The Game the Intro Promised

[TeamBacon]

I wasn't trying to start an argument. I don't like the game. This is the first and last time I get caught up in Hype, it's a lesson that cost me $90. I HATED Fallout 3 vanilla, but it at least was an RPG.

 

But this isn't about that. Could Bethesda give us the game the intro promised? Is it possible? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Bu I'm guessing from the reactions, the consensus is Bethesda tells terrible stories and good writing is beyond them.

 

I'm sorry, but you are going to have lots, and lots, and lots of disappointment going forward in life. You might want to consider finding a different hobby than videogames or possibly learning to design them yourself if you are unsatisfied with that is being made.

 

This is the future, it isn't just Bethesda, the entire industry is going in this way. I call it evolution. The days of late 1990s CRPGs is long gone, and the day of 'action rpgs' and 'walking simulators' is among us.

 

 

 

Anyways, good story is a matter of opinion.

 

I think Fallout 4 had a great story.

I think Fallout 3 had the worst in the franchise.

I think New Vegas had a bad story but better than 3.

I think Tactics had a good plot but you have to infer any personal connection to the game

I think Fallout 2's story was overrated but still great.

I think Fallout 1's story was fresh and great.

 

 

 

But I still had a great time playing through Fallout 4's story and enjoying 90 hours of vanilla gameplay. Well worth twice the money I payed for it.

[CyrusAmell]

*700 hours playing the game*

 

What is everyone talking about?

[Dysthe]

I think that a lot of Fallout's problem is that it's undecided where it wants to go. People want different games out of Fallout, and because Bethesda tries to satisfy the whole community, it isn't very in-depth, or well-done.

 

You've got survivalists, Mad Max warriors, lore purists, rpg stat and replay kings, hardcore or nothing players, dime and nickel shooters, pulp junkies, 50s lovers, camp queens, sci-fi blasters, Sims refugees, fascists with 44 magnums, Bioware romance lovers, jiggly fat deposits with soft anime eyes, and people who want to mow down zombies. Everyone thinks that their idea of Fallout is the right Fallout. The ideas are contradictory. The canon is contradictory.

 

When I look at the intro, I see a different game, but it isn't necessarily the same game that you're seeing.

 

I want historical fiction (a what-if) twenty years after the bomb, with allowances to 50s futurism and propaganda, that deals with McCarthyism, the Cold War, and the rebuilding of government after a catastrophic disaster. I want it to be deadly serious, with short, brutal combat, an emphasis on killing people over creatures, if any, isolated, human-like super-mutants and ghouls. I want the landscape to tell a story. I want few, living people - no three conversations let's date, go do a pickup quest. I want accurate guns and armor, which means historical, no anachronisms, no M16s, no eighties Mad Max raiders. I don't care about hardcore or tough choices or balancing stats or perks.

 

I want it to feel like it is 1975, and I left the vault to explore a strange new world.

[jjb54]

I wasn't trying to start an argument. I don't like the game. This is the first and last time I get caught up in Hype, it's a lesson that cost me $90. I HATED Fallout 3 vanilla, but it at least was an RPG.

 

But this isn't about that. Could Bethesda give us the game the intro promised? Is it possible? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Bu I'm guessing from the reactions, the consensus is Bethesda tells terrible stories and good writing is beyond them.

 

It's not an argument - I find it good to hear other people's opinions and thoughts.

 

Sometimes I read something that makes me go, "Okay, you know .. I had not thought of it that way."

 

So I am fine with threads like this and hey even a little heated is okay. Just don't make / take it personally.

 

A little heated passion is not a bad thing.

[charwo]

I think that a lot of Fallout's problem is that it's undecided where it wants to go. People want different games out of Fallout, and because Bethesda tries to satisfy the whole community, it isn't very in-depth, or well-done.

 

You've got survivalists, Mad Max warriors, lore purists, rpg stat and replay kings, hardcore or nothing players, dime and nickel shooters, pulp junkies, 50s lovers, camp queens, sci-fi blasters, Sims refugees, fascists with 44 magnums, Bioware romance lovers, jiggly fat deposits with soft anime eyes, and people who want to mow down zombies. Everyone thinks that their idea of Fallout is the right Fallout. The ideas are contradictory. The canon is contradictory.

