ToJKa Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I've really got to learn not to bother with Bethesda games until after a CK is released... Yeah, i really feel like that too after this one. Then again, they do care more TES, which is the next one in line. ...Yet Skyrim was a dungeon crawler with poor enemy and loot variety when released. Regardless, i've no motivation to play any more of this until DLCs and mods happen. And even then, may just stick with NV and F3, since they are without the "My baby! My baby!" package :shrug: I'm more interested in that Cyberpunk game by CDPR than anything BGS is planning on putting out. If it has mod support, BGS is screwed But hey, i did four playtroughs, one for each faction, which took 404 hours. So it's still better than most games i buy. Incidentally, it's the about the same amount of time i've played Dragon Age 2 :trollface:
Content Consumer Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I've got a question for all you Fallout 4 players out there, re settlement stuff. There are only three basic mission types, right? Am I missing anything? Mission type A: Combat for combat's sake 1. Speak to Preston. He'll give you this mission. He wants you to go to [random] settlement you own and speak to [random] settler about a problem they're having. No idea how he hears about this in the first place, my guess is he's got a radio imbedded in his brain. 2. Go to the [random] settlement, speak to the [random] settler. He'll tell you to go to [random] location and wipe out [random] bunch of mooks that are terrorizing the settlement, demanding money and food in exchange for protection. Er, protecting (i.e. not attacking) the settlement, not the other way around. Just to be clear. 3. Go to the [random] location and kill off the [random] gang. 4. Go back to [random] settlement, talk to [random] settler again, who will thank you and send you back to Preston. 5. Go back to Preston, and he'll give you another mission. No messing around here, he immediately hands you another mission despite the fact that maybe you've got something else on your plate and you don't want to be forced into doing "good-guy" crap when all you want to do is explore and maybe ride a vertibird around or something. Mission type B: An exercise in futility You must defend a [random] one of your settlements against [random] group of badguys. Maybe Preston tells you about it. Maybe you hear it on the radio. Maybe you get a 2-second debug.notification in the corner of your screen that invariably pops up during combat so you miss it, so you end up having to check your misc quest log every few minutes just to make sure everything's okay. However you get this mission, you must go and DEFEND YOUR SETTLEMENT. Personally. Despite the fact that you've walled the entire thing off and put enough heavy laser turrets and mounted rocket launchers as defense that the bedrock beneath your settlement is beginning to crack from the sheer weight, YOU MUST BE THERE. So you teleport to your settlement location, and the attack starts. Usually it's a group of maybe six people, who also teleport in. Occasionally you get a look at one of their faces, frozen in a rictus of surprised horror as they watch four laser turrets, six machinegun turrets, and a rocket launcher turn to aim at their forehead, and a half dozen settlers whip out their pistols and aim for their testicles. Just for a split second, before they're absolutely vaporized by the gunfire. Generally, settlement defense missions last for three to six seconds - you teleport in, hear a tremendous cacophony of sound as every single turret in the place locks on to some poor Raider or Gunner's body, converts the attacking force into their component molecules, and then the all-clear pops up and you're free to go. Gods know why you personally have to be there to defend your settlement, it's not like your presence or absence makes one whit of difference. You'd think that after a while, word would get around about how using six or eight guys to attack a minuteman position is a BAD IDEA, but no. The more settlements you have, the more likely it is to happen, so it's begun to feel like every time I have the absurd misfortune to accidentally start the game up, I get to play for about five minutes before a settlement attack notice pops up. I suspect that either I'm getting the short end of the RNG stick, or that the tutorial note about settlements being less likely to be attacked with higher defenses is bullcrap. When my food is 6 and my defense rating is 268, and I'm still getting attacked by suicidal super mutants, some tutorial is talking out of its ass. That, or maybe some developer put in an 8-bit value for settlement defense size, and 268 is actually equal to a defense of 12. I'll try removing some turrets down to defense of 254, maybe that'll work. Mission type C: Recruitment 1. Speak to Preston. He'll tell you to go to [random] settlement that you don't own and speak to [random] settler. 