jimnms wrote on Nov 4, 2015, 02:52:

NamecaF wrote on Nov 4, 2015, 01:02:

Maybe the Vault has cryo-chambers?

That's basically what they hinted at in the E3 presentation. FO4 takes place after the events of FO3.

Ah, I didn't know they'd said that. I thought it was straight up 15 minutes of game, bomb falls, an hour in the vault, and then you're 20 years later out on the streets.

its just retarded... the whole retro-vintage vibe doesnt come off as creepy and mysterious like in the original, instead its kitschy and cutesy... that alone is enough to make the whole thing seem "off", and they just keep getting more silly from there... the humor isnt really dark, its just goofy

its like an alternate reality, parody, tv show version

I pretend Fallout3 doesn't exist. Its Fallout2 then New Vegas. Then....whatever captures the atmosphere and isn't stupid beyond compare. In F4 they even mention Mutants BEFORE the catastrophe in the initial parts of the game. Developers who work on a game which they cant seem to 'get' usually make these kinds of mistakes. Bethesda, why couldn't you have just licensed this off to someone who actually gives a shit and knows their Fallout?

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 23:51:

jimnms wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 18:50:
Looking at the screen shots and the leaked videos, like Fallout 3, this doesn't look like something you'd see 200 years after a nuclear apocalypse. It looks more like 20 years.

How many nuclear apocalypses have you lived through?

Just the one (Chernobyl).

NamecaF wrote on Nov 4, 2015, 01:02:

Creston wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 21:35:
Wouldn't that make sense? The game starts with you playing your character before the war, so it couldn't really then shift 200 years and you're still the same guy/girl.

Maybe the Vault has cryo-chambers?

That's basically what they hinted at in the E3 presentation. FO4 takes place after the events of FO3.

Creston wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 21:35:

jimnms wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 18:50:
Looking at the screen shots and the leaked videos, like Fallout 3, this doesn't look like something you'd see 200 years after a nuclear apocalypse. It looks more like 20 years.

Wouldn't that make sense? The game starts with you playing your character before the war, so it couldn't really then shift 200 years and you're still the same guy/girl.

Maybe the Vault has cryo-chambers?

jimnms wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 18:50:
Looking at the screen shots and the leaked videos, like Fallout 3, this doesn't look like something you'd see 200 years after a nuclear apocalypse. It looks more like 20 years.

How many nuclear apocalypses have you lived through?

jimnms wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 18:50:
Looking at the screen shots and the leaked videos, like Fallout 3, this doesn't look like something you'd see 200 years after a nuclear apocalypse. It looks more like 20 years.

Wouldn't that make sense? The game starts with you playing your character before the war, so it couldn't really then shift 200 years and you're still the same guy/girl.

ItBurn wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 18:37:
Hmmm, no. I'd rather play shooters with a real life fake gun and having to aim with my hands. If they find something that's easier to use than a mouse, then I want to use that. The problem with gamepads is that it's a pain to aim. It's harder than real life and harder than with other technologies that already exist. It's not about me being resistant to change...

I'm not sure I understand your response. You'd use (for example) a retina-tracking interface if it was faster and more accurate, or you'd rather use something hands-on? Gamepads probably might be worse than real life, but mice are probably better. It's not impossible to imagine there will be something better still, and that people will find reasons to complain about them not being real skill, even though mice are already easier than the real thing.

Looking at the screen shots and the leaked videos, like Fallout 3, this doesn't look like something you'd see 200 years after a nuclear apocalypse. It looks more like 20 years.

Orogogus wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 18:32:

ItBurn wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 15:11:
Well, I refuse to play shooters with a gamepad, so I guess it's game breaking for me, but I realize I'm a minority :p. I can't understand why people accept aiming with a gamepad. It's painful, the mouse is so much better.

I think this conversation comes and goes every several months, but I think part of it is that aiming more easily isn't necessarily better.

At some point it's probably easier to aim a mouse cursor than it is to aim a real gun, is that a problem? For some games it might be. A developer can put in droppage and wind and recoil and breathing sway and so on, but at the end of the day a mouse is probably still giving you much better aim than you would have in real life. It's probably the best aiming device with current technology.

In forty years are you going to be waving your fist at gamers with retina-tracking controls or neural interfaces, bitching about the good old days when games required real skill? It's probably the same thing.

Hmmm, no. I'd rather play shooters with a real life fake gun and having to aim with my hands. If they find something that's easier to use than a mouse, then I want to use that. The problem with gamepads is that it's a pain to aim. It's harder than real life and harder than with other technologies that already exist. It's not about me being resistant to change...

ItBurn wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 15:11:
Well, I refuse to play shooters with a gamepad, so I guess it's game breaking for me, but I realize I'm a minority :p. I can't understand why people accept aiming with a gamepad. It's painful, the mouse is so much better.

I think this conversation comes and goes every several months, but I think part of it is that aiming more easily isn't necessarily better.

At some point it's probably easier to aim a mouse cursor than it is to aim a real gun, is that a problem? For some games it might be. A developer can put in droppage and wind and recoil and breathing sway and so on, but at the end of the day a mouse is probably still giving you much better aim than you would have in real life. It's probably the best aiming device with current technology.

