I'm Really Losing Interest - Is this game even worth finishing?

[Moraelin]

Well, personally I also feel like people have some unrealistic expectations. A mixture of several factors, but chief seems to be basically a mixture of comparing it either to other games that aren't half the scope of this one, and to other beth games AFTER they got a gazillion mods. Or at the very least a lot of people's expectations seem to only be met by Beth games after mods.

 

But there are two crucial issues that many people seem to be forgetting:

 

1. Creating those mods took more time, manpower, and extremely talented people that wouldn't be cheap to hire a whole team of, than any publisher could ever afford for a non-MMO. Some of the mod authors on the Nexus put literally thousands of hours into their mods. Emma for example recorded more lines for Vilja than the DISTINCT lines of all females combined in Skyrim. LlamaRCA and some of the contributors put more work into Willow than, frankly, some whole factions had in vanilla New Vegas. Etc. And there are thousands of them.

 

We're looking at literally some millions man-hours extra that would be needed to make the game live up to those standards right off the bat. And frankly, you can't recoup that, no matter how many millions of copies you sell.

 

No game ever will be sold that fits those standards.

 

But even more importantly:

 

2. Those mods create a game that's fine-tuned to your tastes. If you don't like helping the Thieves Guild just to get master training, you install a mod that creates a whole different option. If you don't like having to kill Paarthurnax, you install a mod that changes that too. If you don't particularly care for Beth's Vampire Lords -- and as a stealth player, they did nothing for me -- you install Better Vampires or what have you.

 

Conversely, if you don't like Emma's voice acting, for example, as is the case for some people, you don't have to have Vilja in your game.

 

It can end up so off the mainstream track as my playing NV as a pointy-eared character with a bat'leth. It's *ahem* a Vulcan, not an elf, see? ;)

 

But anyway, you end up with a mix that's fine tuned to what YOU personally like.

 

But that's not the same that is perfect for someone else. I for example, liked Vilja a lot, even if other people disliked the voice acting. I didn't mind joining the Thieves' Guild with my stealthy ninja-type character, even though other people wanted to destroy the guild. Etc. What's fine tuned for YOU, can be way off the mark for ME, and both might be nowhere near what that other guy over there wants.

 

Well, no publisher can match those standards. They aim to offer a reasonable compromise to a broader group, not to fine-tune the game for exactly one player. Literally, it CAN'T be a game that's as good as everyone right off the bat, as it is after the mods.

[Hexxagone]

I loved vanilla skyrim so much on my PS3 that I ended buying it on PC a year later. Mods made it better but i loved the core game. F4 is a disappointment right out of the box, smaller than Skyrim with less content and unique encounters. To sit here and suggest that its just because of mods that people dont enjoy it is an untrue statement.

 

I think the problem is that Elder Scrolls is Bethesdas baby, thats what they started with in the 90s. They seem more excited and inspired when making Elder Scrolls games than when they make Fallout games.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Hexxagone

[Boombro]

 

I think the problem is that Elder Scrolls is Bethesdas baby, thats what they started with in the 90s. They seem more excited and inspired when making Elder Scrolls games than when they make Fallout games.

True, there is also different game design choices. What do you think is okay, is not for them.

[gamefever]

Vanilla Skyrim didn't hold my interest enough although it was a fun game.

 

My Modded Skyrim blows 2015 games completely out of the water and I find it unlikely that there will be games in 2016 that can compete with a modded Skyrim....This may not be your experience but I have over a decade of modding experience and have produced my own mods for several games plus I have quite a network amoung my fellow mod authors. I know that when your starting out modding that mostly your game just crashes and burns hard for what seems like forever but over time and with learning and implementation that sort of issue does get resolved.

That matters.

 

I know its hard to understand but in no way does Witcher 3 come close to what my modded games can provide. Not graphics, adult material, or gameplay mechanics....Some might say but Story...Thing is if the story isn't interesting than its so what are you left with?? Gameplay and my modded games have that in spades way beyond their shipment specifications.

 

Fallout New Vegas....Not every single Mod Author, Player, Ect was enthralled by FNV...Heck I think its Premise, Story, and Plot are just as lame as most other stories so its kinda whats left well without mods FNV doesn't have a leg to stand on for me.

 

I just think that if your a gamer that is stuck on Stories your going to suffer some famine here and there....How many of the movies that get released are all amazing??? How many are really just filler...There's way more movie filler than 5 Star films. Its the same way with video games and well more so.

 

Fallout 4 seems awefully nice for Bethsada game right out of the box. The question is will it maintain the interest of established modding scene and/or capture the interest of new budding modders....Its gotta get new modders making content though....As its just easier to work on stuff like Skyrim.

 

I fired up my Skyrim for an hour today and man just weapons, costumes, more stuff all the way around just more more more...Because mods.

