledging the very criticisms you had of the last game, admitting to them, and promising they've been a focal point of their new title. Your hope is renewed, you buy. Lo and behold, it's all the same. It's the 2.0 version of the last game you hated. None of the problems you named were addressed, it's just Todd and Co knew the only people that'd be digging up those interviews enough to care about watching would be the ones experienced with past titles that know the flaws, and even newcomer fans wouldn't grasp the extent of those issues or be scared off if you confessed to them. In short, the games are perfectly designed in size and scope so that no matter how much you genuinely believe one of their titles to be garbage, you will never, EVER doubt their potential. They absolutely 100% ensure that every gamer on the market believes in the potential of Bethesda Game Studios, the result being that even the cynics HOPE for improvement in the next title. The things that dissuaded me from purchasing were very subtle. The E3 footage of the deathclaw battle for example. The rate the player and the deathclaw lost health suggested more bullet sponges and leveled enemies to me, as well as that DR system I've grown to hate. The USS Constitution with rocket engines attached was another. It assured me the game would have more rule-of-cool plotlines that cared nothing for the realism or the lore of the series. Traits are gone? This can only mean the game is casualized and actively avoiding ANY potential for the stupidest gamer imagineable (looking at you, DSP) to pick something they didn't actually want before whining and moaning and throwing the game away because how DARE there be consequences; companions being immortal reinforced this theory, as did no level cap. And finally, the perks. That shiny perk tree was yet another example of presentation being valued over functionality. Just by looking at the perk tree, you could tell there was no room for any skill or cross-SPECIAL requirements when choosing perks, which meant there was less to help make a character feel unique. This was a design decision with presentation in mind, with actually gameplay reprocussions taking a backseat. Seeing that, I was willing to bet everything I owned we'd see more "20% cooler" perks from Skyrim in FO4, and now I sit here wishing someone took me up on that offer and bet against me. Everything for me just pointed to the game being Skyrim 2.0, a game I didn't like, so I opted not to buy and to watch Let's Plays first. So so glad I did. The stories are even more nonsensical than FO3, choice and consequence is dead, "I WORK FOR BELETHOR AT THE GENERAL GOODS STORE" 2.0 is actually a thing since NPCs will obsessively repeat the same dialog lines, perks do not seem to matter worth a ****ing DAMNED (I have yet to encounter a playthrough where I could discern what perks a person had in combat; everyone looks and acts functionally the same, and hell everyone seems drawn towards the exact same perks), rule of cool scenarios such as suicidal mutants that make no damned sense, cartoonish villains, gutted dialog, etc etc etc. My advice? Next time Bethesda releases a title, look past the blinding lights of hype and view everything with the same scrutiny. Really critically review gameplay footage and ask if enemies and the player are taking damage at similar rates to past titles, ask yourself why Bethesda is so hush-hush about the story (Marketing 101 says put your best foot forward and talk about your strengths, ijs), ask if past loved features seem capable of existing amongst newer features presented; just remain critical. And if it looks like the game may have some blemishes? Do not buy. The gaming industry is not going to improve until gamers learn to say no, especially since every three years there's a new generation of naive and ignorant teenagers that haven't experienced enough half-hearted games to know better. Totally random side-note? Amazing video is amazing (no it's not just that face mod, be patient, it gets better):

It's a matter of taste really, and the only instance where I would definitely say something needs to be addressed is when you're FORCED into a conversation. Dying because some random guy demanded to talk to you can be really annoying. If they toggled it so that dialog did indeed freeze time if the convo was forced, I think that'd be a worthy compromise. In Skyrim there was a thief that would unload his stolen goods on you, forced conversation. Died so many times to this idiot approaching me mid-fight.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I truly do LOVE that kid in a fridge plot. It's so perfectly bad. It's the type of bad where if you challenged me to write something worse, I don't think I could. It came up in my youtube vid feed again today, so I sat down and made a list of all the things wrong with the quest's plot: Let me know if my list is missing anything. I think I'd brought this up earlier, but this is my #1 reason for why I'm not sure real-time dialog is an improvement. As it stands now, real-time dialog can get you killed or get in the way. Imagine New Vegas if Malcom Holmes did not freeze time when he spoke with you. As it stands he's immersion-breaking because he casually runs up to you while fighting a deathclaw, but he's immersion breaking BECAUSE the alternative is that he makes the player ragequit by locking you in place so he can tell you a bedtime story while a deathclaw rips your face off. Yknow, like this: So yeah, honestly until that's fixed...? I'm not sure real-time dialog is better than frozen. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but I will say the disadvantages of real-time dialog REEEEEAAAALLY stand out when they happen...