In forty years are you going to be waving your fist at gamers with retina-tracking controls or neural interfaces, bitching about the good old days when games required real skill? It's probably the same thing.

Creston wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 18:08:
Anyone who plays a Bethesda game for its graphics really should know better.

Yup. Skyrim was ok if you didn't mod it, the rest were all well below average, even on consoles.

That didn't hinder my enjoyment the tiniest bit.

Looks fine to me. I wish the graphical style had changed (it looks almost exactly like FO3, which was set in D.C. while this is in Boston), but other than that it's fine.

Anyone who plays a Bethesda game for its graphics really should know better.

I bought a controller recently and have tried playing games like MGSV & Witcher 3 on it. I know one needs practice and I sort of like having all of the controls in the grip of two hands but I always return back to the keyboard and mouse. The mouse is just so smooth for looking around a 3D environment. I'm not sure why they don't use a sensitive track pad instead, I absolutely hate the xbone thumbstick.

Though the gamepad is good fun with 2D scrollers, the simple genre where a fucking gamepad belongs.

Games should be ported from PC to inferior infant consoles, stop fucking up PC gaming with shit controls & graphics.

ItBurn wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 15:11:
I have nightmares about more and more PC gamers using the gamepad, to a point where developers of FPS games stop supporting the mouse... It's already somewhat happening in some games...

This is why the Xbone controller being included with the Oculus Rift worries me. A controller is good for VR as you don't need to see it but I really don't this to become the only way.

descender wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 15:05:
Maybe I am overestimating your ability to control an FPS with a gamepad. I wouldn't consider my gamepad "skills" to be terribly practiced, I almost always use a KB/M... but I suppose the accuracy does help more-so than I am considering. FO3/NV are not really balanced for allowing people to shoot via mouse and it shows. It does eliminate rather large chunks of the difficulty when you can just headshot/headshot/headshot something while it takes 30+ seconds to find a path to you. I was considerably more afraid of cazadors than deathclaws during my hardcore playthrough because of the pathing issues.

My original point was that it is not a game-breaking level of control difference (like say playing Q3 with a gamepad... lol) to blindly label FO4 as a "bad port" just because ABXY buttons show up in a screenshot.

Well, I refuse to play shooters with a gamepad, so I guess it's game breaking for me, but I realize I'm a minority :p. I can't understand why people accept aiming with a gamepad. It's painful, the mouse is so much better. For the record, I don't think adding gamepad support is indication of a bad port, but a bad port it will be anyway, because of the interface. Bethesda makes the WORST PC interfaces. Absolutely horrible, and from what I've seen of FO4, things didn't improve.

I have nightmares about more and more PC gamers using the gamepad, to a point where developers of FPS games stop supporting the mouse... It's already somewhat happening in some games...

descender wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 15:05:
My original point was that it is not a game-breaking level of control difference (like say playing Q3 with a gamepad... lol) to blindly label FO4 as a "bad port" just because ABXY buttons show up in a screenshot.

I took the mention of ABXY buttons to be criticising the dialogue options, not the quality of the port. We can't tell anything about the port from these options because we don't know how it is being controlled. It might be perfectly appropriate.

Maybe I am overestimating your ability to control an FPS with a gamepad. I wouldn't consider my gamepad "skills" to be terribly practiced, I almost always use a KB/M... but I suppose the accuracy does help more-so than I am considering. FO3/NV are not really balanced for allowing people to shoot via mouse and it shows. It does eliminate rather large chunks of the difficulty when you can just headshot/headshot/headshot something while it takes 30+ seconds to find a path to you. I was considerably more afraid of cazadors than deathclaws during my hardcore playthrough because of the pathing issues.

My original point was that it is not a game-breaking level of control difference (like say playing Q3 with a gamepad... lol) to blindly label FO4 as a "bad port" just because ABXY buttons show up in a screenshot.

descender wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 13:47:
I love how thrown off people are by the A B X Y buttons on the screen, as if there was any advantage to playing FO3/NV with a mouse+KB over a gamepad. It's not a twitch shooter, who gives a shit? You all really have to start getting over this one, just because a mouse works better for competitive FPS doesn't make gamepad support indicative of a "bad port" problem.

I much prefer using a KB&M to using a controller for this sort of game, to the extent that I sold my console because most games weren't enjoyable.

There's more to wanting a mouse than accuracy, as if that's an odd thing to want even in a slow paced single player game.

descender wrote on Nov 3, 2015, 14:44:
Thanks for explaining to me why a mouse is more accurate than a gamepad... Sigh. Now go back and try to actually understand the point I was making.

The gameplay in FO3/NV is far too slow for it to matter, even if you don't use VATS. The accuracy and speed advantage of a mouse is completely wasted on this type of game. So, no... there is not a "major advantage" to using a mouse at all. Especially if you don't just charge into every combat situation with blinders on.

Can you aim a little bit faster? Sure...
Does it matter? Not unless you control your gamepad with your toes.

Maybe you're a god at aiming with a gamepad, but for me using a mouse is a major advantage. Does it matter? Absolutely. Makes the game so much more pleasant.