Fallout 4 is coming!

[WDeranged]

The great thing about Bethesda is that they're improving.  I liked Daggerfall, but it was a pretty crappy game. I hated Morrowind (came out at the same time as Gothic, so I might have been influenced by that). I kind of enjoyed Oblivion, although the level scaling nearly killed it for me. Skyrim is definitely their best attempt yet.

 

They've only done one Fallout game so far, but I fully expect them to improve and expand upon it in Fallout 4. Only a few more months now!

 

I loved Morrowind, the story kept me playing but it had so many cool gameplay ideas...yes most of them ended up broken and not much fun but it really aimed for the stars.  Gotta agree with you about Skyrim though, they really condensed their gameplay formula into a crack like substance with that one.

[Raithe]

Not even 'a ****load' of Fallout 4 Pip-Boy Editions is enough for the world

 

 

 

The special Pip-Boy Edition of Fallout 4 - which combines with your smartphone to forms a functional representation of the series' famous post-apocalyptic wrist computer - is undoubtedly going to be worth its weight in bottlecaps when the game launches on November 10. Partly because it's awesome, yes, but also because Bethesda simply can't make anymore. They've been ordered and manufactured to capacity.

 

 

"We reached a point where we'd go back to the factories and they were like, 'Guys, this is it, sorry. This is as long as we can run the lines and as many of them as we can make,'" Bethesda VP Pete Hines told GameSpot at QuakeCon over the weekend. "We made a ****load of Pip-Boys, and we went back and made more, and went back and made more. I keep seeing stuff about, 'Oh, you only did a few thousand." No--we did a ton of these things. I think we did more of these things than we did for any collector's edition we've ever done, ever."

 

So hold onto your fancy toys, vault dwellers who successfully pre-ordered the $120 special edition. You've got something special on your arms.

 

 

[WDeranged]

 

Not even 'a ****load' of Fallout 4 Pip-Boy Editions is enough for the world

 

 

 

The special Pip-Boy Edition of Fallout 4 - which combines with your smartphone to forms a functional representation of the series' famous post-apocalyptic wrist computer - is undoubtedly going to be worth its weight in bottlecaps when the game launches on November 10. Partly because it's awesome, yes, but also because Bethesda simply can't make anymore. They've been ordered and manufactured to capacity.

 

 

"We reached a point where we'd go back to the factories and they were like, 'Guys, this is it, sorry. This is as long as we can run the lines and as many of them as we can make,'" Bethesda VP Pete Hines told GameSpot at QuakeCon over the weekend. "We made a ****load of Pip-Boys, and we went back and made more, and went back and made more. I keep seeing stuff about, 'Oh, you only did a few thousand." No--we did a ton of these things. I think we did more of these things than we did for any collector's edition we've ever done, ever."

 

So hold onto your fancy toys, vault dwellers who successfully pre-ordered the $120 special edition. You've got something special on your arms.

 

 

 

I've seen posts from people who paid over $300 for one.  It looks tacky as hell to me but I suppose I do get it, I kinda wanted that Alduin statue they did for Skyrim...

[Hurlshort]

I do still love my Fallout 3 lunchbox and pip-boy, but I think I paid an extra $20 for that, not twice the price.

[Zerginfestor]

Seeing as Fallout 4 still has that hideously designed "PIp-boy 3000 but BULKIER" over the superior Pip-boy 2000, I can't say I'm excited for it, honestly. Unarmed and Melee yet again take a nosedive into the backseat of the Fallout gameplay bus.

[Lexx]

I wouldn't even know where to stash all this stuff. Especially since I was moving my home just a few months ago- it was hell. So many boxes, so much crap to carry. Really, I see buying digital games as a blessing nowadays. If I'd imagine I had boxes or just cd cases of all these games.... a nightmare.

[Shadeling]

If Obsidian were developing Fallout 4, I'd be so fracking excited right now, but since it's Bethesda, my initial reaction was: Cool, I guess?' 

 

Since I so often suck at trying to convey my opinions with words, I can only reference, once again TUN's Shandification of Fallout @ the 9:26 mark, as to why Fallout: NV was so much more awesome than Fallout 3.  

 

So after learning about Fallout 4, I started to get pulled into the hype and get kinda excited....until I recently read that Bethesda decided that all companions will automatically be set invincible.  So right there, my enthusiasm plummeted because once again, I'm given insight into how Bethesda still, to this ****ing day since the advent of Todd Howard, has no clue about playing their game from a roleplayer's perspective even though its franchise is a fracking roleplaying game.  They think that since a dog dying means an automatic reload for most players, that all companions will be made invincible.

 

Right after reading that, in an instant, I'm transported back to a time when I first discovered the travesty called "LIttle Lamplight" where every annoying little kid was unkillable just because, ya know, it's cute! And even though a settlement of little kids wouldn't have made it past the first fracking day of their existence in a nuclear wasteland, we'll just keep 'em because we're Bethesda, and we don't know jack about building realistic communities within the worlds we build, cus unkillable kids are cute! Duh!

 

I've been keeping track of Fallout 3 and Fallout: NV on steamcharts every so often and you know the one that always wins, the one with the most consecutive players playing at any given moment? Fallout: NV!  Even with Steam sales, Fallout 3 can't even come close to the numbers of current players playing Fallout:NV.

 

If only Bethesda would notice this and act accordingly.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Shadeling

[Rosbjerg]

I've been keeping track of Fallout 3 and Fallout: NV on steamcharts every so often and you know the one that always wins, the one with the most consecutive players playing at any given moment? Fallout: NV!  Even with Steam sales, Fallout 3 can't even come close to the numbers of current players playing Fallout:NV.

