Comparisons with Skyrim

[Deleted31005User]

 

I shudder to think what the next Elder Scrolls or Fallout game will be like.

You and me both.

 

Bethesda for me was like a "God" company, one where I could get hooked on their game for months at a time and then install mods or even create some and those months would get stretched out to years.

It was like...a way of life to spend every single minute of my free time.

 

But now its gotten to the point where they lost me and I'm actually looking at other games for things that Bethesda did so well in the past.

Shooter games...come on, those are around everywhere already and I dislike having to shoot stuff 24/7, from now on I'm calling FA4 a shooter as well since it does make the most sense for what it truly is.

Not that a shooter is a bad thing, but I'm simply not a Call of Duty fanboy, if I want to play a shooter I'll just go back to playing Planetside 2 where I get to fight real people.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Guest

[Boombro]

 

 

I shudder to think what the next Elder Scrolls or Fallout game will be like.

 

 

You and me both.

 

Me too, this better be a phase.

If it not, well, I hope the new players have fun.

 

 

Not that a shooter is a bad thing, but I'm simply not a Call of Duty fanboy,

Who said anything about that trash?

If you really like the nuked world setting, try stalker. Metro if you were hardcore, bioshock if you want some cool story.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Boombro

[Moraelin]

You know, you can just play the game turn based by now, if shooters aren't your thing. I know there is at least one mod that turns off the VATS damage reduction and gives you like 100 AP per second regeneration, because I made it :tongue:

[Raycheetah]

 

 

 

I shudder to think what the next Elder Scrolls or Fallout game will be like.

 

 

You and me both.

 

Me too, this better be a phase.

If it not, well, I hope the new players have fun.

 

 

Sadly, that is for whom Bethesda appears to be making games. Those "new" players represent a whole lot more money, especially when many "old" players will continue to buy their products, as well. Brand loyalty is a powerful thing, even when product quality falls off (for another example, in a different genre, look at Diablo 3). Add to this the golden promise of the modding community, which Bethesda now counts on to salve the wounds of "old" players, at zero development cost to them.

 

FO4 will eventually approximate what most of us wanted to see in the first place. It may take a coupla years of modding, but the potential we all saw still remains. I just hope that, when the console crowd gets their first taste of mods, it comes back to bite Bethesda on the ass. After all, their horizons will be expanded, too, and it can be hoped that their standards of what makes a good game will be raised. ='[.]'=

[Boombro]

That not really new, many game devs done it before.

Let see, there is FF games for one.

[Spacemunkey79]

If Bethesda had released the game under the name " The Commonwealth: a Fallout Chronicle" and left all the lore retcons out I'm sure that a lot of the disappointment felt by people who assumed they were buying a proper Fallout game would have been lessened. Problem is this requires BGS to be original, but Bethesda is stagnant, any combat improvements are from them bringing in people from ID, base building nothing original there, and the MQ is a rehash of another vault dweller adventure only slightly altered from FO3 which was a rehash of FO1 complete with water issue.

[TheOriginalEvilD]

I don't think it makes any sense at all to compare these two games, and I don't think the Oblivion crisis even remotely almost sorta in a way a little bit compares to nuclear fallout. After the crisis ended, there were still living trees and grass and animals everywhere....after a nuclear blast nearly everything is dead and scorched, and then the radiation left over will plague the earth practically indefinitely. So, the fact that the Oblivion crisis is a distant memory in Skyrim after 200 years doesn't mean that nuclear fallout should be a distant memory in the Commonwealth after 200 years. It just doesn't work that way.

 

Beyond that, I have to agree there certainly does feel like there was more love and effort put into Skyrim than FO4. But, I also think that's sort of by nature. You can kind of slop out a wasteland and you can get away with using a lot of the same type of clutter, because that's how the modern world really is. In Skyrim they at least tried to make each hold have a character and a feel of its own. I'll give ya that.

 

As for size, well yeah Skyrim was bigger, no doubt about it. Even if you consider all the buildings you can enter vs. caves or tombs or whatever, Skyrim was just bigger in every way. Why, who knows. Maybe there's a crap load of DLC content waiting to correct that. Maybe they just chose to expand the landscape through DLC instead of making most of it come with the primary game. That's kinda BS, but it is what it is. At some point these threads amount to little more than pissing in the wind.

 

Comparing them to the other Fallout games, I definitely think story wise 3 and NV were leaps and bounds better. I don't feel at all compelled to find my son in 4...it just feels like an afterthought once the Minutemen machine starts grinding along. And then once you do find him, for me it was extremely predictable and a complete let down.

 

As for horses or cars in FO4, I think some kind of mounted animal makes total sense, and I think people absolutely would be riding horses, or whatever became of horses. If there are brahmin, there are horses. Whether or not they have two heads is anyone's guess. I think they left out things like this to make the landscape feel vast and empty. That's sort of the point of these games...barren, lifeless, lonely. Sometimes even having a dog or a companion sort of ruins it for me.

 

But, aaaaaall that aside, I still think this is a badass game and I think it's completely worth playing. If you focus so damn much on comparing one game to the next and constantly worrying about which one is better, you'll never be happy with anything. If nothing else, I think this game is going to make for a really great platform for modding and I can't wait to see how that unfolds.

[Boombro]

 

As for horses or cars in FO4, I think some kind of mounted animal makes total sense, and I think people absolutely would be riding horses, or whatever became of horses. If there are brahmin, there are horses.

They were wiped out.

 

And no, not all animals are fit to be mounted. For one, some think it would be cool to mount big dogs, but their backs weaker then horses, there is also handling, balancing, and more. Can you tell a brahmin to left, right, stop or jump?

[TheOriginalEvilD]

 

 

As for horses or cars in FO4, I think some kind of mounted animal makes total sense, and I think people absolutely would be riding horses, or whatever became of horses. If there are brahmin, there are horses.

They were wiped out.

 

And no, not all animals are fit to be mounted. For one, some think it would be cool to mount big dogs, but their backs weaker then horses, there is also handling, balancing, and more. Can you tell a brahmin to left, right, stop or jump?

 

 

So is it specifically written in the lore somewhere that horses are wiped out? Seems so unlikely that cows made it but horses, donkeys, mules, camels, etc didn't.

 

And yeah, you can train a cow to be ridden, they're just much slower and not as athletic as horses.

[Spacemunkey79]

Why would you need to ride a brahmin, plenty of prewar vehicles to attach them to like a wagon.