theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 7, 2015, 05:40:

Jerykk wrote on Aug 7, 2015, 01:57:

NewMaxx wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 21:52:

Ray Marden wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 19:21:
F4 doesn't seem like it is really pushing any new boundaries

Really? Huh. I got the opposite impression. New Vegas was more of the same, but FO4 seems to be adding way more advanced crafting, building, city and trade management, a new interface for power suits, a new skill system (from what I understand), better companion maintenance, and a whole lot more. That's what I gleaned from a video or two I've seen anyway. I don't think people want drastically different in other areas - it has to remain true to the Fallout universe and the engine needs to support modding to the extreme. To be honest when I saw the videos I was shocked by how many boundaries it was pushing.

New Vegas was better than FO3 is almost every way. Better quest design, better writing, better skill checks, better balancing, better perks, better companions, etc. It also added a needs system, greatly expanded crafting, a faction system, traits, iron sights, etc. FO4 is adding some new features too but nothing that would make it a better RPG. The writing will no doubt be as terrible as FO3's and the voiced protagonist, coupled with the 4-option dialogue wheel, means fewer dialogue options and less player agency.

Disagree. I didn't care for FO:NV at all. I found it to be a buggy, lazy release. After completing FO3 I had no interest in playing a glorified mod.

You constantly bash Bethesda for its storywriting but I really enjoy their games and think that the worlds they create are really rich and rewarding. You get far too caught up in whether they're good RPGs rather than whether they're good games.

FNV was no more buggy than FO3 (or any of BGS's other games) and I'm not sure why you call it "lazy." Sure, it had some recycled content (almost all sequels do, including the classic FO2) but it also had a ton of new, well-crafted content. I already listed all that stuff in my previous post. If we're going to talk about lazy, we should talk about the skill checks in FO3. Or the companions. Or the crafting. Or the quest design. Or the story. Or the dialogue. Or the loot. Or the perks. Or the lore. Bethesda is good at making big, detailed worlds that are fun to explore but they're pretty bad at everything else.

The Fallout name carries certain expectations with it. The first two games are classic RPGs known for player agency and reactivity with great writing and cohesive world design. It's perfectly reasonable to expect Fallout sequels to retain those things. FNV did, FO3 did not.

Eh, that still uses glitches. You can steal some weapons and stuff and basically run straight to Dagoth Ur and with a lot of skill kill him in ~ 15 minutes.

Creston wrote on Aug 7, 2015, 12:31:
Err, you could complete the "main quest" in Morrowind in like 15 minutes,

3 minutes and 14 seconds

Task wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 23:04:

jacobvandy wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 21:48:

The "filler" is the game. You're missing the entire point of what they do if you truly believe that.

Well sure, its what their games are now - I'm not going to deny that. One of my favorite Beth games is Morrowind though, which was a lot longer story-wise. Surely they could put more thought into a story and have a sandbox on the side.

Err, you could complete the "main quest" in Morrowind in like 15 minutes, so I'm not sure why you're bashing Skyrim for being just 4 hours, and then saying that Morrowind is so freaking fabulous.

gravity wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 19:46:

The_Pink_Tiger wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 19:35:
No level cap, eh?

First thing I'm doing when I get Fallout 4 is opening the console and typing in:

player.setlevel 4294967297

And if that works, I'm trying 18446744073709551617

(That's 2^32 +1 and 2^64 +1 respectively).
Because I bet there's gonna be a limit SOMEWHERE

(and then I'm gonna bitch about false advertising on the Internet ;-)

That's a BIT.. of humor...

Both of you. OUT!

I liked FO3 when I first played it. I played it as myself. I put myself in the game and do what I would do in that situation. Then when I played it a second time after the GOTY release, it really sunk in how crappy the story was. It makes no sense when you really pay attention to it. I created a different character personality, played it a different style, yet the game was the same. No matter how long you take to progress along the linear man quest, you always seem to have just missed your dad. So how is it I had to fight my way through a ghoul infested metro and super mutant infested city and didn't see a single dead body? Does dad have some kind of super sneak skills or unlimited supply of stealth boys?

The only reactivity you get out of FO3 is the DJ on the radio either praising or bashing you for how you handled things, nobody else seems to give a shit. In the end, you're just progressing down a linear story line, no matter if you want to or not. Never do you get the option to make a choice of your own like, hey these Enclave guy's have the right idea, I want to help them instead of these BOS a-holes. The side quests really served no purpose at all other than filler. Basically, this sums it up better than I can.