Some of those mods representing 2 months of hours on my part alone, and mods on there I helped shaped by working with a group.

 

There is no way a new game is going to come out with everything the modding circles have done or made........The cost for that would just be staggering.

[Athanasa]

I'm mostly disappointed with how many steps FO4 took back from FNV. I'm actually managing to play FO4 rather casually, not staying up too late any more and RP-walking around most of the Commonwealth. What I really, truly miss right now (and from the moment the game started) is FNV's survival mode. While on its own it added a lot to the game, I now find myself missing it terribly.

I also miss the amount of random friendly towns/villages in FNV. Or maybe I'm exaggerating, with rose tinted glasses? I spent ages yesterday trying to find a vendor somewhere other than Diamond City or the Prydwen, other than crappy shacks. I realised it then - FNV had little villages and such. FO4 has settlements, but the fact that you've populated them with generic NPCs means that they feel empty, robotic. And you can't just drop through to sell crape unless you've invested in being able to make vendors. Seriously, name me a town in FO4 that has stuff in it that ISN'T one of mine, that comes with existing personalities. Covenant seems to be the only one.
It'd make a difference if I could pick up unique, interesting settlers with personality to give my settlements some life, but outside of an ex-stoner and Preston's lot, I haven't found anything. I was hoping I'd get Fridge Boy's family. Hah. Nope.

Also, the variety of raiders in NV. Not a big deal, but you had different gangs in different areas. And they mostly had their own aesthetics, typical makeup and whatnot, preferred weapons. Oh, and they hated each other. Actual flavour. FO4 has Gunners, Raiders (generic) and apparently The Forged tucked away in some corner. Maybe making Raiders have different names and wear different clothes was just too much to stick into the game? It's a real shame. (I guess Triggermen count, but you don't see them outside of the city.)

In FNV, there was a chance that humans in the distance weren't hostile. Not so in FO4 - if it has a gun, it's hostile. There's no reason to hold fire when sniping. No reason to check if that's a raider base or a friendly outpost, or friendlies that have cleared a raider base.

A final rose-tinted whine... at least FNV had more enemy varieties. Apart from the raider flavours, there was far more in the way of hostile ground wildlife (the FO4 insect are frankly obnoxious to deal with, pretty much requiring VATs) - radscorps met early, geckos, giant ants.


It's just lots of little things that worked really well before that they've dropped. Where's the raider gang with obnoxious Bronx accents?

Apologies for spelling, first time trying to actually type something on a tablet.

[Boombro]

 

My Modded Skyrim blows 2015 games completely out of the water and I find it unlikely that there will be games in 2016 that can compete with a modded Skyrim.

That true, but you have to admit that most is because of the ability to apply personal taste to Skyrim with mods and add what is lacking. It may as well not be that great, since it crater to your needs.

 

 

just think that if your a gamer that is stuck on Stories your going to suffer some famine here and there....How many of the movies that get released are all amazing??? How many are really just filler...There's way more movie filler than 5 Star films. Its the same way with video games and well more so.

I agree, I laugh when everyone think that all AA-AAA games or movies should have a great story as a hard stone rule. It even funnier when TW3 came out.

 

"Tw3 has an amazing story, ALL GAMES SHOULD HAVE THE SAME GOODNESS!" yeah, your steam library will be lacking and you will hardly play anything most of time son.

 

There is hardly great writing in any well spread form of any kind of entertainment (expect maybe books and comics, since you must have good writing for it to be pass the cut. Still hard to be amazing.) I have hardly found any games to have great writing level overall as in npcs, quests, storytelling and lore in games, the only I found that has all and that is trails of Sky.

 

I direct my exceptions to overall okay-good writing level, RP freedom and amount of side quests instead. Some may say I should expect more from AAA titles, I say get real.

 

 

 

Fallout 4 seems awefully nice for Bethsada game right out of the box.

I agree, I find it less lacking than past titles in areas that did bother me.

 

 

The question is will it maintain the interest of established modding scene and/or capture the interest of new budding modders....Its gotta get new modders making content though....As its just easier to work on stuff like Skyrim.

I don't see why not. It will get new ones for sure.

[Moraelin]

Well, equally to sit here and pretend that your tastes are the platinum standard of what gamers want, and talk about "what the game SHOULD have been", as some people don't seem to tire of doing, is just as untrue. I like it, for example. Those who don't, well, I feel for them, but they don't get to pretend they're speaking for everyone.

 

Most of those arguments are subjective at best, rather than hard statements of what's wrong with the game.

 

Also, some of those are plain wrong, and by people who haven't apparently played the game much. E.g., the size comparison is invariably done by just comparing the area in the shown rectangle, but that's meaningless. In Skyrim you don't get to use most of that area, whereas in FO4 the map actually goes on for a good extra bit to the south of the rectangle you see on the pipboy, and a bit to the west too. FO4 also has quite a bit of extra surface in all those building upper floors and such, whereas Skyrim has a bunch of empty space. There's just a lot of mountains or empty plains with really nothing to do other than walk along. Even if you add the Underdark, it's just a big empty space with nothing happening.