 

If only Bethesda would notice this and act accordingly.

 

That has more to do with the fact that NV was a steam exclusive title and F3 was not. Although judging by mods made and activity on the nexus forums, it does look like NV is more popular today.

[Shadeling]

 

I've been keeping track of Fallout 3 and Fallout: NV on steamcharts every so often and you know the one that always wins, the one with the most consecutive players playing at any given moment? Fallout: NV!  Even with Steam sales, Fallout 3 can't even come close to the numbers of current players playing Fallout:NV.

 

If only Bethesda would notice this and act accordingly.

 

That has more to do with the fact that NV was a steam exclusive title and F3 was not. Although judging by mods made and activity on the nexus forums, it does look like NV is more popular today.

 

 

Well, I guess some of the current numbers could be explained away as Fallout: NV being a steam exclusive title but I do find it hard to believe that after all of these years, with Fallout 3 being available on Steam that the discrepency on Steamcharts is simply due to  the exclusivity New Vegas once had when it first launched.

[Humanoid]

There's probably a sizable subset of people who tried to launch Fallout 3 but failed because it continues to be encumbered with Games for Windows Live, so they give up and play New Vegas instead.

 

 

EDIT: Have heard stories about it being even worse now, in that you can buy FO3 on Steam but will find it won't work unless you manually install some GFWL DLLs from Microsoft as a workaround.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Humanoid

[Chilloutman]

Don't you feel better 

 

You see I believe I do understand where most of the criticism comes from towards Bethesda. Its a common Internet perspective on gaming forums where you have people, like this one, that have been playing RPG for years and sometimes decades and there intention is not to really verbally attack a gaming company  based on maliciousness  and vitriol,its more based on frustration and the perception of how  a gaming company has fallen from its original level of delivering entertainment. And we all remember the early days of gaming  ( Wizardy, M&M, Morrowind, BG1 etc )as it  profoundly effected all of us and in certain ways shaped who we have become around our Internet identity .,,,and of course thats important and needs to be accepted as something that is worth understanding and recognizing.

 

And most of you have played Fallout 1 &2  which set almost a new bar in RPG complexity and real choices. They  were  truly immersive and  unique games that can only be seen as...brilliant....genius...inspired...compelling ...and the most important  thing, absolutely entertaining.

 

So you would naturally compare the new games to the older ones ....and you will find them lacking if you try to compare them on a feature or complexity basis. So really its unfair to do that to your yourself ...you will set yourself for disappointment and the ironic thing is this an unintentional feeling by you probably thinking you are giving objective critique

 

You need to see the new Fallout games on there own and just enjoy the open world, interesting narrative and cool people you meet. No comparison to older games goes a long way to helping a person see they are brilliant in there own way 

 

 

Bruce i like how you have so corrupted view of world

 

So you are telling us that we know there are great games but we should overlook how much crappy 'RPG' element in F3 was and enjoy bellow medicore shooter it become because???

 

Its like saying:

 

Yeah I have know really nice girl few year back and she was great, but today some older dude will do, you know you have to enjoy the difference.....

[BruceVC]

 

Don't you feel better 

 

You see I believe I do understand where most of the criticism comes from towards Bethesda. Its a common Internet perspective on gaming forums where you have people, like this one, that have been playing RPG for years and sometimes decades and there intention is not to really verbally attack a gaming company  based on maliciousness  and vitriol,its more based on frustration and the perception of how  a gaming company has fallen from its original level of delivering entertainment. And we all remember the early days of gaming  ( Wizardy, M&M, Morrowind, BG1 etc )as it  profoundly effected all of us and in certain ways shaped who we have become around our Internet identity .,,,and of course thats important and needs to be accepted as something that is worth understanding and recognizing.

 

And most of you have played Fallout 1 &2  which set almost a new bar in RPG complexity and real choices. They  were  truly immersive and  unique games that can only be seen as...brilliant....genius...inspired...compelling ...and the most important  thing, absolutely entertaining.

 

So you would naturally compare the new games to the older ones ....and you will find them lacking if you try to compare them on a feature or complexity basis. So really its unfair to do that to your yourself ...you will set yourself for disappointment and the ironic thing is this an unintentional feeling by you probably thinking you are giving objective critique

 

You need to see the new Fallout games on there own and just enjoy the open world, interesting narrative and cool people you meet. No comparison to older games goes a long way to helping a person see they are brilliant in there own way 

 

 

Bruce i like how you have so corrupted view of world

 

So you are telling us that we know there are great games but we should overlook how much crappy 'RPG' element in F3 was and enjoy bellow medicore shooter it become because???

 

Its like saying:

 

Yeah I have know really nice girl few year back and she was great, but today some older dude will do, you know you have to enjoy the difference.....

 

 

 

Very good analogy about the girl ...rather see it as you use to date  hot porn star who fulfilled your dreams 

 

 

Now you are dating  a really nice girl who is not a porn star but you can still have lots of fun and have a meaningful relationship...but she is NOT  a porn star

 

And its unfair to compare her to the porn star....you see my point ?

[Longknife]

I for one do think FO4 is going to be a terrible game more akin to Skyrim (if you liked Skyrim you might be happy, but for me, that's the most disappointing title I've ever purchased), nor do I see a purpose in trying to "stay positive" about it when all that I've seen thusfar suggests I should be negative.

 

 

I do not believe in being positive for positive's sake, I believe in positive responses being earned. After all, if your go-to reaction is "let's praise it as a gut reaction!" then where's the motivation to improve or address problem areas?