2. The [random] settler at [random] settlement will have a job for you. From rescuing a kidnapped friend to performing a side quest, these jobs all have one thing in common - they're about killing mooks. I'm fine with that. It's cool. I really dig the combat in this game, and wiping out bands of raiders is awfully fun when you've got the ammo for it. 3. Go to [random] location and wipe out [random] band of mooks, or if it's a kidnapping mission, rescue your target and get out (wiping out the mooks beforehand anyway, because it's easier to shepherd a defenseless idiot without having to make sure their skin remains free from unsightly perforations). 4. Exit [random] location. If a rescue mission, sometimes your mark will be there with you. Sometimes not. Sometimes they follow you back to the [random] settlement, sometimes they just magically appear there a few days later. In any case, the [random] settler is so happy to have their friend back, or locket back, or band of raiders eliminated, they immediately join the minutemen. You'd think after a couple of settlement attacks, word would get around and farmers would be lining up to suck the teat of my turret defenses, but no, you've still got to schlep around solving local problems before anyone gets their shit together and starts to think about how maybe buying a bigger gun is a good idea for when the bandits come. 5. Go back to Preston and he'll give you, yep, you guessed it, another mission that must be done RIGHT NOW OR THE COMMONWELTH WILL FALL TO THE RAIDERS. After a while, you start thinking that maybe just handing the whole damn place to the raiders wouldn't be such a bad idea. I mean, if massive defenses, plenty of food, water, shelter, decorations, and recreation can't get a settlement's happiness rating over 50%, then maybe those fuckers deserve to get eaten. And it's certain that the raiders can't possibly do any worse than the settlers already are. All in all, the combat is nice, but the missions I can do without. What excitement! What wonderful thrills and chills are experienced in the awe-inspiring settlement missions! It's like going on a round-the-world trip to Canberra, Lubbock, Brussels, and ending your trip in Birmingham. The fun never stops!
Ernest Lemmingway Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I've got a question for all you Fallout 4 players out there, re settlement stuff. There are only three basic mission types, right? Am I missing anything? Mission type A: Combat for combat's sake 1. Speak to Preston. He'll give you this mission. He wants you to go to [random] settlement you own and speak to [random] settler about a problem they're having. No idea how he hears about this in the first place, my guess is he's got a radio imbedded in his brain. 2. Go to the [random] settlement, speak to the [random] settler. He'll tell you to go to [random] location and wipe out [random] bunch of mooks that are terrorizing the settlement, demanding money and food in exchange for protection. Er, protecting (i.e. not attacking) the settlement, not the other way around. Just to be clear. 3. Go to the [random] location and kill off the [random] gang. 4. Go back to [random] settlement, talk to [random] settler again, who will thank you and send you back to Preston. 5. Go back to Preston, and he'll give you another mission. No messing around here, he immediately hands you another mission despite the fact that maybe you've got something else on your plate and you don't want to be forced into doing "good-guy" crap when all you want to do is explore and maybe ride a vertibird around or something. Mission type B: An exercise in futility You must defend a [random] one of your settlements against [random] group of badguys. Maybe Preston tells you about it. Maybe you hear it on the radio. Maybe you get a 2-second debug.notification in the corner of your screen that invariably pops up during combat so you miss it, so you end up having to check your misc quest log every few minutes just to make sure everything's okay. However you get this mission, you must go and DEFEND YOUR SETTLEMENT. Personally. Despite the fact that you've walled the entire thing off and put enough heavy laser turrets and mounted rocket launchers as defense that the bedrock beneath your settlement is beginning to crack from the sheer weight, YOU MUST BE THERE. So you teleport to your settlement location, and the attack starts. Usually it's a group of maybe six people, who also teleport in. Occasionally you get a look at one of their faces, frozen in a rictus of surprised horror as they watch four laser turrets, six machinegun turrets, and a rocket launcher turn to aim at their forehead, and a half dozen settlers whip out