I always read. Gotta make sure someone's argument is flawed rather than writing it off as such, imo. But the TL;DR of it is that he basically tries to claim that while FO4's factions give similar results regardless of who you choose, New Vegas was guilty of this as well because all of them make you visit the Boomers and BoS. He glosses over that the ending slides do quite a bit of impact despite not being actual gameplay, or divergence in choices. He then states that while FO4 doesn't let you side with evil or be an evil character, he states it's impossible to meaningfully side with the Powder Gangers and help them take out the NCR, nor is it possible to side with the Fiends. Again, glosses over all the quest options that let you be evil. In a nutshell, he uses broad strokes to make comparisons. Granted, yes, Powder Gangers and Fiends are not exactly the pinnacle of amazing writing (though SADLY, they're realistic because quite tragically, groups that stupidly detrimental to society exist), but it just seems very disingenuine to take a small 5% of New Vegas and argue that because it exists, the 50% of similar stuff in FO4 is "the same." Hell no, the scale of the two cannot be compared.

I don't understand this line of thinking: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/3y7h6l/congrats_new_vegas_fans_you_made_someone_who/ I have my disagreements with the guy (if someone cares to hear them I'll just link my comment in that thread), but my point being more I do not understand what compels a person to want to defend a title so much that they're willing to make a bold claim like "it was always like this, your nostalgia goggles are blinding you! This is exactly like the last game!"

Not so bad if you'd prepped your mind for this months ago. To me it's more about the why and how now. I remain ever curious as to why actions like this are considered profitable or why all companies seem to follow this pattern. Because they are profitable? You spend less making the game and still get huge sales. So why bother making it better? Companies like Bethesda will only stop doing that when gamers stop bying their games. I just kinda find it hard to believe that it's that simple, yknow? It's crazy to me that they're cutting their work load down and there's no response from fans. Like I have difficulty believing they truly are doing less work because surely the customers would notice, complain, and demand cheaper prices. Perhaps it's me trying to give benefit of the doubt and believing best in people, but for me I try and rationalize it as misplaced priorities and poor management rather than "let's expend less effort and still demand the exact same price tag." You would think if that conversation took place, SOMEONE somewhere would come forward and say "this is what game companies are doing to you guys, you should speak out against such practices" if that were truly the case, thus I find myself trying to believe that all "mistakes" made were made in good faith. But yeah... Also, on topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTZyr6iaYIc#t=1h44m52s

Not so bad if you'd prepped your mind for this months ago. To me it's more about the why and how now. I remain ever curious as to why actions like this are considered profitable or why all companies seem to follow this pattern.

My TF2 unboxes sold and I have €100 god damned euro in my steam wallet holy crap. Any game suggestions since everything's on sale?

My first conversation with Trashcan Carla came near the end of the game. I'd traveled everywhere, including Diamond City multiple times. I still got the option to ask her "Diamond City?". Maybe that's the genius of Bethesda's writing. They wrote the dialogue as though every character is mentally challenged! They're geniuses. They didn't remove low INT playthroughs. Every playthrough is low INT by default!

And if not, then just take the guy that wrote the Kid in the Fridge quest and put him in charge. I think I would honestly pay money to see a game written by that guy, as no matter what your expectations are, you couldn't possibly be sure what would happen next. See, I'm mixed. Sometimes I think it's their interest, other times I think it's for profit and sales. The settlements for example seem inspired by Wasteland Defense, a common practice to cater to mods, but some of the ways it got fleshed out seem like Minecraft, and I'm 50-50 if devs said "let's make it Minecraft becuz I like Minecraft" (isn't this the part where a project lead says no because it's no their goal to make minecraft?) or if they figured catering to minecraft fans would help with sales. The Mass Effect style dialog? Nobody asked for, I have no doubt that they for whatever reason consider it profitable. But then with Skyrim for example, it's so crystal clear one of the lead designers bought the DVD boxset of Underworld, binge watched it, creamed his pants and then showed up at the office saying "LETS MAKE DAWNGUARD LIKE UNDERWORLD CUZ I LIKE IT," much like it's clear Todd has some reverence for Apple, which results in flashy-yet-impractical interfaces. But then I wonder if the reverence for Apple isn't because Apple's marketing team is quite impressive themselves. It's a mix of the two, no doubt, but I still feel like a degree of it is in the interest of marketing, which I find just rather depressing to think about. And while here we discuss Bethesda, I have to wonder how many other companies or games have seen decisions made based on profit margins rather than quality.