[BruceVC]

I for one do think FO4 is going to be a terrible game more akin to Skyrim (if you liked Skyrim you might be happy, but for me, that's the most disappointing title I've ever purchased), nor do I see a purpose in trying to "stay positive" about it when all that I've seen thusfar suggests I should be negative.

 

 

I do not believe in being positive for positive's sake, I believe in positive responses being earned. After all, if your go-to reaction is "let's praise it as a gut reaction!" then where's the motivation to improve or address problem areas?

Sure, I hear you. I am not saying people must be positive for positive sake....I find that kind of blanket expectation a little annoying and counterproductive

 

I am saying lets judge Fallout 4 on its own criteria and merit. And I'm sure there are real and valid concerns but you shouldn't compare this game to older Fallouts...because then you will definitely be disappointed 

 

Hope it makes sense what I am trying to say ?

[Longknife]

I am saying lets judge Fallout 4 on its own criteria and merit. And I'm sure there are real and valid concerns but you shouldn't compare this game to older Fallouts...because then you will definitely be disappointed 

 

 

Then what purpose is the brand "Fallout?"

 

There was once a game for the Xbox I believe that used the name "Goldeneye." It was trying to feed of the love that Goldeneye 64 got. In reality it had absolutely nothing to do with the original and merely leeched off the name for sales. Understandably, people were upset about it.

 

 

Here? If they changed the face of Fallout because they had legitimate, valid criticisms of the old, then by all means, do so. For example, you will not hear me criticize Bethesda for taking Fallout from isometric RPG to a 3D first-person RPG because the answer as to why is obvious: Bethesda has zero experience with isometric RPGs and could probably deliver a better product if the product is in their comfort zone. It's not a criticism mind you, but it's at least a reasonable argument as to why they felt they needed to make such a drastic change. Bethesda can walk up to you, make that case, and you can walk away saying "that sounds reasonable I guess."

 

  But what about Fallout 4? Do we hear things and respond "that sounds reasonable I guess?"

 

Have they named valid reasons that skills needed to go? No. We're just told we shouldn't expect the titles to be the same as their old titles, but when it comes to valid reasons named as to why the change needed to happen, we don't get any.

 

Is the new voiced dialog and the dialog option system in general a case of something they have experience with, or more likely it's them pandering to other popular titles such as Mass Effect? Probably the latter, especially given the romanceable companions.

 

 

Has any reason been given for any of the major changes? Absolutely none. Bethesda provides us with radio silence while the hardcore fan boys sit there and scream at critics for daring to question anything.

 

 

 

 

 

Mark my words: if you hated Skyrim, this game will be Skyrim 2.0. Based on footage we've seen, I'm willing to place bets on killcams, on an excessive and imbalanced weapon-crafting system (aka 60%+ of the potential products you can make are terrible), a lackluster and messy merger of perks and skills where there's only ~7 or so various character archetypes and after that you've seen it all, deathclaws being more akin to dragons in Skyrim (aka a giant HP bullet sponge that only tickles you and provides an illusion of a challenge and an illusion of being "epic"), the same old 80% damage resistance system being possible, and I somehow doubt the writing has actually improved, given that the USS Constitution still has ****ing rocket engines on it for no apparent reason.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Longknife

[Chilloutman]

 

 

Very good analogy about the girl ...rather see it as you use to date  hot porn star who fulfilled your dreams 

 

 

Now you are dating  a really nice girl who is not a porn star but you can still have lots of fun and have a meaningful relationship...but she is NOT  a porn star

 

And its unfair to compare her to the porn star....you see my point ?

 

 

Eh, no, these are still 2 really nice girls (probably). New Fallouts are nothing like old ones only similarity are name and fact they are games. You analogy is flawed

Edited July 28, 2015 by Chilloutman

[Amentep]

Then what purpose is the brand "Fallout?"

To sell. Make no mistake that was just as true for Fallout 2 as it is for Fallout 4.

 

Here? If they changed the face of Fallout because they had legitimate, valid criticisms of the old, then by all means, do so. For example, you will not hear me criticize Bethesda for taking Fallout from isometric RPG to a 3D first-person RPG because the answer as to why is obvious: Bethesda has zero experience with isometric RPGs and could probably deliver a better product if the product is in their comfort zone. It's not a criticism mind you, but it's at least a reasonable argument as to why they felt they needed to make such a drastic change. Bethesda can walk up to you, make that case, and you can walk away saying "that sounds reasonable I guess."

And yet still people complained about that very fact, despite it being a reasonable (even expected) move. 

 

But what about Fallout 4? Do we hear things and respond "that sounds reasonable I guess?"

 

Would it matter to the Fallout hardcore if they did?  Per above I haven't found the "Fallout purist" to listen to reason.  I've actually read people argue that Fallout 3 should have been built with the same engine as Fallout 1 because it was perfect and this wasn't done ironically.

 

Have they named valid reasons that skills needed to go? No. We're just told we shouldn't expect the titles to be the same as their old titles, but when it comes to valid reasons named as to why the change needed to happen, we don't get any.

Do they need to give you a reason? Why must they give you a reason for anything? Because you're a fan? Because you played Fallout 1 or 3? Because...you're entitled to an answer?

 

Is the new voiced dialog and the dialog option system in general a case of something they have experience with, or more likely it's them pandering to other popular titles such as Mass Effect? Probably the latter, especially given the romanceable companions.

 

And because it is "different" it is automatically suspect?  Just like changing from Isometric to 3D?