their pistols and aim for their testicles. Just for a split second, before they're absolutely vaporized by the gunfire. Generally, settlement defense missions last for three to six seconds - you teleport in, hear a tremendous cacophony of sound as every single turret in the place locks on to some poor Raider or Gunner's body, converts the attacking force into their component molecules, and then the all-clear pops up and you're free to go. Gods know why you personally have to be there to defend your settlement, it's not like your presence or absence makes one whit of difference. You'd think that after a while, word would get around about how using six or eight guys to attack a minuteman position is a BAD IDEA, but no. The more settlements you have, the more likely it is to happen, so it's begun to feel like every time I have the absurd misfortune to accidentally start the game up, I get to play for about five minutes before a settlement attack notice pops up. I suspect that either I'm getting the short end of the RNG stick, or that the tutorial note about settlements being less likely to be attacked with higher defenses is bullcrap. When my food is 6 and my defense rating is 268, and I'm still getting attacked by suicidal super mutants, some tutorial is talking out of its ass. That, or maybe some developer put in an 8-bit value for settlement defense size, and 268 is actually equal to a defense of 12. I'll try removing some turrets down to defense of 254, maybe that'll work. Mission type C: Recruitment 1. Speak to Preston. He'll tell you to go to [random] settlement that you don't own and speak to [random] settler. 2. The [random] settler at [random] settlement will have a job for you. From rescuing a kidnapped friend to performing a side quest, these jobs all have one thing in common - they're about killing mooks. I'm fine with that. It's cool. I really dig the combat in this game, and wiping out bands of raiders is awfully fun when you've got the ammo for it. 3. Go to [random] location and wipe out [random] band of mooks, or if it's a kidnapping mission, rescue your target and get out (wiping out the mooks beforehand anyway, because it's easier to shepherd a defenseless idiot without having to make sure their skin remains free from unsightly perforations). 4. Exit [random] location. If a rescue mission, sometimes your mark will be there with you. Sometimes not. Sometimes they follow you back to the [random] settlement, sometimes they just magically appear there a few days later. In any case, the [random] settler is so happy to have their friend back, or locket back, or band of raiders eliminated, they immediately join the minutemen. You'd think after a couple of settlement attacks, word would get around and farmers would be lining up to suck the teat of my turret defenses, but no, you've still got to schlep around solving local problems before anyone gets their shit together and starts to think about how maybe buying a bigger gun is a good idea for when the bandits come. 5. Go back to Preston and he'll give you, yep, you guessed it, another mission that must be done RIGHT NOW OR THE COMMONWELTH WILL FALL TO THE RAIDERS. After a while, you start thinking that maybe just handing the whole damn place to the raiders wouldn't be such a bad idea. I mean, if massive defenses, plenty of food, water, shelter, decorations, and recreation can't get a settlement's happiness rating over 50%, then maybe those fuckers deserve to get eaten. And it's certain that the raiders can't possibly do any worse than the settlers already are. All in all, the combat is nice, but the missions I can do without. What excitement! What wonderful thrills and chills are experienced in the awe-inspiring settlement missions! It's like going on a round-the-world trip to Canberra, Lubbock, Brussels, and ending your trip in Birmingham. The fun never stops! Yeah, those are pretty much it. And they're about as much fun as a root canal after a while.
Ernest Lemmingway Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I'm more interested in that Cyberpunk game by CDPR than anything BGS is planning on putting out. If it has mod support, BGS is screwed Wait, what? Cyberpunk? I've loved cyberpunk since reading The Neuromancer, seeing the original Bubblegum Crisis (2032, not that 2040 ripoff by ADV), and don't get me started on my love of Shadowrun before CGL took it over. ::starts drooling:: I doubt it will be as mod-friendly as BGS games, but The Witcher games can be modded somewhat so there could be some interesting things put out. And yes, after FO4 I feel BGS is screwed no matter what. They will have to pull some minor miracles out of their asses with the DLC to restore their reputation for being relevant as an RPG studio. Mods by others won't do a thing for that since it will be content they themselves didn't produce.