A friend of mine bought this recently. What stats should I advise her to get so that she can get a good view of the story (sounds like there's speech checks based on stats?) while still having tolerable gameplay?

This is sort of out of left field, but it's something I'm passionate about with the gaming industry so I feel compelled to bring it up. Some smaller journalists were having a discussion about why Bethesda would include a voiced protagonist when it's so clearly detrimental to the experience in a variety of ways, and they were spitballing possible motivations for the change. Down the line in the conversation, this was said as sort of a general comment on Bethesda as a company: I love this comment. I love it because I've long felt like Bethesda's marketing team is hands down the best in the industry, and I love it because he puts it in perspective what little meanings the release date and such hold. I bring it up moreso because... I wanted to ask all of you if you feel like Fallout 4 as well as games in general have the quality of their gameplay hindered for the sake of marketing? Fallout 4 saw massive changes to the general gameplay of the game. It's more FPS than RPG, it includes some elements that seem scooped out from Borderlands, Mass Effect and Minecraft, and it at times seems to state "screw it we don't care" in regards to how drastically it will depart from traditional fallout themes (some quests, elements or stories are so farfetched it doesn't feel like sci-fi so much as pure fiction and fantasy). There's two possibilities. The first is Bethesda devs are genuinely interested in making all of this as opposed to what they made before, the next is that these changes and ideas were deemed profitable. Call me cynical, but I find the latter to be far more likely. About the only one in that list that I'd attribute to Bethesda genuinely wanting to do one of those changes as opposed to not doing it is that it seems clear Bethesda would rather do their own take on Fallout rather than try to understand and respect the core elements of it that once existed. (thus the transition from sci-fi to fantasy, where instead of a logic being retained in universe, ideas such as super mutant suiciders are included simply "becuz kewl.") For some of you that might be a "well no ****" question, others of you might think "MAN THIS GUY HATES BETHESDA," and that's why I have to ask at all. I just find it rather tragic to imagine how many games have come and gone by various different companies that honestly now seem more focused on sales rather than quality. I wish this would change, but I don't feel like it will. Not because people are too weak to make a stand and say "no I won't buy this" (I did that here with this title), but because for every generation that notices a drop in quality, a new one grows old enough to play such games, touches one for the first time, and lacks a point of reference to know things could be better. I actually think a weak hook isn't neccesarily a problem. I found the FO3 hook particularly weak, it actually made the game a bit more enjoyable for me than Oblivion's main quest, just cause Oblivion's screams urgency while FO3's doesn't. I'm not someone who falls for emotional hooks, and to top it off, I don't really have a father. My father is the one who ditched me here in Germany to starve, so I mean if a father tells me "don't come looking for me" then my response is "lol ok." For me I guess it's more that I get the impression that Bethesda is convinced this style of writing is effective. I get the impression they pat themselves on the back and think "damn, that hook was so good! Good job Bethesda!" when in reality it's just so weak. The hook itself I think is no damaged by this, because you can have fun with this style of game whether the hook leading into the main quest is strong or not. However, I do think a weak hook can function as a red flag that suggests writing quality may be lacking. In FO1, finding the waterchip is simply a motivation given to you. The game states "here's the rules of the game, you're from a vault, you need a waterchip. Go." It's not really trying to immerse you, just giving you a goal. In this case, it's like they didn't attempt any writing with the hook beyond a reasonable and plausible premise to demand the gameplay begins. In Bethesda's case, they're actively trying to write in a hook and motivation, but failing at it.

Unless Obsidian were given permissions to make their Fallout more in line with their style (include traits, hardcore mode, rework the perk system to the old traditional one, old dialog system and no voiced protagonist, etc etc), I would honestly prefer they didn't as I fear making a good game with the resources at hand would be too difficult, and that really says something.

