Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Seeing as we're talking about Bethesda, I am confident that I can count on 3 things:

 

1) It will be a fairly mediocre game and full of bugs

2) Said bugs will be glossed over by the press as they stumble over each other to heap lavish praise upon the game

3) The modding community will make the game immeasurably better than it was in its vanilla incarnation

  • Like 4

rowsdower_sig.jpg.0f13980282a9229af0f1609eb6dee060.jpg
I wonder if there is beer on the sun

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as we're talking about Bethesda, I am confident that I can count on 3 things:

 

1) It will be a fairly mediocre game and full of bugs

2) Said bugs will be glossed over by the press as they stumble over each other to heap lavish praise upon the game

3) The modding community will make the game immeasurably better than it was in its vanilla incarnation

The bug shaming has been encouraged and present in the gaming press recently, so I can see Beth doing their best to make the game as bug free as possible, even harder than in the Skyrim times. I doubt press will leave the bugs out, but I feel like all of them are already biased to like the game due to the lack of games from Bethesda.

 

As for the paid mods thing I mentioned, I don't think it would be a good idea either. It would just be easier to kick off the paid mods with a new game, having to deal with less mixed content owning bull**** is always easier. That was one of the major reasons Skyrim's paywall mods didn't work out. Many of them used stuff like SKSE or SkyUi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as we're talking about Bethesda, I am confident that I can count on 3 things:

 

1) It will be a fairly mediocre game and full of bugs

2) Said bugs will be glossed over by the press as they stumble over each other to heap lavish praise upon the game

3) The modding community will make the game immeasurably better than it was in its vanilla incarnation

4) Nudie mods.

  • Like 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

They sure can build worlds but they populate them with nothing characters. Remember that House Hlaalu dude who made you take your pants off in Morrowind? Thirteen years later and he's still the best they got.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not expecting much about this. Just another visually grandiose sandbox hiking simulator that Bethie is so fond of making.

Perkele, tiädäksää tuanoini!

"It's easier to tolerate idiots if you do not consider them as stupid people, but exceptionally gifted monkeys."

Link to post
Share on other sites

After meh FO3 and booooooring Skyrim i will wait for some steam sale of GOTY with all DLCs 2 years after the initial release.

 

Unless Obsidian is involved in creating it, i cannot ever think of it as being even remotely good enough for pre-order/day 1 purchase.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fallout 3 wasn't that bad, guys.  Okay, the story wasn't very good, but the world they created was pretty fun to explore.

 

I never buy Bethesda games for their main story.  It's their world building ability that draws me in.

here's a question about fallout 3

What do the people on the capital wasteland eat?

in fallout 1, 2 and NV you see farms with crops and brahmin in every town you visit... in 3 there is a single brahmin pen in the entire game as far as i remember.

also, how can cars that were destroyed by nukes over 200 years ago, still have gas in their tanks?

im too tired to keep making a list (plants, animals, mutant and so on) but i think i make my point

non sensical world building at it's finest indeed

  • Like 3

The words freedom and liberty, are diminishing the true meaning of the abstract concept they try to explain. The true nature of freedom is such, that the human mind is unable to comprehend it, so we make a cage and name it freedom in order to give a tangible meaning to what we dont understand, just as our ancestors made gods like Thor or Zeus to explain thunder.

 

-Teknoman2-

What? You thought it was a quote from some well known wise guy from the past?

 

Stupidity leads to willful ignorance - willful ignorance leads to hope - hope leads to sex - and that is how a new generation of fools is born!


We are hardcore role players... When we go to bed with a girl, we roll a D20 to see if we hit the target and a D6 to see how much penetration damage we did.

 

Modern democracy is: the sheep voting for which dog will be the shepherd's right hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fallout 3 wasn't that bad, guys.  Okay, the story wasn't very good, but the world they created was pretty fun to explore.