ToJKa Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I'm more interested in that Cyberpunk game by CDPR than anything BGS is planning on putting out. If it has mod support, BGS is screwed Wait, what? Cyberpunk? Yup, "Cyberpunk 2077" is the name, i assume work-in-progress name. There's not much but this old teaser video:
Ernest Lemmingway Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 I'm more interested in that Cyberpunk game by CDPR than anything BGS is planning on putting out. If it has mod support, BGS is screwed Wait, what? Cyberpunk? Yup, "Cyberpunk 2077" is the name, i assume work-in-progress name. There's not much but this old teaser video: Definite inspirations from Blade Runner in that video, though Replicants didn't have in-built weapons. Unless CDPR says something more, I'm going to assume that game doesn't exist. Better not to get my hopes up. Also let's no derail this thread by going too off-topic. Still, it would be nice if another company besides Bethesda produced similar open world, sandbox style RPGs with open support for mods. Something to either shake them out of their complacency or replace them altogether after the disappointment of FO4. As another poster put it, they've alienated their RPG fans with this game. And those of us that liked Fallout even in its non-RPG incarnation of Tactics (never played BOS).
Frel Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 I'm more interested in that Cyberpunk game by CDPR than anything BGS is planning on putting out. If it has mod support, BGS is screwed Wait, what? Cyberpunk? Yup, "Cyberpunk 2077" is the name, i assume work-in-progress name. There's not much but this old teaser video: Definite inspirations from Blade Runner in that video, though Replicants didn't have in-built weapons. Unless CDPR says something more, I'm going to assume that game doesn't exist. Better not to get my hopes up. Also let's no derail this thread by going too off-topic. Still, it would be nice if another company besides Bethesda produced similar open world, sandbox style RPGs with open support for mods. Something to either shake them out of their complacency or replace them altogether after the disappointment of FO4. As another poster put it, they've alienated their RPG fans with this game. And those of us that liked Fallout even in its non-RPG incarnation of Tactics (never played BOS). I do agree that we really need some other companies make a game that is both openworld and easily modable so either Beth wakes up or is replaced by a better solution. For the open world both witcher 3 sand the last dragon age demonstrate that other big players are trying to get a slice of that pie. yeah it is with varying level of success (Dragon age was a too much taking the bad habits from MMO) but both games are from franchises that were more in the linear view and these two games are clearly open world. Bethesda should take note because, if it is true that their game was revolutionary on Mororwind and refined in multiple iteration up to Skyrim, they never tried to shake the formula and even with this new Fallout just got rid of a the "player agency" we got used to (both in relation to TES and Fallout). The only changes they really did with this game is strip a lot of the things down (I wonder even why SPECIAL still exists when I feel that only strengh, endurance and charisma influence game play) Meanwhile other studio took note from this and gave it their own take, it may not be perfect yet but they are getting there For the modding this is where Beth has the edge but to be fair they have the edge only because they rely on the fact that their game run on the same old engine which make it easy for modder to do things (as they know the way this engine work). Years the engine is very flexible and Beth often make the effort to have eventually a CK but I would not laud them for it necessarily (especially because they are pretty good at complimenting themselves on that end). Meanwhile it seems that CDPR again is trying to get into play in this area , it is not without its hiccups (I recall some mention in several sites that CDPR failed to provide a CK and users were pissed few months ago) but at the same time I see that nexus have a CDPR sponsored competition on its front page. To me this look promising in the sense that even if Beth do not wake up now (after all FO4 was a huge commercial success) companies like CDPR may come quicker than we think to compete with them. We need some competition like that otherwise, well Fallout 4 is a demonstration on how Beth can be when becoming complacent. Do not get me wrong FO4 is a good game and the world they designed is still one of the best large world. I just feel that it gives me little option to interact with than accept quest/shoot baddies. I want to be able to have more choices than that and I used to have them in TES and even more so in Fallout.
ToJKa Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 I too agree. BGS seriously needs competition. Seeing how The Witcher 3 performed, i'd say they got some. Rumors say that the Cyberpunk game will have freely creatable male or female player character, so that'll compete with them even more. So time for capitalism. either improve or get left behind, BGS. Either way, we win. Well, that's the naive idealism of it, but as we all know, it isn't quality that matters, but how much you spend marketing it
Bloodfang Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 It's true, without real competition they're not inclined to do way better. It actually encourage laziness imo because nobody really try to do better than you. I'm not a big fan of Witcher 3 but if they start making a real open world and character customization BGS will have trouble to keep up.
albert econoline Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 IMHO they basically took too many popular positive options away and replaced them with a liberal "we are in control approach", from clothing to weapons to followers to dialog all appear and apppear and appear sorta redundantly and uninspiring. They dropped the ball.It coulda been so great. Oh yeah system requirements when they knew, they knew optimization was a priority.not even 3:4 support native? geez they screwed the amateur modding community and from a more analytical and less judgmental perspective-YOU KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE NEXT ONE just look what they did.Pitiful.