To me that's not really a mistake. The mistake is tying you to a kid that the game tells you you're supposed to care about. Similar to Dad in FO3 or the Waterchip in FO, forcing that kind of immediacy on the narrative kind of hurts where the fun in the game really lies (IMO) which is exploring the world with the character you've built. Mind you the game has a lot of problems similar to Bethesda's other games, mostly that the factions are mindless and to be honest I'm usually not one to give a flying flip about dialogue choices in a grand sense - most of it has been serviceable IMO - but I have to be honest and state for the record the incredible lack of ability to challenge some of Father's statements at the institute is unforgivable given that this is the moment the game has been trying to invest you in, with respect to the starting narrative. Bethesda has this really bad habit of trying to get you to develop emotional attachments to characters you've known for a matter of minutes. I'll never forget FO3 when Amata said "oh my god, they killed Jonas!" and my honest reaction was "who the **** is Jonas?" Took me another playthrough or two to remember who he was.

Speaking of Minecraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQm881V1r5E

I was ****ing livid when the final boss involved me screaming "BACAWK" at a cloud for 2 minutes. Agreed on the NPCs. They had a backstory, but it was so bare bones, and you had to jump through hoops just to get to it, with pretty much zero payoff. Cool, you got a perk if you maxed your affection with them. But the actual payoff in terms of learning about who they are was disappointing. Then again, I think this goes in hand with the overall lack of dialogue/exposition/conversations you could have with all NPCs because of Bethesda's (odd) decision to water down that part of the game. I also noticed there was very little choice and consequence this time around, with regards to various factions/quests. Sure, at the end you had to pick a side, but before that? In previous FO games, often times you could do quests multiple ways. In FO4, it felt like when you got a quest, you did it and then collected your XP and reward. Hell, compare that even to FO3 (since we're comparing Bethesda to Bethesda/Apples to apples), where you could decide to disarm that giant bomb or set it off, or you could decide to allow ghouls to live in that apartment building or not. Choice and consequence for your choice. This time around, nothing. I was just about to ask you about this. You said FO3 is better, I've heard multiple people state it's undeniable FO4 is an upgrade from FO3. I myself? Wasn't so sure, thinking it could go either way. And why? Choice and Consequence. This is the one feature it seems FO3 retains above FO4. Yes, the writing in FO3 is retarded and ridiculous at times, but despite this, you STILL make meaningful choices. Great example, no character in their right mind has any motivation to blow up the Brotherhood of Steel in Broken Steel. It's a stupid evil decision that's incredibly difficult to reasonably justify. Despite this, you do get rather large, tangible differences in gameplay if you make that choice. You might scoff and sigh at how stupid the story is that led you there and how you struggle to explain your character's motives, but all the same you at least have an interest in trying them because you did have full confidence in FO3 to provide choice and consequence on that front. For all FO3's faults with story, it did choice and consequence right. It's just hard to recognize this because of course it could be better, but improvement is always possible, to be fair. More importantly, story reinforces choice and consequence, and the story of FO3 fails so abysmally hard on the "evil" front and the "evil" route that giving such a character motivations is a struggle itself that distracts from how much tangible choice and consequence there is. I've not played FO4 so I cannot say for certain if FO3 or FO4 is superior, but I too have suspected FO3 would be the superior game in my mind, simply because I value choice and consequence far more than many of the oft-cited improvements of FO4. Another minor difference is weapon balance. FO3's weapon balance was pre-school levels of balance. The game had a handful of guns that were clearly "the best" and you had little choice in the matter. Lincoln's Repeater, the Android's Plasma Rifle, Alien technology, Vengeance, The Terrible Shotgun, Backwater Rifle, Victory Rifle, etc etc. Total, there's gotta be less than 10 viable choices for end-game if you seek to utilize the most practical weaponry; all others cannot hope to compete with the ones listed. FO4? I've not played and yet I feel 100% confident FO4 is Skyrim 2.0 on the weapons front. Crafted weapons will undoubtedly be superior to anything you might randomly find, and once you've had a chance to play around with crafting a bit, there's undoubtedly a meta stat that, if you're interested in making the best weapon, you include this or that modification. I sincerely think Bethesda needs to review their design philosophy with crafting and with gameplay in general in regards to the "let the player do anything" mentality. I would attribute a lack of traits (oh my god!!! a negative downside!! Heaven forbid anything bad ever befall the player!) alongside the weapon crafting system to this. It's unfortunate because I think balancing crafting alongside unique weapons you find is totally feasible. Give crafting domain over stats such as crit rate or crit damage or scopes + accuracy while uniques get domain over AP cost and the like, and suddenly the use of crafting will depend upon your character.