 

Has any reason been given for any of the major changes? Absolutely none. Bethesda provides us with radio silence while the hardcore fan boys sit there and scream at critics for daring to question anything.

 

Providing reasons didn't stop people from complaining about Fallout 3. And Obsidian changing gameplay in New Vegas had some of the Fallout 3 fans complaining.

 

It didn't stop anyone complaining about Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (and I was a mod at Interplay when that announcement happened; if you think fans of Bethesda's Fallout are unreasonable for defending the company taking the franchise in a new direction, I can tell you tales about the behavior of the "Fallout fans" and their reaction to Interplay making a Fallout action title that won't paint them any better).

 

In fact "reasons" didn't stop people complaining about Fallout Tactics.  People complained Interplay shouldn't have wasted their time with Tactics instead of making Fallout 3 (despite the fact that Tactics wasn't done by the RPG arm of Interplay).

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2015 by Amentep

[Longknife]

 

Then what purpose is the brand "Fallout?"

To sell. Make no mistake that was just as true for Fallout 2 as it is for Fallout 4.

 

Here? If they changed the face of Fallout because they had legitimate, valid criticisms of the old, then by all means, do so. For example, you will not hear me criticize Bethesda for taking Fallout from isometric RPG to a 3D first-person RPG because the answer as to why is obvious: Bethesda has zero experience with isometric RPGs and could probably deliver a better product if the product is in their comfort zone. It's not a criticism mind you, but it's at least a reasonable argument as to why they felt they needed to make such a drastic change. Bethesda can walk up to you, make that case, and you can walk away saying "that sounds reasonable I guess."

And yet still people complained about that very fact, despite it being a reasonable (even expected) move. 

 

But what about Fallout 4? Do we hear things and respond "that sounds reasonable I guess?"

 

Would it matter to the Fallout hardcore if they did?  Per above I haven't found the "Fallout purist" to listen to reason.  I've actually read people argue that Fallout 3 should have been built with the same engine as Fallout 1 because it was perfect and this wasn't done ironically.

 

Have they named valid reasons that skills needed to go? No. We're just told we shouldn't expect the titles to be the same as their old titles, but when it comes to valid reasons named as to why the change needed to happen, we don't get any.

Do they need to give you a reason? Why must they give you a reason for anything? Because you're a fan? Because you played Fallout 1 or 3? Because...you're entitled to an answer?

 

Is the new voiced dialog and the dialog option system in general a case of something they have experience with, or more likely it's them pandering to other popular titles such as Mass Effect? Probably the latter, especially given the romanceable companions.

 

And because it is "different" it is automatically suspect?  Just like changing from Isometric to 3D?

 

Has any reason been given for any of the major changes? Absolutely none. Bethesda provides us with radio silence while the hardcore fan boys sit there and scream at critics for daring to question anything.

 

Providing reasons didn't stop people from complaining about Fallout 3. And Obsidian changing gameplay in New Vegas had some of the Fallout 3 fans complaining.

 

It didn't stop anyone complaining about Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (and I was a mod at Interplay when that announcement happened; if you think fans of Bethesda's Fallout are unreasonable for defending the company taking the franchise in a new direction, I can tell you tales about the behavior of the "Fallout fans" and their reaction to Interplay making a Fallout action title that won't paint them any better).

 

In fact "reasons" didn't stop people complaining about Fallout Tactics.  People complained Interplay shouldn't have wasted their time with Tactics instead of making Fallout 3 (despite the fact that Tactics wasn't done by the RPG arm of Interplay).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Half of your post is essentially lumping all forms of complainers into one universal category instead of attempting to examine why and how they complain. By all means, ignore those who continue to complain Fallout isn't still isometric, but don't automatically label me as just as unreasonable as them just because we both happen to be complaining. Examine my complaints on their own merit. And why should they give me a reason...??

 

I would expect to hear a reason because, if someone's logic is sound, than hearing said reason earns respect and praise, which is good for the product. If for example Todd Howard walks out on stage and gives a little speech about problems they perceived with the old skill system and how exactly the new system will remedy those problems, then the crowd goes "that's a really clever idea" or "that's a good point," and they sell more copies because of how impressed the crowd is with the answer.

 

 

That they seemingly can't do this and avoid doing it...? That's alarming to me.

 

 

They're a business. As a business, the answer to everything - for them - is "to increase sales." When they don't give reasons or answers, then I assume the answer is "our answer to the question isn't actually that logical or impressive, so we think it would actually hurt sales."

 

Having dabbled with marketing (only had to learn some economics as a minor to legal studies, and only dabbled with marketing, to be clear and fair), I've learned that silence on a subject typically means that subject isn't a strong suit. Thusfar, Bethesda's presentations could be summed up as:

 

"OVER 700 WEAPONS."

 

"OVER 200 PERKS."

 

"OVER 100 NAMES."

 

"OVER 150 DOG COMMANDS."

 

 

It's just numbers being dumped on us, but the quality behind said numbers...? This has not been detailed in the slightest. It's clear the aim has been to impress and dazzle rather than to explain anything to us in any amount of actual detail or context.

 

 

 

 

And no, different =/= suspect. Different without reasoning = suspect. As I said, FO3 is first person because that's Bethesda's comfort zone. That's reasonable. Skills being merged into perks...? We've heard no reasoning. The sudden parallels to Mass Effect, such as the entirety of the dialog system and the romanceable companions? Occam's Razor would suggest "they're blatantly copying popular game titles in order to attract new customers." That's alarming. That's called casualizing the franchise. I mean, I find it very telling that a friend of mine who's never played Fallout had the reaction of "the color scheme looks like Bioshock Infinite. I loved that game."