Gilibran Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 High hopes for Cyberpunk from cdpr, they confirmed a large part of the Witcher 3 team has been transferred to Cyberpunk after W3 release, no eta though. CDPR definately looked at ES/Skyrim as there are some references or easter eggs at least. The way they are very cool about using Witcher assets in Skyrim is great to. The progress they made from the Witcher 1 to the Witcher 3 is amazing. Much bigger then Morrowind to Skyrim imho. Basically the W3 is mod ready, but they needed to conclude the trilogy so i'm guessing they deliberatly did not focus on modability to the extend of Fallout and Elder scrolls games. I'm hoping Cyberpunk will be a next gen (or whatever) sandbox game with full modability and tools. They have the edge in the writing department over Bethesda. To me they hold the best cards to take over from Bethesda and create the next Fallout/ES like franchise. With the succes from the witcher series they have the money to seriously grow and keep the quality high. They also stay focused on PC gaming not consoles. They simply do not want to be restricted to much. Bethesda needs to seriously re evaluate the direction they are going, creating something new without loosing the things that make Fallout & ES great. I look at fallout 4 as the last in this "set up" an evolutionary dead end. It's good, very lazy though, and the DLC is going to have to be very good to make up for the MQ we got. Though i fear the worst with the focus on consoles which severely restrict the possibilities and dumb down things. Yes, it's a market devellopers cannot ignore for revenue, but at what cost? The console market is litterally holding the game world and PC development back, Fallout 4 feels.like.it has become the victim of it, Console mod support is not going to change that.
Ernest Lemmingway Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Bethesda has already proven they're shifting focus towards mass appeal, console-style games. That's not necessarily a bad thing if the customers expect a console-style game. And they didn't actually produce it but just published it. The Evil Within, which was published by Bethesda but produced by Shinji Mikami, creator of the Resident Evil franchise, was the last real gem they released. Largely in part because they didn't do anything more than manufacture the final product. After looking at hundreds of pages of vitriol and, to my surprise, well thought out comments for and against FO4, the complaints were pretty consistent: the game was still buggy, there was so much unfulfilled potential the game just felt unfinished, the majority of quests are busy work, and the plot is not that engaging. Those in favor kept touting how the skill system, karma, and reputations in FO3 and NV were largely meaningless and that role-playing was "all in the imagination," not to mention arguing semantics over what RPG even means these days. Several of these arguments for and against were rather circular, comparing Bethesda's versions to Interplay's originals and then others shouting down how that was comparing apples to oranges. In all, though, the positives really don't outweigh the negatives for me. The narrative does feel forced, the plot is not very engaging, most quests are Radiant Quests that are just busy work, and it really does feel like Bethesda spent more time on making the world alone detailed, the combat system alone smooth, and giving everything else a token effort at best. Especially the main plot, which is critical to RPGs--action or otherwise. Without an engaging story, it's a shooter with RPG elements. Not even a very good shooter, at that. How the game exists now, however, makes me wonder if all that was actually intentional. There's been an attitude at Bethesda for a good decade now that what can't be done in the initial release will be done in downloadable content. With FO4 you get, as I mentioned, potential for an RPG. They very well could have decided to hold off doing what should have been done in the initial release to put it in DLC down the road. It makes sense on paper, but so does communism. In practice it's already alienated several long-time fans and could very well be the proverbial shot to the foot. Only it's a shotgun and the foot and lower shin are obliterated. Their first DLC could be the final arbiter of whether this game survives in the long-term or dies with a whimper, assuming it's something other than a settlement expansion.