I'm currently playing New Vegas again, and each time it's like a different game. I've had this conversation comparing the two over and over on other forums since FO4's announcement. Someone posted this video which echoes what I've been saying, but in a more elaborate way.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 7, 2015, 05:40:
Disagree. I didn't care for FO:NV at all. I found it to be a buggy, lazy release. After completing FO3 I had no interest in playing a glorified mod.

You constantly bash Bethesda for its storywriting but I really enjoy their games and think that the worlds they create are really rich and rewarding. You get far too caught up in whether they're good RPGs rather than whether they're good games.

RPG stands for roleplaying game so that's pretty reasonable to judge them based on that. I disagree with your assessment of New Vegas, there was nothing lazy about it. If anything it was too ambitious in some respects and a lot of the games bugs were due to advanced quest scripting that the engine could barely accommodate. Calling it a glorified mod is simply incorrect, the depth of content alone goes well beyond any mod or expansion pack. That said I don't think everything in New Vegas was better than Fallout 3, they both had strengths and weaknesses.

They are both good games in their own right. New Vegas has an actual story with good writing, it has interesting consequences for your decisions and crazy amounts of branching in many quests. Fallout 3 had better world building and exploration, I spent hours just wandering around finding cool things and I enjoyed that far more than the main quest.

I hope one day someone can meld both approaches successfully, both were good but flawed games that just short of excellence.

For sure Beth FO games are definitely not great strategy RPG's - that flew out the window a long time ago. Personally, I think they are over-rated.

And with every new location, Beth does the same thing - includes ghouls and super mutants or the Brotherhood of Steel as if anything/anyone can migrate across the irradiated Wasteland of the U.S. They should try to step outside the box instead of always been a Vault person; always having pipboys, etc. and so forth.

Anyways everyone has their tastes; liking it, not liking it, doesn't make a lot of difference.

This comment was edited on Aug 7, 2015, 09:16.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 7, 2015, 05:40:
You constantly bash Bethesda for its storywriting but I really enjoy their games and think that the worlds they create are really rich and rewarding. You get far too caught up in whether they're good RPGs rather than whether they're good games.

I tend to agree here somewhat. If a game is fun overall, I really don't care that I didn't get an option to strip all the skin off my hand so I can fit it through a small pipe to pull a lever that lets me open a door, thus avoiding fighting 3 guards, rendering my Flesh Regrowth skill less awesome because there was no skill check for it.

That's the case with Bethesda games for me. They're fun to mess around in and fun to explore. Very few people REALLY care that a voiced protagonist may equal one or two less dialogue choices.

Jerykk wrote on Aug 7, 2015, 01:57:

NewMaxx wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 21:52:

Ray Marden wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 19:21:
F4 doesn't seem like it is really pushing any new boundaries

Really? Huh. I got the opposite impression. New Vegas was more of the same, but FO4 seems to be adding way more advanced crafting, building, city and trade management, a new interface for power suits, a new skill system (from what I understand), better companion maintenance, and a whole lot more. That's what I gleaned from a video or two I've seen anyway. I don't think people want drastically different in other areas - it has to remain true to the Fallout universe and the engine needs to support modding to the extreme. To be honest when I saw the videos I was shocked by how many boundaries it was pushing.

New Vegas was better than FO3 is almost every way. Better quest design, better writing, better skill checks, better balancing, better perks, better companions, etc. It also added a needs system, greatly expanded crafting, a faction system, traits, iron sights, etc. FO4 is adding some new features too but nothing that would make it a better RPG. The writing will no doubt be as terrible as FO3's and the voiced protagonist, coupled with the 4-option dialogue wheel, means fewer dialogue options and less player agency.

Disagree. I didn't care for FO:NV at all. I found it to be a buggy, lazy release. After completing FO3 I had no interest in playing a glorified mod.

You constantly bash Bethesda for its storywriting but I really enjoy their games and think that the worlds they create are really rich and rewarding. You get far too caught up in whether they're good RPGs rather than whether they're good games.

NewMaxx wrote on Aug 7, 2015, 02:23:

Jerykk wrote on Aug 7, 2015, 01:57:
New Vegas was better than FO3 is almost every way.

I disagree, and many reviewers agree with me; FO3 has significantly higher metacritic and gamerankings scores. The New Vegas Ultimate does have a small edge on FO3's GOTY, and players on metacritic prefer NV, but on the whole they come out pretty equal by those standards. To be honest I thought NV was the shit when I played it and I didn't even get through FO3. I changed my mind after Skyrim when I realized packing a game full of 1000 little areas is actually annoying and detracts from my enjoyment. I went back and replayed FO3 with GOTY and mods and that tighter narrative was much more enjoyable, and it seems FO4 is going back that way.

