So, Do you play FO4 as a male or female?

[Moraelin]

Well, mine was half romulan, half human. Mostly because nobody made a supermutant race with pointy ears, mind you. :wink:

 

That said, hmm, most ST games were more like adventure than Fallout style, but then the new Star Trek movies are a lot more about spectacular battles than TOS and TNG style showing that you can solve problems with smarts and diplomacy. So a FO4 style ST game... I guess it could happen. And Beth could probably write a decent story for it. Probably not Bioware level, but it might be a second best. Edit: well, third best, after Obsidian too.

 

TBH, what I'd like Beth to get into making is more like their old Terminator games. Can you imagine something like GTA 5, except with a terminator and in first person? Hell, you don't even have to imagine, if you've played the old ones, 'cause that's what they were. You could literally jack a car and run people over before there even was a GTA game.

 

Pity that more recent Terminator movies drove interest in the Terminator world into the ground, though. So I'm not really holding my breath.

 

Ah well...

[Fkemman11]

I agree that you do have some pretty interesting ideas there Moraelin. That's what gaming is all about really. Stretching ones imagination. The problem I have with FO4 is it is hard for me to break from realism- if that makes any sense. So much of the game is based on a not to far-fetched idea of a post apocalyptic world that I constantly find myself trying to make it more realistic. This is probably true for some others as well. So its not a lack of imagination on my part I don't think, its more about you know, can I really carry 500 lbs. of gear through rough terrain? Why isn't that raider freaking dead after I shot him in the face with a shotgun? So it seems to be a believability issue with me which pretty much blocks my imagination from really taking off. Granted I am not quite as imaginative as you but I can cook up some pretty wild stuff when I want to. I had an American Indian char that was going to go SAVAGE on the CW. I mean headdress, tomahawk, and maybe some voodoo stuff besides with war paint and some scalping if I could figure out how. But I finally ditched her for my new char based on the singer from the Cranberries. :rolleyes: :happy:

[Moraelin]

Well, to be fair, I can't take credir for all those ideas. Some actually come from the voices in my head :wink:

 

*Ahem* More seriously, yeah, you're not kidding, there ARE realism issues that are hard to explain if you think about it. (That said, I'm not sure that the units are even pounds, because then all weights make no sense. You'd have rifles weighing 25 pounds, and they don't look like a 14.5mm PTRS or anything.)

 

I'm strictly speaking about the recurring "women should be weaker" issue, that some people have, though. Which, it seems to me, they're not even forced to deal with anyway, unlike your having to haul loot uphill both ways.

 

I mean, the way I see it, it all boils down to the crucial question: Well, do they even want to play as Nora? Yes, or no?

 

 

1. If not, then Nora's stats or skills don't even matter. She just gets to *ahem* chill back in the pod in vault 111, while Nate does all the work. She's not going to have any badass survival skills in their game, seein' as she couldn't even survive the intro :tongue:

 

Some people just seem to have an issue with the fact that OTHER people play as Nora, or really the female version in any game. Which seems strange for a single player game. Whether someone ELSE is playing a woman, or for that matter even stuff like my half-romulan half-orion with a bat'leth in Skyrim, or my running around with a lightsaber and two bodyguards in Stormtrooper armours in NV, doesn't really affect them. (And I keep bringing up Skyrim, because a lot of people raised a HUGE stink on Something Awful and other sites, about people playing a cute woman instead of a burly beardy Viking guy like the gods apparently intended it to be played. It ranked up there with the recurring rage against "anime" mods.)

 

Now if they had to group with my character, yeah, I can see how my running around as a Miraluka sith or a Star Trek character would break the immersion for them. Majorly, even. But they don't.

 

 

2. And if yes, they did want to play as Nora, then.... why is Nora's having combat skills something bad? Did they want to play it as some nightmare difficulty version, or...?

 

Well, if anyone's problem is that it's still easy, they can just jack up the difficulty to Survival. Then Nora takes a lot of damage and does very little damage. Problem solved.

 

And if Survival still ain't enough, there are mods that make the game even harder. Hell, I can personally make them a mod that makes enemies randomly crit on the PC for devastating damage, if they ask nicely :tongue:

 

 

So really, unlike the realism issues that you correctly mentioned, I'm not sure why the gender issue is even an issue for anyone.

[Moraelin]

dang that's an awesome what-if...

a decent Mad Max styled terminator game,

free-roam and all, wow.

Ayup, at least one of Beth's Terminator games in the 90's was literally that. You could storm a building looking for Sarah Connor, or chill at the park and watch people walk their dog. Or jack a car and drive through the middle of the park and run them and their dog over.

 

It's not even my idea, it's Beth's idea. It's what the game was like.

 

Well, with 90's graphics, mind you, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be any worse if you made it with modern high-poly models and 4k textures.

[TKayFire]

 

Going "BUT BUT THERE IS NO DIALOGUE OPTION SAYING THE WIFE IS BETTER!" doesn't mean anything, at all. It's all about how you role-play. That's literally the whole point of a role-playing game.