 

When I look at the intro, I see a different game, but it isn't necessarily the same game that you're seeing.

 

I want historical fiction (a what-if) twenty years after the bomb, with allowances to 50s futurism and propaganda, that deals with McCarthyism, the Cold War, and the rebuilding of government after a catastrophic disaster. I want it to be deadly serious, with short, brutal combat, an emphasis on killing people over creatures, if any, isolated, human-like super-mutants and ghouls. I want the landscape to tell a story. I want few, living people - no three conversations let's date, go do a pickup quest. I want accurate guns and armor, which means historical, no anachronisms, no M16s, no eighties Mad Max raiders. I don't care about hardcore or tough choices or balancing stats or perks.

 

I want it to feel like it is 1975, and I left the vault to explore a strange new world.

 

Now that's interesting. I want the retrofuturism in style, but not technology, because let's face it, we're on track for autonomous robots about the same time as the Fallout universe, and you can't build those without transistors. I want all the logical integration of wiz bang technology, with tales of how people survived or died as technology allowed them to. I want fewer raiders and more OPPRESSION, more Ashurs and Caesars, and Houses, and less Fiends. I want to understand why raiding is a viable choice or say, mountain manning, or living off the land far from civilization. If you're going to build a settlement, I want characters, real (interpersonal) problems, dealing with refugees who really have no skills, securing power sources, presiding over marriages and funerals and seeing to the little one's education. I got more of a wasteland elder experience playing Banner Saga than I did anything in Fallout 4. I want the Mad Max experience (with cars) but I want it in an era (no further than the 2080s) when that makes sense because there's too many people and not enough infrastructure to go around. And I want the lessons of Life After People and Chernobyl 30 years on to be incorporated into the world building.

 

And....I want a much more in depth Fallout Shelter, with pre-war, war, and post war segments that play kinda like Outpost, with investigations so you can find out and prevent whatever social experiment you're supposed to have, make sure you get two Gecks, you train enough scientists to reverse engineer GECKS post war, and be able to create a Vault City to trade with local survivors. And of course building the biggest Vault possible pre-war so you can except as many refuges as possible.

[HoneyBearSquish]

Absolutely love Fallout 4, in retrospect i would pay 100$ for the base game, and 50$ for each dlc, but that's just my opinion :P

[Narfiam]

For me, buying a Bethesda game expecting a good narrative is like going to the Vatican square expecting a sex party.

 

The virtue of Bethesda's games is offering a great sandbox experience, not a good narrative.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Narfiam

[Boombro]

For me, buying a Bethesda game expecting a good narrative is like going to the Vatican square expecting a sex party.

 

The virtue of Bethesda's games is offering a great sandbox experience, not a good narrative.

I have to agree with this.

 

Been playing since oblivion, writing is pass-able 90% of the time, but npc ai (not combat ai) level of detail, the cities, landscaping and replaying value is best in the market and rare to find in other games. And let say buying them for writing is a really dump.

 

Have to say writing did step up in Fo4 though.

[ddavies10693]

You want a great story with believable characters you actually care about? Try the witcher 3. As said above, Bethesda's story writing and character development has never been up to par with the likes of Bioware or even CDPR apparently. However they focus on massive worlds, and freedom of choice with their games, which is also enjoyable. It's kind of trade off I guess.

 

Personally, I wish I played this game in it's entirety before I even picked up the witcher 3, because that game sets the bar so high in terms of writing, pacing and character development. I felt more attached to Ciri after the 20 minute long dream prologue of that game then I did to Shaun after 200 hours in fallout 4.

[CalibanX]

I think there's also a tension between how articulated a video game story is between games that allow for a greater degree of freedom vs those that corral the player down a path of narrower options in order to tell a tighter story.

Bethesda games are all about the world. I do the quests out of curiosity, but what keeps me playing for hundreds of hours is just exploring the world and trying different builds with multiple characters. While the Elder Scrolls games may not have great stories, they do have a great amount of lore the player can explore if they want to. Although Fallout doesn't really have the same level of lore that was available to the player in Skyrim. There's a history with the Fallout world and you can read log entries in terminals, but it's not equivalent to all of the books available to read in Skyrim.