 

 

Do they need to give you a reason? Why must they give you a reason for anything? Because you're a fan? Because you played Fallout 1 or 3? Because...you're entitled to an answer?

 

 

This is a form of madness I will never understand.

 

 

This is a company. It wants your money. It will do whatever it can to get your money. That's not me calling Bethesda a corrupt, greedy company mind you, that's me saying ANY company will do whatever it can to get your money from you.

 

So why, pray tell, are you criticizing me and calling me (or implying I am) entitled for expecting some answers from them before I give them my money? As a company, it's your responsibility to sell the product and make money. If I ask a question that's highly important to my purchase or lack thereof...? Yes, if they want to have my money, it is practically a responsibility of theirs to answer my question.

 

If I go to a farmer's market, look at some apples you are selling and ask "how fresh are these," would you then look at me and say "do I need to give you an answer? Why must I give you an answer for anything? Because you're a customer? Because you've bought apples here before? Because...you're entitled to an answer?" Guess what: I wouldn't buy your apples if that was your response. I would find your response pretty alarming, suspicious and strange, and then I'd just rationalize to spend my money elsewhere.

 

You would never in a thousand years provide that kind of response to me if I was questioning YOUR product that YOU are selling, so why do you sit here and shield poor little defenseless Bethesda from my big bad evil critical questions?

 

 

I will never in a thousand years even begin to understand why people insist on shielding the heartless entities called "companies" that don't even know their names, nor give a **** about them beyond their wallets.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Longknife

[Hurlshort]

I for one do think FO4 is going to be a terrible game more akin to Skyrim (if you liked Skyrim you might be happy, but for me, that's the most disappointing title I've ever purchased), nor do I see a purpose in trying to "stay positive" about it when all that I've seen thusfar suggests I should be negative.

 

 

I do not believe in being positive for positive's sake, I believe in positive responses being earned.

So being negative for the sake of being negative is ok. Got it.

[Longknife]

 

I for one do think FO4 is going to be a terrible game more akin to Skyrim (if you liked Skyrim you might be happy, but for me, that's the most disappointing title I've ever purchased), nor do I see a purpose in trying to "stay positive" about it when all that I've seen thusfar suggests I should be negative.

 

 

I do not believe in being positive for positive's sake, I believe in positive responses being earned.

So being negative for the sake of being negative is ok. Got it.

 

 

 

It would be great if people could just focus on the context of what's said without responding with useless rhetorical questions or strawman arguments. It will never cease to amaze me the kinds of responses one can expect when being critical of a beloved game series or a game many are looking forward to.

 

 

  There are a multitude of reasons I am skeptical and pessimistic about FO4. If you're at all familiar with my post history at the Bethesda forums (not expecting you to be), you'd know I've listed them and I'm not just "being negative for the sake of it." I've posted extensively on reasons I suspect FO4 will be very much akin to the quality of Skyrim based on what little we've seen from FO4 and based on Bethesda's track record in general. I would be more than happy to break down all my reasons in great detail and have even considered making a youtube video on the subject matter (something accessible to people across all forums). For the moment? Forgive me, I'm a bit "fatigued" about the subject matter, what with being banned and all for "flaming" while discussing the subject.

 

 

For a very brief summary of some issues and fears I have with FO4 without going into great detail...?

 

-Check the footage of the deathclaw fight. Check the damage taken by a singular swipe, check how much damage the deathclaw takes from a minigun. Entire fight seems more akin to a dragon fight in Skyrim rather than a deathclaw fight in New Vegas. Too much HP, not enough damage. Seems Bethesda is in their old habit of thinking more HP = harder, rather than actually giving enemies more damage. Very same fight also suggests damage resistance is still the major form of defense, and balancing a game when there's a 0-80% damage reduction gap across characters is definitely difficult.

 

-Very same clip, deathclaw seems to perform a killcam move on the player. Dunno about you, but I loathed killcams. If we're getting those again....? Oh boy.... They were so lazily programmed in in Skyrim, and often resulted in enemies killing you twice as fast as normal, simply cause you'd get locked into one the moment they had the potential to oneshot you, with the game not even bothering to check if you dodged or resisted the damage in some way.

 

-As stated, the game exhibits similarities to popular game franchises such as Mass Effect and Bioshock Infinite. I hardly think this was someone saying "let's use these systems because they're clearly superior," but rather an instance of "let's copy popular franchises cause that'll definitely attract new customers." You could write a book about all the ways the new dialog system seems less flexible or more tedious at the very least (thumbing through speech checks IF they even exist now) compared to the old one.

 

 

-Voiced protagonist. Initially? I didn't really care, cause I'm usually interested in seeing what the intent behind the canon protagonist was in these kinds of games. Over time it dawned on me though that while I do do this out of habit with such games, I still roleplay several other characters after. I do feel voiced protagonist will limit this or encroach upon this for me, which is unfortunate. Why did they opt to have one...? They do claim it helps with their writing, but I for one can't recall a convincingly voiced character in Bethesda games (beyond those that get killed off almost immediately and are played by big name actors...) and wtf, there's still rocket engines on the USS Constition. No clue if this is them trying to pander to popular titles again or if they truly believe this means better writing, but I have my doubts it'll be worth it, given their track record with writing. On the contrary, I would think voice acting demands a good script, not that voice acting covers up for bad writing. Need we go over Skyrim's Thieves' guild as an example of how abysmal their writing is?

