Comparisons with Skyrim

[Deleted31005User]

If I were to play Fallout 3 right now of course it would feel empty because its old and not on modern gaming standards, same can be said about Morrowind, but back in the old days those games were top of the line and they were groundbreaking.

My very simple point is this: Bethesda needs to innovate and evolve, its 2016 now and they should have learned way more about all those mods that were created over the years.

 

FA4 is not innovative, nor groundbreaking, at least not from where I'm sitting after playing it for a few weeks and I feel it went back so much on the RPG its not even worthy of a 'Bethesda' game.

And honestly, I never have gotten bored of any Bethesda game in that amount of time which is why I'm kind of butt-hurt and venting my frustration here on the forum :confused:

After all the hype and a few months waiting, I was ready to rock and roll in my new wasteland, but its simply not what I expected at all because it is devoid of anything that made the older games such huge successes.

 

I said my peace and I'll try to enjoy the game for what its worth, but once I burn out of it I'll just move on to something else.

 

 

EDIT: I just found this video that sums up exactly how I feel about the game, all points he makes are spot on:

Edited January 9, 2016 by Guest

[tcplotts]

Bethesda's invented the sandbox-shooter. Much easier than making a quality rpg, and bigger than a linear traditional shooter using checkpoints and missions. It's a pretty clever niche, especially if you want to sell the *illusion* of a big, story driven game without having to actually make one. I tip my cap to our gaming overlords.

 

So that's my comparison with Skyrim: they're fundamentally the same game.

 

Nothing wrong with that, btw, because it turns out this sandbox shooter thing can be pretty fun!

 

Nevertheless, as someone who is dying for genuine rpg play to return instead of these ersatz replacements, it's always disappointing. I had really high hopes for the FO franchise when Obsidian got back into the game again. And they absolutely nailed it--not technically, of course. Smaller house, bigger game=more bugs and glitches. But it was a major achievement. Truly multiple paths to completion, and some radically different. FO4 is like FO3--one base character with one base path to the end. Period. And man, do they lean on radiant/repeat quests for content and duration.

 

FO4 is okay, just as Skyrim was. It has some unexpected pleasant surprises--Covenant quest is a blast for a throwaway mission--and some solid npc characters, but the reality is that the two or three types of gamers that play these games are increasingly going in different directions with what they want. Older gamers want character range and depth, and story range and depth. They want true control over the path of the game. Younger ones appear to like making stuff to the point of distraction and shooting stuff in new and unique ways. I see so many posts talking about settlements this and that, or crafting this or that, and I realize just how out of step I am with the market now. Again, no one's right or wrong, it's just a sea change in taste.

[Boombro]

 

Bethesda's invented the sandbox-shooter. Much easier than making a quality rpg.

RPG/sand box shooters are already a thing.

 

And what with people belittling shooters? Ever played metro? Bioshock (not the last one)? Fear? Half life? Stalker? There is a good number of shooters that are true works of perfection and awesomeness overall. Calling a game a shooter to belittle it is just back firing and narrow minded. Everyone do yourself a favor and buy metro in the next steam sale for god sake.

 

PS:Shooters are more survival oriented than RPG games for those loving that.

 

 

Nevertheless, as someone who is dying for genuine rpg play to return instead of these ersatz replacements, it's always disappointing.

Beth games were never that however.

 

Look up pretty much any CRPGs.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Boombro

[tcplotts]

 

 

Bethesda's invented the sandbox-shooter. Much easier than making a quality rpg.

RPG/sand box shooters are already a thing.

 

 

Well, yes, and Bethesda invented them, which was my point.

 

And what with people belittling shooters?

 

 

 

 

You have several choices here. In my case, it's not at the level of principle. They're a poor substitute for character/story driven games. At face value, I have no problem with them, although they're not my thing most of the time.

 

 

Nevertheless, as someone who is dying for genuine rpg play to return instead of these ersatz replacements, it's always disappointing.

Beth games were never that however.

 

Yes and no. Morrowind's pretty straight rpg in the computer gaming sense of the term. Obviously there's some variation in what that term means to certain players, but there are core principles common among all the variations. First is that you are never roped into playing one way. There's always multiple *character* paths to an end. Quick example since I just finished doing it--I just did the initial intro quest for the BoS (ghoul fight at cambridge). I can play a jerk and not only not get a merc quest from Danse, but the quest marker remains to remind me that I "chose incorrectly", urging me to return to Danse and answer more appropriately this time. That's a major sin.