 

 

Let's hope they make a game without dialogue or story for you so you can pretend stuff happens and call it role playing. Because, you know, how the story is told isn't important at all.

 

Look the game doesn't need to tell me this, I get that. But I'd like some effort from story writers to actually have the game make sense without me having to pretend it makes sense. If I have to fill in the blanks on such mundane things for it to work it's all over for story writers in video games everywhere. I realize that Bethesda is probably one of the worst story tellers of any video game creator, but it's not going to stop me from making the point.

 

There's already so much BS in this game you have to accept. Like the Main character waking up after 200 years and acting like she's been part of the new world for years. Or like the main character joining a group of idiots (any faction) and ignoring their missing child. Yea they'd rather grow crops than look for someone that was taken from you like 10 minutes ago. The list is huge and there's only so much I can role-play away.

[Moraelin]

There is a lot of actual BS in the game, that much is true. But you still have the freedom to fill in your own story for the parts that are left open, and quite deliberately so, I'd add. You may decide to follow the parts that ARE there, but the notion that you can't go against what ISN'T mentioned at all, is pure silliness. You're not a flippin' NPC, doomed to follow someone else's story, and be lost if you find yourself in any situation where they forgot to tell you what to do, what to say, and verily evem what to think.

 

Doubly so for the notion that Beth is bad at it if they left some bit up to you, instead of telling you everything. If you want action on rails, where everything is in the hands of the storyteller, then watch a movie or read a book.

 

 

Never mind that even outside games, the notion that if you don't know X, then the X is false (or equally, then X is true), is a textbook fallacy: the argument from ignorance. If you don't know, then you don't know. That's all you can say. The notion that you can pretend to know what Nora did or could or whatever, because the game DIDN'T tell you which it is, is just absurd. It's failing elementary logic. Epically.

 

You can formulate a hypothesis, but if it's contradicted by what actually happens in the game, then it's your hypothesis that's wrong, not the game.

 

If I have to fill in the blanks on such mundane things for it to work it's all over for story writers in video games everywhere.

Except for the fact that you don't. Nobody forces you to even play Nora, much less fill in any backstory for her, if you absolutely lack the interest or imagination. The whole butthurt act that comes back again and again is about the fact that SOMEONE ELSE may take her for a spin as anything else than helpless housewife in distress. Which, honestly, is what makes the whole thing incredibly absurd.

 

 

And it seems to be one of the very few and very specific topics where people start suddenly caring about what might happen on someone else's computer. Even actual BS that everyone has to deal with doesn't seem to elicit NEARLY the same kind of butthurt wailing as that someone might be playing a capable woman, on their own computer, and in the privacy of their own home. And other stuff that's equally optional, hardly even raises an eyebrow or two.

 

E.g., at the risk of repeating myself, Fallout 1 had a premade character that was literally retarded. Not as a slur or insult, but medically speaking that guy had to be AT LEAST category 3 retarded, but probably worse. His int of 2 was (and still is in any previous game) literally the cut-off point where it's reflected in his speech, in a major way. That guy LITERALLY had a lower IQ than Dogmeat. It's not at the point where he's a little slow, but where realistically he wouldn't be able to figure out who's a raider. And that's not thge worst you could do. You could give your character an intelligence of ONE, which is even dumber.

 

But did anyone raise a stink about how it totally breaks their suspension of disbelief if even SOMEONE ELSE plays such a character and manages to actually beat the game? Nah. That gets filed under funny YouTube videos about the character's unique dialogue choices.

 

 

But just mention that a woman might be able to function as anything else than stay-at-home mom -- and again, in someone ELSE's game, that they don't even ever have to see -- and out comes the outrage. Now THAT somehow totally breaks realism. You can have dragons in a game, aliens, magic, Luke Skywalkers uncle and aunt in New Vegas (I'm not kidding), immortal ghouls that don't need to eat, breathe or have a heat signature, or really whatever, and THAT obviously doesn't break realism. But may the gods help us all if anyone out there is playing a capable woman...

 

So, you know, to put it as politely as I can, I hope I can be excused if I think it's not realism that is really their problem.

[TKayFire]

It's not about Nora. It's not about selecting a female character. It's about Bethesda's inability to write a decent story and character background. I don't know where you're getting that I think she would be an incapable woman. Your post is riddled with assumptions, but you're not addressing the actual issue. The characters and their background are part of the main story. It should mean something. You can't just say it's ok for Bethesda to do a half assed job and put up the excuse that you should role-play what Bethesda forgot to do. If you want to go full on role play then there should be no story. In fact there should also be no pre war sequence, no Dad, no Shaun, nothing. Just role play it. but Bethesda didn't do that, because they want to give you a story. They want the characters to have an attachment and to have a purpose in the game. Is it so bad that I point out where Bethesda messed up?

 

And to be absolutely clear again it has nothing to do with women. You guys are so blinded by the "I have to defend women" quest you're on that you can't see what I'm trying to get at.

