Fallout 4...

[GhostofAnakin]

 

 

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.

 

 

I think one of the reasons there's no real choice and consequences (other than the aforementioned final choice between factions) is because of how they designed the game world.  There aren't your typical multiple "towns" like you had in previous FO games, where you usually had a bunch of quests there, including usually a "big" quest where you decided the fate of that town.  So there aren't opportunities to decide to side with NPC A or NPC B, each one wanting you to do something different to that town for their gains.

 

The world itself felt smaller than FO3 because of this.  I read somewhere that it's actually bigger, in terms of area you can travel to.  But it seemed smaller simply because most areas were either covered with 3-person farm houses, or giant empty buildings that you didn't encounter anything but enemies in.  The lack of multiple cities/towns, IMO, really hurt the feeling of it being big.

[Lexx]

It's like they somehow realized people complained about the lack of farms in fo3 and then decided to plaster farms all over the game world in fo4. PS: I don't like this approach at all. It's noble we finally have growing food, but imo a few but big farms would have been a lot better and more realistic than all these tiny 2-farmer settlements with 5 plants.

[GhostofAnakin]

I just don't understand why they did away with the big settlements/towns.  That seemed to be a hallmark of the Fallout franchise; traveling to each individual town, which had its own struggles and story to tell.

 

Diamond City, the Institute, and ... that's about it.  And neither was exactly rife with quests and backstory.

[Darkpriest]

Nah it is about Borderlands and Minecraft now. Don't yoi get it?

[Longknife]

Nah it is about Borderlands and Minecraft now. Don't yoi get it?

 

 

Speaking of Minecraft:

 

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

[WDeranged]

 

Huh, I wasn't a fan of Skyrim's story either.

 

 

I was ****ing livid when the final boss involved me screaming "BACAWK" at a cloud for 2 minutes.

 

I did like Skyrim's story even if I was slightly let down by it.  I'd been following Kirkbride's apocryphal writings and I hoped Alduin would be a black hole with teeth, a true world eater.  I wanted the final battle to be atop the Throat of The World, above storm clouds writhing with Alduin's infinitely coiled body 

 

Turns out I got screaming at clouds instead but I thought Sovngarde was impressive and quite true to the lore.  Meeting the lost souls of the various nords who died in the MQ was a great touch.

[Amentep]

And the mistake can be traced to the very first step: the decision to have the player character be a pre-war survivor. It's superficially an interesting idea to explore, but in no way does Bethesda have the chops to pull it off successfully.

 

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.

[WDeranged]

- 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.

 

Yeah I found this particularly annoying too.  Some of their actions could be described as evil and I don't make a peep about it, then within two missions I've been announced as the new leader.  

 

There was potential for interesting conversations about ethics and free will but noooo, gotta go blow some **** up 

Edited December 21, 2015 by WDeranged

[GhostofAnakin]

I also got annoyed at the lack of actual say you had, even if you become the new head of the Institute.

 

Father: You're in charge now, son.  I have faith in you to lead us.

 

Me: Thanks.

 

Father: Now, let's go attack the Brotherhood of Steel.

 

Me: Uh, actually, I want peace, not war.

 

Father: Sorry, we have to attack them.  It's the only way.

 

Me: But you just said I'm the new leader?  Why does my opinion not count?

 

Father: It counts.  Just not now.  Or in basically any decision made with regards to the Institute annihilating every faction in our way.

 

Me: So ... what exactly does my role as head of the Institute entail?

 

Father: You can now leave your inventory in one of these spotless dressers!

[Amentep]

I haven't gotten that far at the institute, but I kind of figured there'd be no way to broker a peace between the factions.

[Longknife]

 

And the mistake can be traced to the very first step: the decision to have the player character be a pre-war survivor. It's superficially an interesting idea to explore, but in no way does Bethesda have the chops to pull it off successfully.

 

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.

[WDeranged]

God help me but I thought the father/son thing in Fallout 3 wasn't Bethesda's worst example of a human relationship, that award would go to every relationship in Fallout 4 

Edited December 21, 2015 by WDeranged

[HoonDing]

God help me but I thought the father/son thing in Fallout 3 wasn't Bethesda's worst example of a human relationship, that award would go to every relationship in Fallout 4 

you mean father/daughter

 

[Amentep]

 

 

And the mistake can be traced to the very first step: the decision to have the player character be a pre-war survivor. It's superficially an interesting idea to explore, but in no way does Bethesda have the chops to pull it off successfully.

 

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.

 

 

To be fair, you're not really given a lot of reason to want to save the Vault by finding a waterchip, either, as I recall.

 

They at least let you spend some time in arryo before sending you off for the GECK in 2.

[Longknife]

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:

 

 

Most journalists go through a honeymoon phase with Bethesda titles. RPS gave Skyrim their GOTY for… 2011, was it? The game had been out for only a month.

    Fast forward a year and most of their reviewers were saying, “In hindsight, it was rather shallow and dull, wasn’t it?”

    Bethesda seem to have become masters at a sort of inherently shallow but greatly immediately gratifying gameplay, which means everyone loves it for a few weeks. Eventually the shine wears off, and the rather skeletal, half baked mess of the game’s underlying systems become more visible. However, Beth times their releases for Christmas (anything late October through November is Christmas Season for games nowadays), when all the game journos are doing their “Best of the Year” and award shows are handing out trophies, so the game is more immediately in their minds than the great games from earlier in the year (betcha nobody is keeping Pillars of Eternity in mind for Best RPG, although to be fair Witcher 3 seems to have had equally as good, yet more accessible writing, and a crap ton more production value. Yet even W3, who at its release had a lot of folks calling it the Best RPG for the Past Decade, is gonna have stiff competition from FO4, when there really is no contest between them).