Vuulgar Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 I am very excited to see where mods and DLCs take this game. Is this really so much less than vanilla Skyrim? Its been so long and the majority of my Skyrim time was on the Legendary version so of course there was more content. The kid quest tying everything together is my biggest complaint as it limits what your character can be so much but even that can be adapted by saying a recently escaped vault dweller hired you as a merc to find their kid. I am an old time sword and sorcery lover, guns in games never really did it for me but I have honestly had a blast playing FO4 and thinking about it as a solid foundation for some great mods.....as long as everyone doesnt walk away from it before they are made that is...
Content Consumer Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I've got to say, this is less buggy than Skyrim. So far, I've got 132 hours according to Steam, and I've only had four CTDs. Two of which I caused deliberately. Five days and only two crashes? I average about one CTD every six hours or so playing vanilla Skyrim. And one CTD every 30 minutes or so playing Fallout 3. Other bugs experienced - not much. I get occasional floating animals: And this happened for some reason: And Deacon seems to be full of graphical issues. At first I thought he had just changed his hairstyle, after hearing him and others talk about how he routinely changes his appearance: But then his hair popped back in at the exact moment his hands disappeared. My guess is, he's actually a hologram, and it takes too much power to render all of his bodyparts at the same time. I've also had the disappearing weapons bug a lot. No iadea what causes it, though it does always seem to happen in combat. No idea what fixes it - sometimes going into VATS does, sometimes changing cells, sometimes it takes a save/exit/load. solid foundation for some great mods Yep.
Valgo Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I am very excited to see where mods and DLCs take this game. Is this really so much less than vanilla Skyrim? Its been so long and the majority of my Skyrim time was on the Legendary version so of course there was more content. The kid quest tying everything together is my biggest complaint as it limits what your character can be so much but even that can be adapted by saying a recently escaped vault dweller hired you as a merc to find their kid. I am an old time sword and sorcery lover, guns in games never really did it for me but I have honestly had a blast playing FO4 and thinking about it as a solid foundation for some great mods.....as long as everyone doesnt walk away from it before they are made that is... Same here, I'm down for some great DLC's and hope they'll expand on the Companions a bit too. One of the new things I enjoyed the most in FO4. Don't get me wrong, I know that the concept of Companions isn't new. But this is the first time (except for Serana in Skyrims first DLC) that they made Followers I give a rats ass about. In Skyrim or New vegas I always ran around all alone, in FO4 I didn't know which Follower to take with me on the next few missions because I had like 4-5 favourites. My point is: People jump on the negative sides of FO4 but I've barely seen anyone pointing out what made it a good game (a great game even). As far as I am concerned it was the best Best-Fallout by far so far (haven't played the old ones). As for the Game being a bad RPG... yeah that might be true but I don't care that much about it as long as I can enjoy it. Give me an alternate start Mod (and a different reason for my love Piper to call my character Blue) and we are golden imo.
Guest Akrabra Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I don't see how this is a bad RPG. It has a bad framework to roleplay within, but it still has a framework for it. It stems more from people that dislike the game, but that does not change its genre or the ability to roleplay. Thats my take on it anyways. I am very happy with how the game turned out, though there are always things that could be improved. The conversation system needs a overhaul, big time, more dialogue dependant on other Specials and perks, not just Charisma. Hopefully they can do something about that with the first DLC, we'll see when it arrives.
Kaz Aanh Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I don't see how this is a bad RPG. It has a bad framework to roleplay within, but it still has a framework for it. It stems more from people that dislike the game, but that does not change its genre or the ability to roleplay. Thats my take on it anyways. I am very happy with how the game turned out, though there are always things that could be improved. The conversation system needs a overhaul, big time, more dialogue dependant on other Specials and perks, not just Charisma. Hopefully they can do something about that with the first DLC, we'll see when it arrives. Was Skyrim your first RPG game you have ever played?
Guest Akrabra Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I don't see how this is a bad RPG. It has a bad framework to roleplay within, but it still has a framework for it. It stems more from people that dislike the game, but that does not change its genre or the ability to roleplay. Thats my take on it anyways. I am very happy with how the game turned out, though there are always things that could be improved. The conversation system needs a overhaul, big time, more dialogue dependant on other Specials and perks, not just Charisma. Hopefully they can do something about that with the first DLC, we'll see when it arrives. Was Skyrim your first RPG game you have ever played? No, the first RPG i ever played was Baldurs Gate way back when. And if you are trying to insult me in any way, just don't. Not everyone has to live in the past when it comes to games, i enjoy past and future iterations of genres.