[CiderMuffin]

It's not about Nora. It's not about selecting a female character. It's about Bethesda's inability to write a decent story and character background. I don't know where you're getting that I think she would be an incapable woman. Your post is riddled with assumptions, but you're not addressing the actual issue. The characters and their background are part of the main story. It should mean something. You can't just say it's ok for Bethesda to do a half assed job and put up the excuse that you should role-play what Bethesda forgot to do. If you want to go full on role play then there should be no story. In fact there should also be no pre war sequence, no Dad, no Shaun, nothing. Just role play it. but Bethesda didn't do that, because they want to give you a story. They want the characters to have an attachment and to have a purpose in the game. Is it so bad that I point out where Bethesda messed up?

 

And to be absolutely clear again it has nothing to do with women. You guys are so blinded by the "I have to defend women" quest you're on that you can't see what I'm trying to get at.

Dude, you're saying Bethesda has to make it obvious that Nora had weapons training in order for her to "make sense" in a post-apoc world simply because she is a housewife. We make decent points and all you go is "Bethesda is bad at it because they didn't make a line about Nora being a better shot"

 

That line alone says more about you then anything else.

[TKayFire]

 

It's not about Nora. It's not about selecting a female character. It's about Bethesda's inability to write a decent story and character background. I don't know where you're getting that I think she would be an incapable woman. Your post is riddled with assumptions, but you're not addressing the actual issue. The characters and their background are part of the main story. It should mean something. You can't just say it's ok for Bethesda to do a half assed job and put up the excuse that you should role-play what Bethesda forgot to do. If you want to go full on role play then there should be no story. In fact there should also be no pre war sequence, no Dad, no Shaun, nothing. Just role play it. but Bethesda didn't do that, because they want to give you a story. They want the characters to have an attachment and to have a purpose in the game. Is it so bad that I point out where Bethesda messed up?

 

And to be absolutely clear again it has nothing to do with women. You guys are so blinded by the "I have to defend women" quest you're on that you can't see what I'm trying to get at.

Dude, you're saying Bethesda has to make it obvious that Nora had weapons training in order for her to "make sense" in a post-apoc world simply because she is a housewife. We make decent points and all you go is "Bethesda is bad at it because they didn't make a line about Nora being a better shot"

 

That line alone says more about you then anything else.

 

I didn't say that at all. Fine guys do whatever you want. It seems you've got it all figured out.

[Moraelin]

It's not about Nora. It's not about selecting a female character. It's about Bethesda's inability to write a decent story and character background. I don't know where you're getting that I think she would be an incapable woman. Your post is riddled with assumptions, but you're not addressing the actual issue. The characters and their background are part of the main story. It should mean something. You can't just say it's ok for Bethesda to do a half assed job and put up the excuse that you should role-play what Bethesda forgot to do. If you want to go full on role play then there should be no story. In fact there should also be no pre war sequence, no Dad, no Shaun, nothing. Just role play it. but Bethesda didn't do that, because they want to give you a story. They want the characters to have an attachment and to have a purpose in the game. Is it so bad that I point out where Bethesda messed up?

Well, they gave you more than a line that you may be a synth designed for some survival experiment.

 

And there's also the fact that you have unusual capabilities that point that-a-way. E.g., consider this: the V in VATS stands for Vault-Tec. It's targetting enhancement is supposed to run on a PipBoy, and that's explicitly mentioned in both FO3 and NV. But in FO4, you can do it, and you're told by the tutorial to do it, BEFORE you get a PipBoy. So I guess it can just run in your head. Well, you know who can run pre-war software in their heads? Synths, according to the Emergent Behaviour quest. And you know specifically which synths get circuitry and software up there that deals with specifically targetting? Coursers do.

 

I actually wasn't kidding when I said that you COULD be an experimental Gen 4 courser.

 

So there you go. That could be how you can shoot so well, or identify hostile raiders on sight, or identify every single mine you have line of sight to.

 

But, oh wait, apparently that still doesn't count as an explanation, because it still doesn't say specifically that they gave synth Nora the memories of a commando trooper :tongue:

 

 

But even with the synth angle, I not sure,

A) compared to what, and

B) what gives you the idea that story-telling is a one-way street in an RPG.

 

In fact, not only is an RPG not the same as watching a movie, but it's actually SUPPOSED to be, you know, interactive. As I was saying, you're not an NPC scripted by someone else. And not just on the computer.

 

And leaving enough of your back story out is actually intentional, especially in a game without classes, so that you don't feel compelled to act according to the story THEY give you. You can make up your own reason for why you do or don't do X.

 

And everyone does that, which brings me to to the "as opposed to what?"

 

E.g., in DA:O I could seduce Leliana with a female character, or respectively I can seduce the male elf with a male character. Does Bioware owe me some line in advance saying that my character is gay? Or that, as Penny Arcade put it, it's not gay if it's with an elf? Well, they didn't because they leave it up to me to decide what my character is or isn't.

 

E.g., in Gothic, the first character you meet tells you point blank that they don't care who you are. And for the rest of the game it's left at that. Not only you're not told what your character can do, or for that matter what got him a life sentence without possibility of parole into that max security prison (and I mean, if he's some serial killer, maybe I shouldn't work to get him out), but you never even get a name.

 

Etc.