To be honest it's only worth playing once. Go in spoiler free and expect lots of awful combat. Well to be fair, I've heard praise for the game for it's writing, never for combat, so I still have an interest in playing it. I love New Vegas to death because of it's writing as well as it's RPG aspects, but it gets only modest appraisal from people for it's writing. As such, I'd be very curious to see what the games look like that have absolute critical acclaim for the writing.

I really need to get around to playing this game.

I watch the Kid in the Fridge video every once and a while to marvel at the prime cut terriawful writing. As a connoisseur of all things terribly made or written, this is my favorite part of Fallout 4.

Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, Violets aren't Blue, So nevermind, **** you

I hope this is the case, I truly do. At the same time though, I do feel familiar with how fanbases work, and I find die-hard fans are quick to want to find excuses for bad writing instead of accepting it at face value. As a counter-argument to that, don't the parents state at the end they attempted to get into a bomb shelter but didn't make it and thus became ghouls? The parents and their dialog seem to provide stark contradiction to that theory, implying it's truly the Great War in question. The protagonist's dialog and the fact that no one bothers correcting him if he's mistaken implies the very same. The wikis also currently have the parents listed as Great War survivors. I'd personally just be more curious to hear developer commentary on that quest. Who came up with this plot, why, and why did the guy in charge greenlight it? I mean another explanation I've heard is it's an Indiana Jones nod, but wasn't Crystal Skull critically panned, precisely BECAUSE it did ridiculous **** like that? I don't think giving nods to media that gets critically panned is the best idea.

In regards to that clip, I am completely blind to the voice acting cause I'm so overwhelmed with the plot. I was watching and waiting for the kid to reveal himself as a con artist or something, didn't expect he was legit. All I can say on that subject is I would guess that a competent sound director can be an unsung hero in game design. I recall watching Making Of videos for New Vegas and Skyrim respectively. In New Vegas', all of the voice actors sounded very into their characters and provided good detail about who their characters were, as if someone sat down with them, handed them a script and had a talk about how the character is envisioned. In Skyrim's, they briefly spoke with the voice actress for that one Blades lady, and her comment was akin to "Boy this is hard work the way they want me to provide such a wide variation of emotions and scenes back-to-back in such a short amount of time!" Sure enough, the father ghoul sounds like none other than Joshua Graham, and while I'm certain no one would criticize the man's performance with Joshua Graham, his bits of voice acting here can be rather simple and uninspired. It's not the voice actors, it's a director that just doesn't give much of a damn. :/ I say kudos to Boxcar's voice actor though. He seems to give pretty consistent quality in his work across both NV and FO4.

Actually I think this might be the most frivolous bit of nonsense I encountered, not that I've seen it all but I reckon this is pretty close to the bottom of the barrel. I honestly think the best part of the whole scenario is that someone obviously took care to say: "WAIT! Make sure he reacts all hypersensitive to light from the sun. He hasn't seen it in over 200 years, after all. Otherwise this plot line simply won't be believable."

Is this the holy grail of bad writing? Tell me it doesn't get worse than this. I will feel so satisfied knowing I hit rock bottom, and so frightened and disappointed if it can actually get worse than this.

A 200 year old billionaire is offering you wealth if you become his protege and you don't think your character has any personal interest in the main quest...? I never really felt that connected to the whole revenge thing in New Vegas so it was the reverse for me. After catching up with Benny I felt like the world really opened up and I got to explore a load of interesting situations and philosophies. I think it's just as easy to be involved with Benny out of curiousity, fear (the note states a bounty goes up on you if the delivery fails) or revenge. Personally I always felt curious as to what's going on. Really surprises me just how many players consider the main quest to be "over" once Benny is dealt with while I consider him a tutorial of sorts.