 

Essentially if we're talking raw surface of the rectangle shown on the map, Skyrim is just more diluted. Good for you if you like a bit of tonic in your gin, but some of us prefer to drink it straight from the bottle.

 

The surface of a rectangle on the map is a meaningless metric, unless you just like to walk lots. You could take either game and quadruple the surface, and it wouldn't make either of them a better game. It would just mean you get to walk twice as much between any two points.

 

The random encounters, well, most of them also didn't do much for me. Maiq was funny for all of 5 minutes, and the 50'th time seeing a nord prisoner escorted by Thalmor didn't do anything that the previous 49 times didn't already.

 

And it's a misleading statement again. While Skyrim had characters walking randomly around outside, FO4 has more stuff happening indoors instead. It has different conversations between raider inhabitants and whatnot, whereas in Skyrim except for major quests, everyone said the same thing over and over again.

 

And it has a LOT more stuff to read on the terminals, that's unique to FO4, whereas in Skyrim most books were duplicates of stuff I've read in the previous games. The Biography Of Barenziah, as well as The Real Barenziah, for example have been in every single game since Daggerfall. So was the Brief History Of The Empire, The Wild Elves, Brothers Of Darkness, Galerion The Mystic, etc, etc, etc. Most of the rest are from Morrowind or Oblivion. There are very few new ones, whereas in FO4 practically every single piece of information on every single terminal is new.

 

So instead of having like two lines of conversation total with a thief in a random encounter, I get to listen to a long story about how some raider chick got a kid drowned, or read on a terminal why some Gunner officer got demoted. It fills the same role and niche, even if it's not in the form of a random encounter. Saying essentially that it doesn't count if it's not a random encounter, is like saying there was nothing to eat at the salad bar at the company Xmas party, because salad doesn't count.

 

But again, if anything short of a random encounter can't get you some interesting moment, fine, that's your tastes. Just, it's not some absolute metric that the game has to fill.

 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a dump on Skyrim. I loved that one too. Just they're simply different. One has more of X, one has more of Y. It's not like one can take just one aspect and pretend it's the ultimate measure of a game.

[Boombro]

I'm mostly disappointed with how many steps FO4 took back from FNV. I'm actually managing to play FO4 rather casually, not staying up too late any more and RP-walking around most of the Commonwealth. What I really, truly miss right now (and from the moment the game started) is FNV's survival mode. While on its own it added a lot to the game, I now find myself missing it terribly.

 

I also miss the amount of random friendly towns/villages in FNV. Or maybe I'm exaggerating, with rose tinted glasses? I spent ages yesterday trying to find a vendor somewhere other than Diamond City or the Prydwen, other than crappy shacks. I realised it then - FNV had little villages and such. FO4 has settlements, but the fact that you've populated them with generic NPCs means that they feel empty, robotic. And you can't just drop through to sell crape unless you've invested in being able to make vendors. Seriously, name me a town in FO4 that has stuff in it that ISN'T one of mine, that comes with existing personalities. Covenant seems to be the only one.

It'd make a difference if I could pick up unique, interesting settlers with personality to give my settlements some life, but outside of an ex-stoner and Preston's lot, I haven't found anything. I was hoping I'd get Fridge Boy's family. Hah. Nope.

 

Also, the variety of raiders in NV. Not a big deal, but you had different gangs in different areas. And they mostly had their own aesthetics, typical makeup and whatnot, preferred weapons. Oh, and they hated each other. Actual flavour. FO4 has Gunners, Raiders (generic) and apparently The Forged tucked away in some corner. Maybe making Raiders have different names and wear different clothes was just too much to stick into the game? It's a real shame. (I guess Triggermen count, but you don't see them outside of the city.)

 

In FNV, there was a chance that humans in the distance weren't hostile.

 

A final rose-tinted whine... at least FNV had more enemy varieties. Apart from the raider flavours, there was far more in the way of hostile ground wildlife (the FO4 insect are frankly obnoxious to deal with, pretty much requiring VATs) - radscorps met early, geckos, giant ants.

 

 

It's just lots of little things that worked really well before that they've dropped. Where's the raider gang with obnoxious Bronx accents?

 

Apologies for spelling, first time trying to actually type something on a tablet.

Fo4 didn't take a step back from FNV since it not the same devs. It your fault to expect the same level of quality from a different team.

 

You basically went to an old English pub, then went to second cup cafe and was so shocked it was different.

 

 

 

Not so in FO4 - if it has a gun, it's hostile. There's no reason to hold fire when sniping. No reason to check if that's a raider base or a friendly outpost, or friendlies that have cleared a raider base.

