Fallout 4: delusion or great game?

[TeamBacon]

 

 

There aren't many open world games to compare this against. My main gripe with Bethesda is, they haven't really moved forward in terms of immersion for 14 years. I mean, I'm not asking much. Your very own settlers or underlings not calling you synth or robber would go a long way. Or like not reacting as if they saw you the first time, even if you happened to save their butts just the other day. Everyone's suffering from dementia in all Beth games.

 

That it is possible, is prove by a mod I got installed, which takes care of these stupid lines and replaces them with some actually making sense under the current circumstances. Why Beth couldn't rise up to at least that level in more than a decade is beyond me.

 

 

But if you can't find other games that have done it better, then what can you say?

 

I haven't played all the games out there, I haven't played The Witcher, some people say it is better, I don't know. There is a lot I don't know. But even if one game ever has done it better, can you really fault a game just for not being the absolute best?

 

But I have yet to play any game that really did considerably better. I think Mass Effect 2 and 3 did better in a lot of ways, but not in every way. But then again, I personally think Mass Effect 2 and 3 are the best games ever. Fallout 4 is up there in my top 5 though.

 

*Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy X, Fallout 4, Life is Strange in case you were curious... all of which are very story driven and that is really how I judge my games*

[cossayos]

 

 

But if you can't find other games that have done it better, then what can you say?

 

 

 

 

I said, hardly any open world games. There are quite a number of games I like better because they offer more in terms of immersion. DA:I is on the border to offering something of an open world and it's certainly better in how you are able to form your own character and have the world reacting to it.

 

I said it earlier, maybe not in this thread. Bethesda games aren't RPGs. They are sandboxes to explore. Always were. I was more lenient with Morrowind, since the concept was novel back then and there haven't been very many story driven RPGs in any case. Back then I chalked up the non reactive environment to general limitations in what you could achieve with the technology available.

 

Now, 14 years later, and, as I said, still having the feeling of playing Morrowind in shiny cloths, I'm not as forgiving. Even more so, since single modders, without resources or teams, were able to come up with much better concepts than the game company itself. And so I repeat, if it weren't for the modding community, I probably wouldn't bother with Beth games anymore.

[bobofudd]

Against what the Fallout IP offers for game devs, and the time period from the last Fallout game from Beth (FO3), and the power of the platforms FO4 ended up releasing on, the game was a PUTRID FAILURE- cheap, nasty, cynical, and half-baked.

Maybe this is part of the problem with Bethesda and Fallout 4. Their games are in development for far too long (for what we end up with) and technology evolves midway through, leaving them with an even more outdated game than what they started with. At the pace technology does evolve, no company I think, could remain head of the curve and still provide a game playable to the masses when they are finished. Do you stop development and start over, making people wait for a decade? That's not a very good plan for making money to keep the company in business. I wouldn't hold it against them for something like that happening as the unknown is hard to plan for. But if you start development with an already outdated game plan, then that's something else.

[bLakZmOkeareOoouYyye]

It's a good game. Feels like fallout 1 & 2 with modern engine. It doesn't hold replay value forever but no videogame does. Still after my 10th+ playthrough I enjoy the excellent fluid gameplay. Story is alright but not best in series Edited July 9, 2016 by bLakZmOkeareOoouYyye

[Stronglav]

Someone donate to Bethesda so they can finally get NEW ENGINE for their games!!!

[bobofudd]

 

I haven't played all the games out there, I haven't played The Witcher, some people say it is better, I don't know. There is a lot I don't know. But even if one game ever has done it better, can you really fault a game just for not being the absolute best?

 

There is no perfect game. There will always be some aspect that could have been done better. I started Witcher 3 right before FO4 came out. FO4 interrupted that but I periodically switch back and forth. I've never played any of the previous Witcher games and I was extremely frustrated at how complex and confusing the menu system was. It just isn't very intuitive.

 

However, the visuals and storytelling are outstanding. The characters are unique and the story sucks you in at some point (the beginning was a tad bit slow to me but I think that was due to the learning curve and navigating the menu system). Enemies are challenging, even at lower levels and the game is fairly balanced with a much slower pace than what we see in Bethesda games. The most notable though is the voice acting. Probably some of the best I've seen in a game yet. I don't feel as if it is a true open world experience though like the Bethesda games, but it does serve as a great alternative.

 

W3 also demonstrates that Bethesda should have upped their quality a long time ago. W3 pulled off a great boat system that should have been in Skyrim or even FO4. There just isn't any excuse. Their games are fun but they could be so much more if they would just plan a little better.

[cossayos]

 

At the pace technology does evolve, no company I think, could remain head of the curve and still provide a game playable to the masses when they are finished.

 

 

For most game companies, technology doesn't evolve as quickly, since they cater to consoles as their primary platform. As long as there's one generation, they only have to fulfill their limitations. What we get are ports. Some of them on the shoddy side, some with a little more labor put into them.

 

Also, short development cycles aren't a good thing. It's a sure sign of companies cashing in with as little effort as possible. Such as the abomination that was DAII.