Don't get me wrong, FO3's story isn't going to win awards and NV (especially some of the DLC) had some awesome writing, I'm just talking outright enjoyment. My initial pass went fully to NV; after Skyrim (which bored the hell out of me with its tediousness) and a replay of FO3 and NV with GOTY/Ultimate + DLC + mods, I actually swing back in favor of FO3. I couldn't stand another game filled with 1000000000 of the same looped-ass dungeon type areas like NV and Skyrim have. Bottom line, I am a completionist type player but frankly I'm getting too old for that crap and I just want to sit down and enjoy a straight narrative sometimes, and news flash the average gamer is getting old enough to appreciate that along with me.

I do otherwise agree with you in general about Bethesda games and the good writing in NV, but I don't necessarily consider NV vastly superior.

FO3 got better reviews because it was made by BGS. Anything made by BGS gets tons of hype (and thus, better reviews). Spinoffs made by different developers (F:NV, Arkham Origins, God of War: Ascension, Gears of War: Judgment, etc) carry the stigma of simply being "more of the same," even if they improve and expand upon their predecessors in meaningful ways. Many players will just ignore them entirely because of that stigma. FO3 had interesting dungeons, no doubt, but that's really the only area where FO3 might surpass FNV. In every other area, FNV is the superior game and the proper sequel to FO2.

On a side note, FO3 had plenty of "looped-ass dungeon type areas." Specfically, the entire subway system. FNV didn't really have repetitive dungeons or interiors. It just had a lot of empty dungeons and interiors. You'd go into a building and there'd be nothing inside except some scrap. FO3 generally did a better job of filling each location with something interesting. It's just too bad the quests, crafting, companions, dialogue, skill checks, loot, perks, story, etc, were so lackluster. If you ignore all the things that make RPGs good, FO3 is the better game. Otherwise, FNV takes the cake.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 19:57:

Ray Marden wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 19:21:
I am nearly done with The Witcher 3 and, even though I think it set a new standard for the open world RPG, it could have ended 50 hours ago and I would have been just as happy.

Unlike Witcher 3, Fallout 4 will have a feature that will let you build a fortress from trash you collect out in the wasteland. Every item you pick up will have materials you can use. So instead of blindly selling everything to vendors you now have to decide whether that junk in your inventory would be better for your fortress. Also there will be random attacks on your fortress so you'll need to build up defenses with weapons. You can also hire NPCs for protection. From what I saw this part of the game looks just as fun as the game itself.

I wish Witcher 3 had something like this for end game. Regardless I load up Witcher 3 on occasion and ride around the beautiful countryside, amazing scenery of Skellige and the sights and sounds of Oxenfurt and Novigrad, watching the sunrise or sunsets. It's an awesome chill simulator. I'm looking for the NGE+. Really want to replay but I don't want to start over at level 1.

Im sick and tired of these MMO mechanics leaking into single player games. Looky Im gonna build a cool fortress from all this crap Ive collected and I can upgrade it and make it look cool and style it and design it and and and....

It might be fun for 15 minutes, but after that it's just filler. Bethesda have completely missed what made the Fallout games spectacular (Obsidian was on the right track) they were CRPGs in a very cool and unique setting, what they were not is single player survival games...

Jerykk wrote on Aug 7, 2015, 01:57:
New Vegas was better than FO3 is almost every way.

I disagree, and many reviewers agree with me; FO3 has significantly higher metacritic and gamerankings scores. The New Vegas Ultimate does have a small edge on FO3's GOTY, and players on metacritic prefer NV, but on the whole they come out pretty equal by those standards. To be honest I thought NV was the shit when I played it and I didn't even get through FO3. I changed my mind after Skyrim when I realized packing a game full of 1000 little areas is actually annoying and detracts from my enjoyment. I went back and replayed FO3 with GOTY and mods and that tighter narrative was much more enjoyable, and it seems FO4 is going back that way.

Don't get me wrong, FO3's story isn't going to win awards and NV (especially some of the DLC) had some awesome writing, I'm just talking outright enjoyment. My initial pass went fully to NV; after Skyrim (which bored the hell out of me with its tediousness) and a replay of FO3 and NV with GOTY/Ultimate + DLC + mods, I actually swing back in favor of FO3. I couldn't stand another game filled with 1000000000 of the same looped-ass dungeon type areas like NV and Skyrim have. Bottom line, I am a completionist type player but frankly I'm getting too old for that crap and I just want to sit down and enjoy a straight narrative sometimes, and news flash the average gamer is getting old enough to appreciate that along with me.