 

I never buy Bethesda games for their main story.  It's their world building ability that draws me in.

here's a question about fallout 3

What do the people on the capital wasteland eat?

in fallout 1, 2 and NV you see farms with crops and brahmin in every town you visit... in 3 there is a single brahmin pen in the entire game as far as i remember.

also, how can cars that were destroyed by nukes over 200 years ago, still have gas in their tanks?

im too tired to keep making a list (plants, animals, mutant and so on) but i think i make my point

non sensical world building at it's finest indeed

 

 

This point was raised way back when and it actually diminished my enjoyment of Fallout 3...for the benefit of my soul no doubt.  Since then I'd say Bethesda have learnt their world building lessons, Skyrim had tons of internal consistency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

also, how can cars that were destroyed by nukes over 200 years ago, still have gas in their tanks?

 

They were nuclear fuel cells... but I can live with that, I can live with pocket lasers and orbital bombers and Liberty Robots. It goes with the setting, it's sci fi gone wild and free of restrictions.

 

But a postapoc junkie still needs food though that part we can agree on.

 

 

 

This point was raised way back when and it actually diminished my enjoyment of Fallout 3...for the benefit of my soul no doubt.  Since then I'd say Bethesda have learnt their world building lessons, Skyrim had tons of internal consistency.

 

They did add the obligatory farm outside each skyrim hold, but learned their lesson? meh, not really. Perhaps they will in F4 though, would certainly improve the game drastically... I doubt the characters will be more interesting though.

  • Like 1

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

also, how can cars that were destroyed by nukes over 200 years ago, still have gas in their tanks?

 

They were nuclear fuel cells... but I can live with that, I can live with pocket lasers and orbital bombers and Liberty Robots. It goes with the setting, it's sci fi gone wild and free of restrictions.

 

But a postapoc junkie still needs food though that part we can agree on.

 

 

 

This point was raised way back when and it actually diminished my enjoyment of Fallout 3...for the benefit of my soul no doubt.  Since then I'd say Bethesda have learnt their world building lessons, Skyrim had tons of internal consistency.

 

They did add the obligatory farm outside each skyrim hold, but learned their lesson? meh, not really. Perhaps they will in F4 though, would certainly improve the game drastically... I doubt the characters will be more interesting though.

 

 

Eh, it depends what sort of things annoy you.  It bugged me in Fallout 3 but Skyrim did a decent job covering the 'what do people eat?' issue.  Enough for me to stop scratching at that mental itch anyway.

 

There were multiple farms in each hold, people mention the farms, farmers come into town, talk about farming...good enough for me  :lol:

Edited by WDeranged
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 but I don't expect every game to be the best experience ever either.

It's physically impossible for every game to be the best experience ever.  In fact, only 1 game could ever have the best experience ever.

 

tumblr_lklezidDB11qav29fo1_r1_500.gif

 

 

I disagree. Primarily because time is a progressive vector construct on which our personal experiences occur in a chronological order, all our experiences do not occur on a memory singularity but in a memory stream. At various points on that stream we may judge 'bests' differently as our experiences accumulate.

 

Think of all the games that make up the overall gamespace, those that we have not played may be regarded as Schrodinger's Games (as with F4) which exist in a state of quality flux; they may or may not be better than previous games and while they may or may not have reputations associated with them it is only by opening the box and playing them can you make the judgement of which is best yourself. As such, until played they do not exist in the subjective opinionspace of what is one's personal 'best' rated and indeed it would be perfectly possible- if distinctly edge case scenario- to have every single game in existence be the 'best' at a certain point if you played them, sequentially, in ascending order of quality. ie, at any given point the last game you played would be best and stay so up until you played the next. Or alternatively, you might have multiple bouts of amnesia...

 

In other words while there may be only one best game ever, at a given time and for a given person, that assignation is fluid and dynamic and over a set time course there may well be multiple best games of all time at given, discrete, instances on that time course.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 but I don't expect every game to be the best experience ever either.

It's physically impossible for every game to be the best experience ever.  In fact, only 1 game could ever have the best experience ever.

 

tumblr_lklezidDB11qav29fo1_r1_500.gif

 

 

I disagree. Primarily because time is a progressive vector construct on which our personal experiences occur in a chronological order, all our experiences do not occur on a memory singularity but in a memory stream. At various points on that stream we may judge 'bests' differently as our experiences accumulate.