Edited July 9, 2016 by cossayos

[bobofudd]

 

For most game companies, technology doesn't evolve as quickly, since they cater to consoles as their primary platform. As long as there's one generation, they only have to fulfill their limitations. What we get are ports. Some of them on the shoddy side, some with a little more labor put into them.

 

Also, short development cycles aren't a good thing. It's a sure sign of companies cashing in with as little effort as possible. Such as the abomination that was DAII.

 

I agree that short dev cycles are a bad thing. It doesn't allow enough time for innovation to happen unless you have an army of creative people and really good leaders to guide them. But I think there's a difference between having a long dev cycle of 5+ years while delivering something truly innovative and fresh, and a long dev cycle of 5+ years and releasing the same quality stuff as a decade before it.

 

I understand too the business decisions behind designing for consoles first. I don't agree with it and think it really hurts innovation but from a money stand point it makes sense. I remember back in 2009 when I built my pc to specifically meet the specs to play Crysis on the highest settings. I couldn't go all the way but I came close enough and still have the same processor today, 7yrs later. I don't know what Crysis was built for but I would guess pc since it was able to wreck even the highest level pcs at that time, given all settings were maxed out. I just look at Bethesda and how much money they make off their games. I know their expensive to make but money shouldn't be an issue with them and I really wished they wouldn't design for outdated platforms. They have blown opportunities within their games to be truly innovative and we just aren't seeing that. With their game like TES, they should be designing for pcs and then dumbing them down for consoles. maybe then we all wouldn't be complaining so much.

[cossayos]

I understand too the business decisions behind designing for consoles first. I don't agree with it and think it really hurts innovation but from a money stand point it makes sense. I remember back in 2009 when I built my pc to specifically meet the specs to play Crysis on the highest settings. I couldn't go all the way but I came close enough and still have the same processor today, 7yrs later.

 

 

With the simple fact in mind, that game companies develop for consoles these days, I bought my rig for 330 last year. 2012 model, but sufficient to run DA:I on highest settings, GTA V on medium high and FO4 on high. The only bottleneck is my graphics card, which is a GTX 650ti. I hope to replace it against the new RX480 card this year. But the processor is strong enough to last me another five years, since there is no longer a race. Only meeting the requirements of the consoles and you're good to go.

[soupdragon1234]

I came to the game never having played any Fallout game before and after a steep learning curve I am addicted to it. Is it perfect ? No, of course not but in a game so big and with so many different aspects it could never be perfect.

The only worthwhile DLC was Far Harbor.

 

I have to agree I've never played a Fallout game before just like Skyrim was my first TES game and like that I'm loving it. Hours and hours just get sucked away blink and 3 or 4 hours have vanished just like that. Well until I came across a certain Deathclaw who makes me want to throw my controller out of the window, but thats another story.

 

I love Bethesda's sandbox games. I really do. I'm suckered in hook, line and sinker. I dislike being tied down to linear gameplay or endless quest driven stuff where I get bored and just want to wander off and explore the world at my leisure. Especially RPG's. I've never got them and I doubt I ever will. Clearly theres something in it as they're absurdly popular but like the recent Pokemon craze I find them bizaare and leave me scratching my head trying to figure out what the fuss is about, like the game-within-a-game card game Gwent. Whats that all about? Why would you want to play a card game while playing a videogame much less collect its cards?! I just don't get it. I've actually tried several new games lately and FO4 has really sucked me in whereas The Witcher 3 is the biggest disappointment I've had in quite some time, still waiting on a refund from Steam on that one. I feel its aimed at dedicated RPG'ers and leaves mainstream gamers out in the cold and I feel misled by all the hype surrounding it. I never learn. Never ever buy an RPG unless you're seriously into genre, I think Bethesda's titles suckered me into thinking they're RPG's when really they're not and that I'd actually like this one, which was a mistake.

 

As for long time Bethesda players being disappointed in it, well thats the just 1st Law of Videogaming, isn't it, never play a successor to a title you loved because you'll always be disppointed. You'll never capture that moment of joy and elation you had the first time round because playing a sequel will always be a case of more of the same and it'll never match the level of hype or expectation.

 

The only frustrating thing so far is the game engine simply refuses to recognise my monitor resolution, theres simply no excuse for it in this day and age TW3 has no problems with it, even the ancient Source engine game Black Mesa picks it up straightaways! Having to hack .ini files and widescreen HUD fixes is not my idea of fun. Strange really as everything else about the game's design is so polished from the professional and believeable Pip Boy to the slick comic book artwork to the nice 'n' easy progression that eases you into the games controls and gameplay, so unlike TW3 which basically tosses you in the deep end and simply leaves you splashing around wondering what on earth you're supposed to be doing and trying not to drown.

 

TW3's menus and map system look and feel amateurish and once you get away from the main chars its peripheral characters, villagers and the like are almost cartoonish whereas FO4's slick artwork and alternate-reality slice of slightly kitch 50's Americana and the art directors' obvious wisftul melancholia in portraying of a kind of American idyll long gone or a golden age of innocence, an american Paradise Lost, is a delight.

Edited July 16, 2016 by soupdragon1234