 

 

-The scale and scope of perks and weapon mods. It's too much. In New Vegas I sometimes catch myself wishing for more weapons, but then realize I struggle to name new ones that don't suit a job that isn't already fulfilled by another weapon. The weapons in New Vegas pretty much covered every style, and only two weapon mods from the nexus come to mind as being balanced and a welcome addition (a laser sniper with DPH rather than DPS and a hunting shotgun that is more capable of competing with the riot shotgun). I cannot fathom 700 weapons being balanced or useful, and sure enough, examples like "plasma sniper," "plasma scattergun" and "night vision rocket launcher" make me question the quality or the usefulness of many of the mods. This worry is made worse by the fact that Skyrim as a reference material had soooooo much weapon customization that daedric artifacts and random loot were worthless and meaningless by comparison; crafted stuff was superior. And of course, there was a meta and very clear weaponry that was superior. I fear that of the 700 weapon possibilities, 17 will be used.

 

 

-Skills merged to perks. Why? There's no reason or benefit for this. Skyrim essentially did this too. It's effect...? The skill perks were "required." You could skip the 20% cooler perks at the base of the skill trees....if you were a masochist. Skipping those was pure torture and made for tediously long battles. No, you took those 100% of the time, and all those meant was that the overall quality of perks dropped. Why? Because half the perks were actually "add 20 points to your skill" or the equivalent effect, so instead of getting 20 actual perks, we got 10 actual perks and 10 that were "increase your skill." Skills were forced on you for a reason: not increasing those was suicide. Having certain perks practically forced upon me just gets in the way of taking the actually enjoyable perks.

 

-The SPECIAL-perk system. Two possibilities: either the 10 Luck perk (for example) is not worth taking and therefore 10 Luck is never viable, or it is worth taking - as are all other luck perks below it - and thus EVERY 10 Luck character takes EVERY Luck perk available to them. The result is that characters with similar SPECIAL scores will perform the same, and you have ~7 playthroughs in this game. This is more limiting than New Vegas' system, where for example I could get two identical SPECIAL characters, but still create quite a bit of diversity between them by perking different skills (for example explosives on one and unarmed/melee on the other) while also taking different traits. No, doing this in FO4 would either require a great deal of self-nerfing on one of the two characters, OR it would require that a lot of the higher level perks are terrible in design and not worth taking or no big loss if skipped, which is obviously imperfect design too in it's own way.

 

 

-Lack of traits. Why? Absolutely no reason for this beyond a casualized hand-holding mentality of "don't allow the player to fail! Heaven forbid something include a downside!" This entire philosophy in general suggests to me we'll also see insta-heal stimpacks, illusion-of-challenge battles where HP is stressed (see above) and a lot of focus on selling to as many people as possible. I see this as evidence of their general design philosophy, and it seems to be geared towards money, not polished gameplay.

 

-ADHD game design. This one is more a fear with less evidence for it, but was prevelant by the now infamous quote for Skyrim: "A mile wide, an inch deep." Skyrim tried to be a variety of games at once, probably highlighted best in Hearthfire when Skyrim decided it was the Sims. For this reason, I did feel a little put off when they showed off the minigames you could play on the pipboy. If I want donkey kong, I'll play donkey kong. It just feels gimmicky rather than useful, and I'd prefer if time on such gimmicks went towards the core gameplay.

 

-Writing. USS Consititution has rocket engines. Why? RULE OF COOL, MANG. RULE OF COOL.

 

-The timespan of development. Todd said Fallout 4 started development in 2009. This means the game overlapped with Skyrim and Bethesda's attitude of that time. This is made visible in gameplay by even minor details, such as "Raider Scum" and "Raider Psycho," suggesting different levels of leveled raiders, just like the system in Skyrim. I doubt that's the only similarity, because at least 2-3 years (depends on if you include DLCs of Skyrim) of Fallout 4 would be done during the time when Bethesda had the design philosophy that created Skyrim.

 

 

 

Does any of that sound like being negative for the sake of it? No, I'm taking what little evidence we've received and drawing logical conclusions from there while using . I could be wrong of course, but that's a given. Should I be skeptical regardless? Yeah, probably, so I'll wait and see some game footage before I even consider a purchase.

 

But **** me for being critical and not blindly praising a game I've not yet played as GAME OF THE YEAR ALL YEARS, amirite?

Edited July 28, 2015 by Longknife

[Gfted1]

[Longknife]

VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

[BruceVC]

 

 

I for one do think FO4 is going to be a terrible game more akin to Skyrim (if you liked Skyrim you might be happy, but for me, that's the most disappointing title I've ever purchased), nor do I see a purpose in trying to "stay positive" about it when all that I've seen thusfar suggests I should be negative.

 

 

I do not believe in being positive for positive's sake, I believe in positive responses being earned.

So being negative for the sake of being negative is ok. Got it.

 

 

 

It would be great if people could just focus on the context of what's said without responding with useless rhetorical questions or strawman arguments. It will never cease to amaze me the kinds of responses one can expect when being critical of a beloved game series or a game many are looking forward to.

 

 

  There are a multitude of reasons I am skeptical and pessimistic about FO4. If you're at all familiar with my post history at the Bethesda forums (not expecting you to be), you'd know I've listed them and I'm not just "being negative for the sake of it." I've posted extensively on reasons I suspect FO4 will be very much akin to the quality of Skyrim based on what little we've seen from FO4 and based on Bethesda's track record in general. I would be more than happy to break down all my reasons in great detail and have even considered making a youtube video on the subject matter (something accessible to people across all forums). For the moment? Forgive me, I'm a bit "fatigued" about the subject matter, what with being banned and all for "flaming" while discussing the subject.

 

 

For a very brief summary of some issues and fears I have with FO4 without going into great detail...?