Kaz Aanh Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I don't see how this is a bad RPG. It has a bad framework to roleplay within, but it still has a framework for it. It stems more from people that dislike the game, but that does not change its genre or the ability to roleplay. Thats my take on it anyways. I am very happy with how the game turned out, though there are always things that could be improved. The conversation system needs a overhaul, big time, more dialogue dependant on other Specials and perks, not just Charisma. Hopefully they can do something about that with the first DLC, we'll see when it arrives. Was Skyrim your first RPG game you have ever played? No, the first RPG i ever played was Baldurs Gate way back when. And if you are trying to insult me in any way, just don't. Not everyone has to live in the past when it comes to games, i enjoy past and future iterations of genres. Then don't compare Fallout 4 to the Baldurs Gate in terms of the role playing mechanics. Fallout 4 is definitely not a RPG , its clearly badly advertised ( remember those mill-sabotaging and its consequences in skyrim? no?? shet those sweet little lies) and the term "RPG" is being overwritten nowadays. Just the same thing what has happened with the "roguelike" genre , I don't mean that steam-indie games. True roguelikes like rogue , nethack, stonesoup crawler or dwarf fortress. Its more of a action-rpg or action-shooter with the rpg elements. But not a RPG game because RPG games are about building your character, not only by granting random stats but also by role-playing with your character. You build the character that way so you will always have it easier to relate to him/her.
Vuulgar Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I don't see how this is a bad RPG. It has a bad framework to roleplay within, but it still has a framework for it. It stems more from people that dislike the game, but that does not change its genre or the ability to roleplay. Thats my take on it anyways. I am very happy with how the game turned out, though there are always things that could be improved. The conversation system needs a overhaul, big time, more dialogue dependant on other Specials and perks, not just Charisma. Hopefully they can do something about that with the first DLC, we'll see when it arrives. Its limiting for longevity...you always have to be the same man or woman searching for your missing kid. Skyrim had many options for type of character even if content support was weak in some directions. Assassins, thieves, werewolves, vampires.....FO4 at this point is only mom or dad. Why not a ghoul who starts in the Glowing Sea or a brand new super mutant escaping/ being released from where ever they are made? I think this is whats missing compared to Skyrim.
junkacc Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 COD is a roleplaying game and one that Todd Howard admires
Guest Akrabra Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Then don't compare Fallout 4 to the Baldurs Gate in terms of the role playing mechanics. Fallout 4 is definitely not a RPG , its clearly badly advertised ( remember those mill-sabotaging and its consequences in skyrim? no?? shet those sweet little lies) and the term "RPG" is being overwritten nowadays. Just the same thing what has happened with the "roguelike" genre , I don't mean that steam-indie games. True roguelikes like rogue , nethack, stonesoup crawler or dwarf fortress. No, the first RPG i ever played was Baldurs Gate way back when. And if you are trying to insult me in any way, just don't. Not everyone has to live in the past when it comes to games, i enjoy past and future iterations of genres. Its more of a action-rpg or action-shooter with the rpg elements. But not a RPG game because RPG games are about building your character, not only by granting random stats but also by role-playing with your character. You build the character that way so you will always have it easier to relate to him/her. I didn't compare them at all, infact you did. Other than that there is no use in me discussing with you because you obviously wrote the definition of roleplaying game. You do build your character though. Through a creator, through leveling up, through making choices in the world space etc. So i don't accept your definition as the gospel for what an RPG is. I don't see how this is a bad RPG. It has a bad framework to roleplay within, but it still has a framework for it. It stems more from people that dislike the game, but that does not change its genre or the ability to roleplay. Thats my take on it anyways. I am very happy with how the game turned out, though there are always things that could be improved. The conversation system needs a overhaul, big time, more dialogue dependant on other Specials and perks, not just Charisma. Hopefully they can do something about that with the first DLC, we'll see when it arrives. Its limiting for longevity...you always have to be the same man or woman searching for your missing kid. Skyrim had many options for