Ummm...there is many people in the CW that do hold a gun and threaten you.

There is also traders in some towns.

 

 

 

Well, equally to sit here and pretend that your tastes are the platinum standard of what gamers want, and talk about "what the game SHOULD have been", as some people don't seem to tire of doing, is just as untrue. I like it, for example. Those who don't, well, I feel for them, but they don't get to pretend they're speaking for everyone.

Most of those arguments are subjective at best, rather than hard statements of what's wrong with the game.

Also, some of those are plain wrong, and by people who haven't apparently played the game much. E.g., the size comparison is invariably done by just compared the area in the shown rectangle, but that's BS. In Skyrim you don't get to use most of that area, whereas in FO4 the map actually goes on for a good extra bit to the south of the rectangle you see on the pipboy, and a bit to the west too. FO4 also has quite a bit of extra surface in all those building upper floors and such, whereas Skyrim has a bunch of empty space. There's just a lot of mountains or empty plains with really nothing to do other than walk along. Even if you add the Underdark, it's just a big empty space with nothing happening.

Essentially if we're talking raw surface of the rectangle shown on the map, Skyrim is just more diluted. Good for you if you like a bit of tonic in your gin, but some of us prefer to drink it straight from the bottle.

The surface of a rectangle on the map is a meaningless metric, unless you just like to walk lots. You could take either way and quadruple the surface, and it wouldn't make either of them a better game. It would just mean you get to walk twice as much between any two points.

The random encounters, well, most of them also didn't do much for me. Maiq was funny for all of 5 minutes, and the 50'th time seeing a nord prisoner escorted by Thalmor didn't do anything that the previous 49 times didn't already.

And it's a misleading statement again. While Skyrim had characters walking randomly around outside, FO4 has more stuff happening indoors instead. It has different conversations between raider inhabitants and whatnot, whereas in Skyrim except for major quests, everyone said the same thing over and over again.

And it has a LOT more stuff to read on the terminals, that's unique to FO4, whereas in Skyrim most books were duplicates of stuff I've read in the previous games. The Biography Of Barenziah, as well as The Real Barenziah, for example have been in every single game since Daggerfall. So was the Brief History Of The Empire, The Wild Elves, Brothers Of Darkness, Galerion The Mystic, etc, etc, etc. Most of the rest are from Morrowind or Oblivion. There are very few new ones, whereas in FO4 practically every single piece of information on every single terminal is new.

So instead of having like two lines of conversation total with a thief in a random encounter, I get to listen to a long story about how some raider chick got a kid drowned, or read on a terminal why some Gunner officer got demoted. It fills the same role and niche, even if it's not in the form of a random encounter. Saying essentially that it doesn't count if it's not a random encounter, is like saying there was nothing to eat at the salad bar at the company Xmas party, because salad doesn't count.

But again, if anything short of a random encounter can't get you some interesting moment, fine, that's your tastes. Just, it's not some absolute metric that the game has to fill.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a dump on Skyrim. I loved that one too. Just they're simply different. One has more of X, one has more of Y. It's not like one can take just one aspect and pretend it's the ultimate measure of a game.

Oh my god, yes.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Boombro

[Nebrule]

Well, equally to sit here and pretend that your tastes are the platinum standard of what gamers want, and talk about "what the game SHOULD have been", as some people don't seem to tire of doing, is just as untrue. I like it, for example. Those who don't, well, I feel for them, but they don't get to pretend they're speaking for everyone.

 

Nobody is trying to speak for everyone here, It's cool that you enjoy and are happy with the game... go play it. Quit hawkin on peoples personal opinions for a rise, Most of us here commenting are in agreement in that vanilla FO4 is lackluster and desperately needs to be improved up, more so than any previous vanilla bethesda title in comparison.

[Warmaker01]

I see a lot of people using previous Bethesda RPGs as examples are using Years of Mod-Induced Tinted Glasses in their comparisons. Strip away those mods that you guys downloaded, installed onto those games... What did you REALLY have underneath and compare it to what's in FO4? I'll give you already the stupid dialogue wheel of FO4. Horrible decision. But what else?

 

Well, equally to sit here and pretend that your tastes are the platinum standard of what gamers want, and talk about "what the game SHOULD have been", as some people don't seem to tire of doing, is just as untrue. I like it, for example. Those who don't, well, I feel for them, but they don't get to pretend they're speaking for everyone.

 

Nobody is trying to speak for everyone here, It's cool that you enjoy and are happy with the game... go play it. Quit hawkin on peoples personal opinions for a rise, Most of us here commenting are in agreement in that vanilla FO4 is lackluster and desperately needs to be improved up, more so than any previous vanilla bethesda title in comparison.

 

You have a thread on the internet and expect everyone to be in agreement with no voice of dissent?

Edited December 17, 2015 by Warmaker01