And nearly every game quest is just like this. The truth is that "renegade" option might as well be removed, since it largely serves no function other than to quest break or attitude decoration. 2 of the other responses are both vanilla boy scout--the 'more info' query and the cnfirmation/reject at the bottom of the wheel. The last on the left is the boy scout response utilizing the "HaHa " feature. Voila. 4 choices. All the same guy.

[Boombro]

 

Well, yes, and Bethesda invented them, which was my point.

Nah they are older than that.

 

 

You have several choices here. In my case, it's not at the level of principle. They're a poor substitute for character/story driven games.

They are shooters that deep story driven.

 

 

 

And nearly every game quest is just like this. The truth is that "renegade" option might as well be removed, since it largely serves no function other than to quest break or attitude decoration

So you want even less RP? Or more fallout to be story driven?

 

 

2 of the other responses are both vanilla boy scout--the 'more info' query and the cnfirmation/reject at the bottom of the wheel. The last on the left is the boy scout response utilizing the "HaHa ™" feature. Voila. 4 choices. All the same guy.

And? I don't get what are saying expect that the writing sucks.

[oldspice2625]

It does suck. You cannot... cannot say that this is good dialogue. How on earth can you come to that conclusion, playing the previous installments? Your choices have NO impact (I use the word "choice" lightly).

 

Face it. They screwed themselves by investing in voiced protags... that meant less money for dialogue since every word out of their mouth had to be paid for. Meaning less choice overall, because if you have diverging paths, you need new dialogue to flesh those out, that gets really expensive instead of having one predetermined outcome all of the time. I will play this game twice to finish the only two true endings it offers, then go back to the previous titles and pray that Bethesda learns from this horrid blight and mistake, and makes the new Elderscrolls better, meaning NO VOICED PROTAG so that they don't blow all of their money on the wrong things.

 

AND NO SETTLEMENT BUILDING!!!!!!!!! Leave that s#*! to Minecraft. I hate hate HATE that if I want to fill in this bland world, I have to do it myself. Some see that as "opportunity to be creative"... it's s#*! to me, and many others. It's an excuse to make me do their job for them, or at least part of it. I would have respected them for doing less unique locations and settlements, but making them BETTER, quality over quantity. many locations that are just empty until you fill them with bland NPCs that do nothing to further the story.

 

This game is an embarrassment to what Fallout was. I'm glad you take some of these changes in stride and deal with it... but it's s#*! to me. I expected more from them, and shame on them for doing a cash grab using the name Fallout to sell copies. They are capable of better. I'm disappointed at them, because I know that they can and have done better.

 

If everything else was as it was, and they made the dialogue better, I would like the game more. I'm dead f*#@ing serious about that. That miniscule change, of having no voiced protag and therefore more unique dialogue paths and choices, I would praise the game, even with this shitty settlement system. But no. Because it's "trendy" or something... the hell man? That's like having a PORTAL character have a voice or LINK from the Legend of Zelda serious have a voice, or Donkey Kong, or what have you... there is NO NEED for it. Hopefully, they learn a hard lesson and go back to doing what works.

[Warmaker01]

 

AND NO SETTLEMENT BUILDING!!!!!!!!! Leave that s*** to Minecraft. I hate hate HATE that if I want to fill in this bland world, I have to do it myself. Some see that as "opportunity to be creative"... it's s*** to me, and many others. It's an excuse to make me do their job for them, or at least part of it. I would have respected them for doing less unique locations and settlements, but making them BETTER, quality over quantity. many locations that are just empty until you fill them with bland NPCs that do nothing to further the story.

 

This game is an embarrassment to what Fallout was. I'm glad you take some of these changes in stride and deal with it... but it's s*** to me. I expected more from them, and shame on them for doing a cash grab using the name Fallout to sell copies. They are capable of better. I'm disappointed at them, because I know that they can and have done better.

 

If everything else was as it was, and they made the dialogue better, I would like the game more. I'm dead f***ing serious about that. That miniscule change, of having no voiced protag and therefore more unique dialogue paths and choices, I would praise the game, even with this shitty settlement system. But no. Because it's "trendy" or something... the hell man? That's like having a PORTAL character have a voice or LINK from the Legend of Zelda serious have a voice, or Donkey Kong, or what have you... there is NO NEED for it. Hopefully, they learn a hard lesson and go back to doing what works.