    Basically you’ve got a perfect recipe for immediate critical adoration, and by the time people move on in January or February what’s done is done. Honestly, the true, Miyomoto-ian stars of the BethSoft production team are the marketers.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

To be fair, you're not really given a lot of reason to want to save the Vault by finding a waterchip, either, as I recall.

 

They at least let you spend some time in arryo before sending you off for the GECK in 2.

 

 

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.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Longknife

[Amentep]

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).

I think I mentioned it once before, but to me Bethesda's recent games somewhat defy categorization. Rather than RPGs or FPS or Sandlot games, I've taken them to refering to them as "Bethesda Games".

 

In that sense the development of Skyrim and Fallout 4 seems to have pushed further into what Bethesda seems to want to do within their niche of gaming lots of freedom to interact with the world, but weak narratives - the idea being you're so interested in looking at the trees you don't think about how crappy the forest you're in may be (obviously, tastes differ).

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Skyrim, and am still enjoying Fallout 4, but I'd objectively say both aren't great RPGs.

 

 

 

To be fair, you're not really given a lot of reason to want to save the Vault by finding a waterchip, either, as I recall.

 

They at least let you spend some time in arryo before sending you off for the GECK in 2.

 

 

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.

 

I think the thing is that where Bethesda falls down oftentimes is that Forest-trees thing.  Looking for your kidnapped baby in Fallout 4 is a great hook, a great way to get in the forest.  Problem is, the game wants you to look at the trees, not the forest.

 

If that mangled metaphor makes any sense.

[GhostofAnakin]

So FO3 had a child looking for a father, FO4 had a father looking for a child.  What are the masterminds at Bethesda going to have as their hook for FO5?  Grandson looking for a grandfather?

 

I'd just rather they stuck with something that doesn't attempt (and fail) to pull at your heart strings as a motivation to do the main quest, especially when that main quest is almost always lacking and is the weakest part of the game.  They want to make their games all about the sandbox and exploration?  Fine by me.  But craft a main story that fits with that.

[Longknife]

So FO3 had a child looking for a father, FO4 had a father looking for a child.  What are the masterminds at Bethesda going to have as their hook for FO5?  Grandson looking for a grandfather?

 

I'd just rather they stuck with something that doesn't attempt (and fail) to pull at your heart strings as a motivation to do the main quest, especially when that main quest is almost always lacking and is the weakest part of the game.  They want to make their games all about the sandbox and exploration?  Fine by me.  But craft a main story that fits with that.

 

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.

 

 

 

I think I mentioned it once before, but to me Bethesda's recent games somewhat defy categorization. Rather than RPGs or FPS or Sandlot games, I've taken them to refering to them as "Bethesda Games".

 

In that sense the development of Skyrim and Fallout 4 seems to have pushed further into what Bethesda seems to want to do within their niche of gaming lots of freedom to interact with the world, but weak narratives - the idea being you're so interested in looking at the trees you don't think about how crappy the forest you're in may be (obviously, tastes differ).

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Skyrim, and am still enjoying Fallout 4, but I'd objectively say both aren't great RPGs.

 

 

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.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Longknife

[Humanoid]

 

And the mistake can be traced to the very first step: the decision to have the player character be a pre-war survivor. It's superficially an interesting idea to explore, but in no way does Bethesda have the chops to pull it off successfully.

 

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.

 

 

The kid thing was never going to work, but I'd say even good writers would have fallen flat trying to do it. Pre-war survivor, eh, it's doable, just not by Bethesda. I mean in the tutorial you're all shocked seeing all the dead bodies and radroaches, and not an hour later you're mowing down ghouls, androids, accepting assassination jobs, and your character has no comment to make whatsoever on these events.

 

Aside from a few dialogue option where you can repeatedly ask different people what synths are despite already potentially having gunned hundreds of them down, the player character is basically indistinguishable from someone who has lived their entire life in this wasteland. It just becomes an unnecessary detail that sticks out like a sore thumb on the occasions it gets raised.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Humanoid

[Lexx]

I hated how you could mow down ghouls for hours and then at one point you meet an NPC and you are like "what the hell are ghouls? Tell me about it!"

[GhostofAnakin]

I hated how you could mow down ghouls for hours and then at one point you meet an NPC and you are like "what the hell are ghouls? Tell me about it!"

 

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!

[Longknife]

 

I hated how you could mow down ghouls for hours and then at one point you meet an NPC and you are like "what the hell are ghouls? Tell me about it!"

 

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!

[Rosbjerg]

Devil's advocate, but it's obviously to cater to the open world gameplay. Your character doesn't necessarily know what ghouls are 50 hours in, even if he's been killing them for hours. It's a good idea to have multiple venues for exposition.

 

Just wish it was slightly better of course

[WorstUsernameEver]

I hated how you could mow down ghouls for hours and then at one point you meet an NPC and you are like "what the hell are ghouls? Tell me about it!"

To be fair, you could be mowing down weird things without knowing what they are. But there's definitely a lot of sequence breaking involved for stuff like that, depending on how you pace your own exploration. Then again, you can also choose *not* to ask what ghouls/super mutants/etc. are.

[Lexx]

Of course it is because of the open world gameplay, but here is the thing: Everyone is like yadda-yadda, Bethsoft so good in environmental storytelling with skeletons and terminals and stuff, so why not use this to convey the explanation of what ghouls are? The player can stumble over it early or late in game and it won't feel out of place... While talking to an npc about it 100 hours later is hella stupid.