 

-Check the footage of the deathclaw fight. Check the damage taken by a singular swipe, check how much damage the deathclaw takes from a minigun. Entire fight seems more akin to a dragon fight in Skyrim rather than a deathclaw fight in New Vegas. Too much HP, not enough damage. Seems Bethesda is in their old habit of thinking more HP = harder, rather than actually giving enemies more damage. Very same fight also suggests damage resistance is still the major form of defense, and balancing a game when there's a 0-80% damage reduction gap across characters is definitely difficult.

 

-Very same clip, deathclaw seems to perform a killcam move on the player. Dunno about you, but I loathed killcams. If we're getting those again....? Oh boy.... They were so lazily programmed in in Skyrim, and often resulted in enemies killing you twice as fast as normal, simply cause you'd get locked into one the moment they had the potential to oneshot you, with the game not even bothering to check if you dodged or resisted the damage in some way.

 

-As stated, the game exhibits similarities to popular game franchises such as Mass Effect and Bioshock Infinite. I hardly think this was someone saying "let's use these systems because they're clearly superior," but rather an instance of "let's copy popular franchises cause that'll definitely attract new customers." You could write a book about all the ways the new dialog system seems less flexible or more tedious at the very least (thumbing through speech checks IF they even exist now) compared to the old one.

 

 

-Voiced protagonist. Initially? I didn't really care, cause I'm usually interested in seeing what the intent behind the canon protagonist was in these kinds of games. Over time it dawned on me though that while I do do this out of habit with such games, I still roleplay several other characters after. I do feel voiced protagonist will limit this or encroach upon this for me, which is unfortunate. Why did they opt to have one...? They do claim it helps with their writing, but I for one can't recall a convincingly voiced character in Bethesda games (beyond those that get killed off almost immediately and are played by big name actors...) and wtf, there's still rocket engines on the USS Constition. No clue if this is them trying to pander to popular titles again or if they truly believe this means better writing, but I have my doubts it'll be worth it, given their track record with writing. On the contrary, I would think voice acting demands a good script, not that voice acting covers up for bad writing. Need we go over Skyrim's Thieves' guild as an example of how abysmal their writing is?

 

 

-The scale and scope of perks and weapon mods. It's too much. In New Vegas I sometimes catch myself wishing for more weapons, but then realize I struggle to name new ones that don't suit a job that isn't already fulfilled by another weapon. The weapons in New Vegas pretty much covered every style, and only two weapon mods from the nexus come to mind as being balanced and a welcome addition (a laser sniper with DPH rather than DPS and a hunting shotgun that is more capable of competing with the riot shotgun). I cannot fathom 700 weapons being balanced or useful, and sure enough, examples like "plasma sniper," "plasma scattergun" and "night vision rocket launcher" make me question the quality or the usefulness of many of the mods. This worry is made worse by the fact that Skyrim as a reference material had soooooo much weapon customization that daedric artifacts and random loot were worthless and meaningless by comparison; crafted stuff was superior. And of course, there was a meta and very clear weaponry that was superior. I fear that of the 700 weapon possibilities, 17 will be used.

 

 

-Skills merged to perks. Why? There's no reason or benefit for this. Skyrim essentially did this too. It's effect...? The skill perks were "required." You could skip the 20% cooler perks at the base of the skill trees....if you were a masochist. Skipping those was pure torture and made for tediously long battles. No, you took those 100% of the time, and all those meant was that the overall quality of perks dropped. Why? Because half the perks were actually "add 20 points to your skill" or the equivalent effect, so instead of getting 20 actual perks, we got 10 actual perks and 10 that were "increase your skill." Skills were forced on you for a reason: not increasing those was suicide. Having certain perks practically forced upon me just gets in the way of taking the actually enjoyable perks.

 

-The SPECIAL-perk system. Two possibilities: either the 10 Luck perk (for example) is not worth taking and therefore 10 Luck is never viable, or it is worth taking - as are all other luck perks below it - and thus EVERY 10 Luck character takes EVERY Luck perk available to them. The result is that characters with similar SPECIAL scores will perform the same, and you have ~7 playthroughs in this game. This is more limiting than New Vegas' system, where for example I could get two identical SPECIAL characters, but still create quite a bit of diversity between them by perking different skills (for example explosives on one and unarmed/melee on the other) while also taking different traits. No, doing this in FO4 would either require a great deal of self-nerfing on one of the two characters, OR it would require that a lot of the higher level perks are terrible in design and not worth taking or no big loss if skipped, which is obviously imperfect design too in it's own way.

 

 

-Lack of traits. Why? Absolutely no reason for this beyond a casualized hand-holding mentality of "don't allow the player to fail! Heaven forbid something include a downside!" This entire philosophy in general suggests to me we'll also see insta-heal stimpacks, illusion-of-challenge battles where HP is stressed (see above) and a lot of focus on selling to as many people as possible. I see this as evidence of their general design philosophy, and it seems to be geared towards money, not polished gameplay.

 

-ADHD game design. This one is more a fear with less evidence for it, but was prevelant by the now infamous quote for Skyrim: "A mile wide, an inch deep." Skyrim tried to be a variety of games at once, probably highlighted best in Hearthfire when Skyrim decided it was the Sims. For this reason, I did feel a little put off when they showed off the minigames you could play on the pipboy. If I want donkey kong, I'll play donkey kong. It just feels gimmicky rather than useful, and I'd prefer if time on such gimmicks went towards the core gameplay.

 

-Writing. USS Consititution has rocket engines. Why? RULE OF COOL, MANG. RULE OF COOL.