I do not know what kind of drugs you're taking for hating settlement building so much.

 

Modders have tried introducing this aspect into FO3 and such with limited, varying degrees of success. FO4 puts that in officially. Bethesda should have done a better job explaining the system as well as opening up more building choices. Settlement building is a huge thing in this game now, even though you yourself don't like it. Hell, the game doesn't really demand you to do it extensively except for some very rudimentary, quest related stuff. Even then, you can drop that newly acquired settlement and not do anything with it. You are not required to pursue it. However, even though YOU don't like it, the players and mod community have said otherwise. A significant portion of FO4's mods are based on Settlement Building. Again, some things could have been done better with this part of the game but it is a large addition to the game and franchise.

[Boombro]

But link does have a voice, he gasps and stuff.

 

Any how it bad system? While beth does it very poorly, it a great RPG asset.

 

We are talking about making your own farm, your own fort, your own town, your own shack and your own trade empire. How is that bad to an RPG game?

 

I don't see how it doesn't fit fallout games, wastelanders have their own shacks, farms and shanty towns, why not me too?

Edited January 10, 2016 by Boombro

[Moraelin]

You know what I don't get, though? Why are people so butthurt by something that's entirely optional in the first place?

 

You CAN finish the game without making a single settlement or building anything. There are about three dozen pre-existing vendors in the game, which is more than FO3 had, spread across more pre-existing places than FO3 ever had too.

 

Even if you absolutely want Preston as a companion (which, given how many people hate him, doesn't seem likely,) you only need to build 5 beds, about 3.5 food, 2 water pumps and two turrets in Sanctuary Hills and leave it at that, then do Tenpints Bluff and build two turrets there and leave it at that. Done.

 

Hell, even if you want to do the Minutemen ending, you only need 8 settlements total, including the Castle and Sanctuary Hills. But again, there are enough pre-existing settlements in the game for that, and you can just ally them and not build a recruitment tower. They'll have enough beds and crops to sustain their 2-3 settlers, and at most you might want to build like 2 or 3 turrets so they don't get attacked much.

 

But you don't actually HAVE to have the Minutemen at all, much less do their ending, so don't jump at some "See? I still have to build a dozen turrets before the game ends! WAAAAH! The horror!" You CAN just ignore the Minutemen and just go with one of the three warring factions.

 

So what the hell?

 

Since when it is Beth's fault if a few people can't say "no"? And how would it be better role-playing if there were fewer choices like that? RP doesn't mean being railroaded down a track where you can check all checkboxes and call it a perfectly finished game.

 

Seems to me like the fault isn't as much with Beth, as with the fact that some people just need to learn to say "no." And occasionally saying "no" is a good idea anyway. You can get pregnant otherwise :wink:

[JimboUK]

If I were to play Fallout 3 right now of course it would feel empty because its old and not on modern gaming standards, same can be said about Morrowind, but back in the old days those games were top of the line and they were groundbreaking.

My very simple point is this: Bethesda needs to innovate and evolve, its 2016 now and they should have learned way more about all those mods that were created over the years.

 

FA4 is not innovative, nor groundbreaking, at least not from where I'm sitting after playing it for a few weeks and I feel it went back so much on the RPG its not even worthy of a 'Bethesda' game.

And honestly, I never have gotten bored of any Bethesda game in that amount of time which is why I'm kind of butt-hurt and venting my frustration here on the forum :confused:

After all the hype and a few months waiting, I was ready to rock and roll in my new wasteland, but its simply not what I expected at all because it is devoid of anything that made the older games such huge successes.

 

I said my peace and I'll try to enjoy the game for what its worth, but once I burn out of it I'll just move on to something else.

 

 

EDIT: I just found this video that sums up exactly how I feel about the game, all points he makes are spot on:

 

Thanks for sharing that video, he feels exactly the same way I do. The game is sold as an RPG and in reality it's nothing like one, it's a shooter, a poor mans Far Cry set in the Fallout universe. For me the real killer is the lack of any reputation system, it makes the world unresponsive, it's no more than a movie set, nothing I do matters or makes any difference. I've done forty hours and I can't think of much to say about it that's positive, the graphics are OK and nowhere near as bad as some make out, however the writing, the AI, the settlement building, the animations, the story, and just about everything else is sub par, I've played mods with higher production values.

 

I'm done with Bethesda, they're trading on past glories and hype now, I shudder to think what the next Elder Scrolls or Fallout game will be like.