 

Think of all the games that make up the overall gamespace, those that we have not played may be regarded as Schrodinger's Games (as with F4) which exist in a state of quality flux; they may or may not be better than previous games and while they may or may not have reputations associated with them it is only by opening the box and playing them can you make the judgement of which is best yourself. As such, until played they do not exist in the subjective opinionspace of what is one's personal 'best' rated and indeed it would be perfectly possible- if distinctly edge case scenario- to have every single game in existence be the 'best' at a certain point if you played them, sequentially, in ascending order of quality. ie, at any given point the last game you played would be best and stay so up until you played the next. Or alternatively, you might have multiple bouts of amnesia...

 

In other words while there may be only one best game ever, at a given time and for a given person, that assignation is fluid and dynamic and over a set time course there may well be multiple best games of all time at given, discrete, instances on that time course.

 

 

I totally need to do mushrooms again.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with Skyrim, Bethesda finally was able to make a game I could have fun with despite the fundamental shortcomings of their approach. So perversely, I think if they try to do Skyrim with guns, they'd probably succeed, and I'd probably have some fun just messing around with it, even if I ignore what passes as the plot. Conversely, if they try to make it a "proper" Fallout game, they'll probably fail in the same way Fallout 3 failed for me, and I'll skip it altogether.

L I E S T R O N G
L I V E W R O N G

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'll step right up and acknowledge the flaws in Bethesda's recent games... but I still managed to have rather a lot of fun with them.  Fallout 3 fell short in the character writing and overall narrative, but they nailed the art design and set-dressing elements of the Fallout brand, as well as the DC-area-in-a-Fallouty-world stuff.  Skyrim was great fun, so long as you were smart enough to play it as an Argonian named "Climbs-Tall-Rocks" who disregards the main plot and instead focuses on summiting all the mountains. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question we should be asking is:

 

"After Fallout 4 comes out, will Obsidian get to make a 'Fallout: New ____'?"

Edited by Agiel
  • Like 1
Quote
"Turned wrong way round, the relentless unforeseen was what we schoolchildren studied as 'History,' harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic.”

 

-Philip Roth, The Plot Against America

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fallout 3 wasn't that bad, guys.  Okay, the story wasn't very good, but the world they created was pretty fun to explore.

 

I never buy Bethesda games for their main story.  It's their world building ability that draws me in.

here's a question about fallout 3

What do the people on the capital wasteland eat?

in fallout 1, 2 and NV you see farms with crops and brahmin in every town you visit... in 3 there is a single brahmin pen in the entire game as far as i remember.

also, how can cars that were destroyed by nukes over 200 years ago, still have gas in their tanks?

im too tired to keep making a list (plants, animals, mutant and so on) but i think i make my point

non sensical world building at it's finest indeed

 

 

This point was raised way back when and it actually diminished my enjoyment of Fallout 3...for the benefit of my soul no doubt.  Since then I'd say Bethesda have learnt their world building lessons, Skyrim had tons of internal consistency.

 

 

Except for the point that *everyone* in Skyrim seems to know each other. There is a stupid farmer in the west who tells you to visit his friend so-and-so in the very far east. Oh and look, there is a villager who lost is precious sword... in a dungeon at the end of the world! The game world is never creating a feeling of "this is big!" for me, simply because of the stupid way Bethesda did their quests. They are pretty much sending you over the whole worldmap from the very beginning of the game.

 

 

Fallout 3 had some good looking locations (like the Brotherhood Citadel), but that's about it. Also it's depending a lot on the setting, imo. They had huge city ruins to work with, while that isn't really the case in New Vegas- mostly desert and flat land, can't simply put something like a huge Brotherhood Citadel into one corner and explain it with logic.

 

Other than that, Fallout 3 was an amusement park with random attractions on every corner- doesn't matter if it's fitting the setting or not. My god, just remember this stupid emo vampire questline. Or that location where everyone thought they are living in a perfect 50s town. Or the "big trading hub" in D.C. that got like 1 brahmin and 5 people.

Edited by Lexx

"only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...