I do otherwise agree with you in general about Bethesda games and the good writing in NV, but I don't necessarily consider NV vastly superior.

This comment was edited on Aug 7, 2015, 02:31.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 19:57:

Ray Marden wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 19:21:
I am nearly done with The Witcher 3 and, even though I think it set a new standard for the open world RPG, it could have ended 50 hours ago and I would have been just as happy.

Unlike Witcher 3, Fallout 4 will have a feature that will let you build a fortress from trash you collect out in the wasteland. Every item you pick up will have materials you can use. So instead of blindly selling everything to vendors you now have to decide whether that junk in your inventory would be better for your fortress. Also there will be random attacks on your fortress so you'll need to build up defenses with weapons. You can also hire NPCs for protection. From what I saw this part of the game looks just as fun as the game itself.

I wish Witcher 3 had something like this for end game. Regardless I load up Witcher 3 on occasion and ride around the beautiful countryside, amazing scenery of Skellige and the sights and sounds of Oxenfurt and Novigrad, watching the sunrise or sunsets. It's an awesome chill simulator. I'm looking for the NGE+. Really want to replay but I don't want to start over at level 1.

Eh, the settlement feature seems pretty tedious to me. I don't really see any point in building a settlement filled with generic, lifeless NPCs that I don't care about and having to constantly defend said settlement against annoying raiders and mutants. Seems like a gimmick more than anything else but people seem to like it. I expect they'll tire of it pretty quickly once they get their hands on it.

NewMaxx wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 21:52:

Ray Marden wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 19:21:
F4 doesn't seem like it is really pushing any new boundaries

Really? Huh. I got the opposite impression. New Vegas was more of the same, but FO4 seems to be adding way more advanced crafting, building, city and trade management, a new interface for power suits, a new skill system (from what I understand), better companion maintenance, and a whole lot more. That's what I gleaned from a video or two I've seen anyway. I don't think people want drastically different in other areas - it has to remain true to the Fallout universe and the engine needs to support modding to the extreme. To be honest when I saw the videos I was shocked by how many boundaries it was pushing.

New Vegas was better than FO3 is almost every way. Better quest design, better writing, better skill checks, better balancing, better perks, better companions, etc. It also added a needs system, greatly expanded crafting, a faction system, traits, iron sights, etc. FO4 is adding some new features too but nothing that would make it a better RPG. The writing will no doubt be as terrible as FO3's and the voiced protagonist, coupled with the 4-option dialogue wheel, means fewer dialogue options and less player agency.

Basically, FO4, like all of BGS's other games, will offer a big, detailed world that's fun to explore but severely lacking in the things that make RPGs good.

Also, from the last bit of news that was "leaked" from Quakecon, it sounds like they are getting rid of skills and replacing it with some kind of perk system. I fear my worst fear has come true and they Skyrimmed Fallout.

That presupposes Bethesda hiring a "writer" to pen a story.

jacobvandy wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 21:48:

The "filler" is the game. You're missing the entire point of what they do if you truly believe that.

Well sure, its what their games are now - I'm not going to deny that. One of my favorite Beth games is Morrowind though, which was a lot longer story-wise. Surely they could put more thought into a story and have a sandbox on the side.

Ray Marden wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 19:21:
F4 doesn't seem like it is really pushing any new boundaries

Really? Huh. I got the opposite impression. New Vegas was more of the same, but FO4 seems to be adding way more advanced crafting, building, city and trade management, a new interface for power suits, a new skill system (from what I understand), better companion maintenance, and a whole lot more. That's what I gleaned from a video or two I've seen anyway. I don't think people want drastically different in other areas - it has to remain true to the Fallout universe and the engine needs to support modding to the extreme. To be honest when I saw the videos I was shocked by how many boundaries it was pushing.

Task wrote on Aug 6, 2015, 21:25:
If you skip dialogue and such in Skyrim, no detours, the "main" quest is apparently completable in 3-4 hours. I never completed it - so I have no idea if that's true (maybe some of you know), but that's what a lot of my personal friends that beat it say anyways.

Speculating here - but what if its the same structure. So maybe if you don't wander around and distract yourself, 5-10 hours to complete main in FO4 (FO3 is apparently 10-12)? Rest is distraction, building houses, and leveling all over like Skyrim (Skyrim also lets you play the game after the "main" part is done).

Basically Beth fills their game with "filler" to make up for short play time.

The "filler" is the game. You're missing the entire point of what they do if you truly believe that.