type of character even if content support was weak in some directions. Assassins, thieves, werewolves, vampires.....FO4 at this point is only mom or dad. Why not a ghoul who starts in the Glowing Sea or a brand new super mutant escaping/ being released from where ever they are made? I think this is whats missing compared to Skyrim. Because Fallout and The Elder Scrolls is not the same thing. Fallout 1 - You're the Vault dweller who has to find a Water Chip for your Vault. It can't be ignored, its even on a timer. Fallout 2 - Descendant of The Vault dweller, born into a Tribe, have to find the GECK and beat the Enclave. Fallout 3 - You're 19, in a Vault, have to find your father and pretty much repeat the step of FO and FO2. Fallout New Vegas - You're a Courier sent to deliver a package, shot in the head, open for interpretation, until Lonesome road came along. Fallout 4 - You're a ex-soldier/laywer looking for your son. Every Fallout game has a set background, its a staple of the franchise. Yes Fallout 4 has a more locked background then the previous titles, but that doesn't mean you can't roleplay it or have freedom to do things in the world space. You could do an entire playthrough with just building up Settlements alone. Be that person that gives up and just roams the waste and scavenges etc. COD is a roleplaying game and one that Todd Howard admires Mature response.
Guest endgameaddiction Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I don't know where people think that a fixed character isn't RPG. JRPGs have fixed protagonists in their FF franchise and it's very much an RPG. When it comes down to a fixed protagonist or a blank slate its really one's preference. When people compared The Courier and Lone Wanderer and tried to say The Courier was better, I disagree because I cannot simply play as a character without any form of background. The Courier was just too mysterious to me that it didn't grow in me. Their purpose was unclear to me because I simply cannot process why this personal vendetta over an unfortunate occurrence. I can't tell if they had a military background, or some ex-convict. All i know is that this courier was one unlucky ass mofo and I always pictured it to be some scrawny little kid getting bullied by Benny who takes his lunch money and feeds his head with a bullet to the brain. The fact that I pretty much grew up with the Vault Dweller in vault 101, having the choice to defend Amata or not, or even defend Buch's mom against the rad roaches pretty much gave me the chance of being a prick or a really nice person. Even the choices when talking to Amata before escaping the vault. I pretty much already knew who I was and where I wanted to go with it. All this talk about praising Obsidian for an amazing storyline is all meh to me.
Ernest Lemmingway Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I don't know where people think that a fixed character isn't RPG. JRPGs have fixed protagonists in their FF franchise and it's very much an RPG. When it comes down to a fixed protagonist or a blank slate its really one's preference. <snip> All this talk about praising Obsidian for an amazing storyline is all meh to me. Completely agreed on the first point. I grew up on JRPGs (Phantasy Star for the Sega Master System was my first real RPG and what got me into them) and if the fixed character's story is interesting, then it doesn't matter. In an open-ended RPG like TES or Fallout, though, there's more wiggle room to act as you want after the initial stages. Fallout 4 railroads us into choosing pretty much the same outcome regardless of any choices made, which is a complete 180 of previous titles and really hurts the feeling that this game actually is open-ended. They basically said, "We'll let you choose how your character looks and what they say, but you're going to end up doing what we want the way want regardless." Obsidian actually does have very good writers and I don't just mean for NV. I've played several of the games they've made (NWN 2, KOTOR 2, Pillars of Eternity, South Park: The Stick of Truth, even Alpha Protocol) and each is known for presenting multiple options to solving the same situation, the consequences of those choices, and making major NPCs feel alive. Granted, their technical expertise is not too great compared to BGS and they have had issues with the companies they've licensed from (Bioware's master, Evil Arts, forced them to cut engaging but unfinished content from KOTOR 2 to meet Evil's release deadline). Also remember that NV was based on FO3's engine, which itself was buggy as hell and notoriously unstable to begin with. Given those tools, it's amazing NV came out half as stable as it did. Finally, Obsidian was started by several of the same people who first created Fallout at Interplay. They know the originals and what about it drew such a massive, loyal following. If I were in charge of any future Fallout titles, I'd license it back to them to do the creative half of things.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.