 

-The timespan of development. Todd said Fallout 4 started development in 2009. This means the game overlapped with Skyrim and Bethesda's attitude of that time. This is made visible in gameplay by even minor details, such as "Raider Scum" and "Raider Psycho," suggesting different levels of leveled raiders, just like the system in Skyrim. I doubt that's the only similarity, because at least 2-3 years (depends on if you include DLCs of Skyrim) of Fallout 4 would be done during the time when Bethesda had the design philosophy that created Skyrim.

 

 

 

Does any of that sound like being negative for the sake of it? No, I'm taking what little evidence we've received and drawing logical conclusions from there while using . I could be wrong of course, but that's a given. Should I be skeptical regardless? Yeah, probably, so I'll wait and see some game footage before I even consider a purchase.

 

But **** me for being critical and not blindly praising a game I've not yet played as GAME OF THE YEAR ALL YEARS, amirite?

 

Look I'll admit you are more passionate about this me, I can see you have spent time researching what has been released and giving an honest view of  what you think is lacking 

 

And I respect that, and I'm not being sarcastic. I mean that. But there does seem to be a strange incongruity with your posts...you know so much about the game in the sense of what has been released yet you still say you don't really like the concept or many game design decisions  ?

 

I'm simplifying my question but why spend so much time on a subject if you don't care about it ? You know more than me about Fallout 4 yet I'm excited. I guess I don't understand why anyone would spend so much time in RL  on a game that they don't even care for ?

[Longknife]

Look I'll admit you are more passionate about this me, I can see you have spent time researching what has been released and giving an honest view of  what you think is lacking 

 

 

And I respect that, and I'm not being sarcastic. I mean that. But there does seem to be a strange incongruity with your posts...you know so much about the game in the sense of what has been released yet you still say you don't really like the concept or many game design decisions  ?

 

I'm simplifying my question but why spend so much time on a subject if you don't care about it ? You know more than me about Fallout 4 yet I'm excited. I guess I don't understand why anyone would spend so much time in RL  on a game that they don't even care for ?

 

 

 

Again I'm frustrated, because your implication is that you think I want to be skeptical or want to hate what I see, or want Fallout 4 to fail. I really loathe this attitude of yours and that of others, because it highlights how people falsely associate criticism with hate.

 

Of course not wtf, I want it to succeed (if it deserves to). But I'm not so blindly loyal to that desire of mine that I'll let it cloud my perception of reality. What purpose would that serve, lying to myself so that I too pre-order it and pray for an amazing game when my gut expects otherwise?

 

I wanted a decent Fallout game, and I wanted to play one, so of course I pay attention to the news. But no matter how much new info we get, nothing seems explained or like it was thought-out. Instead it feels like the game is focused more on sales than on being an exceptional experience. I don't want a 6/10 game, I want a 10/10 one.

 

 

I will be here to watch a Let's player play the game and either confirm or deny my suspicions that the game sucks. And if it sucks...? Then that's probably the nail in the coffin for my history with Bethesda. That'll probably be my final sign that it's time to stop following their work or bothering with them. If I wanted the game to fail, I wouldn't be around discussing it like the rest of you. Just because I'm not practicing 20 different ways to kiss it's ass as I wait for it to release doesn't mean I don't want it to be a good product, I just don't see how blind praise is the superior alternative to a critical eye.

 

 

Aside from that, this is becoming a fascination of mine. Not just Fallout, but games in general. Hype, marketing, pre-orders, and the cycle of disappointment. It amazes me to watch this happen over and over and over and over. I'm tempted to ask for the age of every person in this thread, wondering if it's my age and experience that makes me so critical while others are still young (16 or so) and have yet to be burned by a lackluster product that regresses in quality, and thus such companies feed off of that inexperience to make more money for less effort. Fallout 4, Skyrim, Sims 4, every Call of Duty release ever, Bioshock Infinite...these are all games that I'd follow moreso out of astonishment to watch people fall for their hype trains and try to understand why.

 

 

 

Let me say this, and try to refute this if you can, just for the sake of making a point:

 

 

We would have better quality games if the general audience were more critical and cautious with purchases. If people were quicker to focus on flaws that might discourage a purchase rather than to focus on the EXACT flashy features the developers make a focal point of their presentation, then it would demand higher quality from the developers if they truly wish to make a sale, no? So why are people so turned off by my critical approach to gameplay releases...?

[redneckdevil]

VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Longknife, take some advice from from me. Quit looking into it and go in without comparing it to the older titles. Should you do this? Ethically no because I agree with everything you've been saying, but for me to get any enjoyment outta it I'm gonna go in expecting and thinking its a new IP. Bethesda has this thing about reinventing the wheel every single time and cutting corners. We can sit here and bitch and moan, buts it's Bethesda and right now besides witcher 3 there isn't really any RPGs out so even if we vote with our wallet, they won't notice our lack money throw at them.

It's like fallout 3. Very fun game but a very horrible "fallout" game. I have a feeling fallout 4 is gonna be the same, whereas Bethesda wants each game to be judged by its own merits but because it's part of a series we the customers are gonna compare it to the others. Don't compare it to the others such as fallout new Vegas and hopefully we both will enjoy the game for simply being a fun game and won't get hung up on the "fallout" part because we know it will be lacking. So my advice is to simply go in thinking brand new ip and don't think of the older titles and hopefully we both will find some enjoyment outta it. We can then sit and pray that obsidian will get a second shot and make the next fallout game a fun but also a good "fallout" game. Otherwise we are just setting ourselves up for justified disappointment.