Has Beth lost its edge on RPG gaming?

[DocClox]

BGS just keeps casualizing their products as time goes on to appeal towards Nintendo, Facebook, and mobile gamers. They see the real money is in Minecraft, Candy Crush Saga, and Super Mario Bros. and not in in depth, non-linear, creative, imaginative role playing games.

I have this vision of a "Skyrim 2" where you kill dragons by lining up Nordic totems in rows or columns and where you can PM your friends to borrow healing potions.

[prinyo]

It is not that hard to imagine Skyrim using the same principles that FO4 introduces.

 

You get to play only as an Imperial (because voicing other races is too expensive and because only this option will work with the story the game is going to chain you to).

In the intro you are told that you are visiting Skyrim because years ago your son was kidnapped by a dragon and all the search has led you to the province. 

This removes all the  "heavy burden" from the player - no need to try to invent who you actually are and why are you in Skyrim.

 

Then the moment you get to Riverwood, imediately after Helgen, you find a set of Heavy Daedric Armor lying around and you are quick to equip it as there is an Ancient Dragon attacking that you need to fight all by yourself.

After this is done you will happen to pass by a random citizen called Lucan Valerius and he will complain to you that some bandits have stolen his Golden Claw. The  same second, before the player even takes a breath, the game will show a message that the quest "The Golden Claw" is been added and another message that the location has been marked on the map. And then Lucan will simply walk away. 

 

At this point he is only a random person because Riverwood is still an empty field with a small shed and a small workbench next to it. Only after you build the town and send messengers around to tell the people that you have provided sufficient defenses against dragon attacks will the random generic people start  moving-in there. 

Almost all towns and cities will be fields and farms with workbenches for you to build and populate with random generic citizens. And of course there is a perfect lore-friendly explanations for that - Skyrim is an agricultural province and the nords have yet to discover the benefits of the "urban" lifestyle, of course only after you enlighten them on the matter - because of course you are the brightest, strongest, most good-willed and amazing person that has ever existed. (What do you mean "you want to role-play as an evil character?". Who would want that?)

This is a win for the developers - they don't really need to spend any time and resources in creating unique and memorable NPCs. It also immediately adds tens or hundreds of hours to the gameplay. And apparently it will be a win for the users - "hundreds of hours of added value for their money" because it gives them the control over the in-game world. Isn't this what you wanted? After all the complaints that the "Bethesda open worlds" are "too static" - here, we give you what you ask for. Now stop complaining and  start building Whiterun, but not too big as the game will start to lag. 

 

Of course later the game will add "drama" and illusion of choice by brutally but quite predictably playing with the feelings of the player. For example the long lost son is now a crazy maniacal leader of a cult to Arduin and is practicing magic trying to summon other incarnations of Arduin because he believes the dragon is taking too long to fulfill his mision to end the world, so the new world - better and happier, can be created. He is simply looking at the big picture and trying to do what is best - will you help him or will you kill him - your own son, your own blood, in order to save the world? Wow, so deep, much choice, very drama :-) 

 

Or another possibility on how  the FO4 dialogue and quest assignment system would work in Skyrim. Delphine tells you to kill Paarthurnax. The game shows 4 possible replies: Yes, Tell me more, Sarcastic (those two will loop back to the same node) and No. But when you say "No"  Delphine will tell you that you should not underestimate the danger of keeping him alive and you really need to kill him. At that moment the game will start the quest - the same way it would if you have answered Yes to begin with. Case closed.

 

 

Before somebody dismisses all this with the oranges and apples argument - I'm not comparing Skyrim and FO4 as games. I'm comparing them as "Bethesda open role-playing worlds". 

I'm comparing some of the main principles and mechanics that make the open world work. With the idea to put into a perspective the "evolution" of the open world in the two latest "Bethesda open role-playing worlds".   

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DocClox]

Of course later the game will add "drama" and illusion of choice by brutally but quite predictably playing with the feelings of the player. For example the long lost son is now a crazy maniacal leader of a cult to Arduin and is practicing magic trying to summon other incarnations of Arduin because he believes the dragon is taking too long to fulfill his mision to end the world, so the new world - better and happier, can be created. He is simply looking at the big picture and trying to do what is best - will you help him or will you kill him - your own son, your own blood, in order to save the world? Wow, so deep, much choice, very drama :-)

No no no no no. That won't do at all. Listen:

 

In the sixty years you are frozen in the glacier, you son mantles Alduin restoring the World Eater to Tamriel. Retaining the ability to shape-shift into human form, he murders Ulfric Stormcloak and takes his place as head of the Stormcloaks before becoming Arch Mage of Winterhold and beginning a three way Civil War against the Companions Of Steel and the ThievesRoad. After you are reunited with your son (by means of him cleverly trying to have you murdered) you discover that Alduin doesn't want to eat the world so much as just nibble gently at the edges where no one lives, or no one of any importance, and anyway, we'll all be better off once the world is destroyed because the next one will be better and you have to look at the Big Picture. He also explains that the factions all need to be equally morally ambiguous because faction flame wars encourage mindshare and Marketing have the final sign-off on the story, so that's all right.

 

Finally, Alduin offers to let you assume the Mantle of the World Eater and personally take on the burden of destroying-the-world-well-not-really-ok-maybe-a-little-bit. This forces the player to choose between honoring an old man's dying wish or helping the Thieves or Companions bring about Great Collapse II: The Sequel and drown the rest of Winterhold, College included, beneath the Sea of Ghosts.

 

Also, it really, really is role-playing because you can make your Imperial character have Big Tits, and that's all that really matters right?

[prinyo]

 

Of course later the game will add "drama" and illusion of choice by brutally but quite predictably playing with the feelings of the player. For example the long lost son is now a crazy maniacal leader of a cult to Arduin and is practicing magic trying to summon other incarnations of Arduin because he believes the dragon is taking too long to fulfill his mision to end the world, so the new world - better and happier, can be created. He is simply looking at the big picture and trying to do what is best - will you help him or will you kill him - your own son, your own blood, in order to save the world? Wow, so deep, much choice, very drama :-)

No no no no no. That won't do at all. Listen:

 

In the sixty years you are frozen in the glacier, you son mantles Alduin restoring the World Eater to Tamriel. However your son retains his ability to shape-shift into human form, and so he murders Ulfric Stormcloak and takes his place as head of the Stormcloaks before becoming Arch Mage of Winterhold and beginning a three way Civil War against the Companions Of Steel and the ThievesRoad. After you are reunited with your son (by means of him cleverly trying to get you killed) you discover that Alduin doesn't want to eat the world so much as just nibble gently at the edges where no one lives, or no one of any importance and anyway, we'll all be better off once the world is destroyed because the next one will be better and you have to look at the Big Picture. He also explains that the factions all need to be equally morally ambiguous because faction flame wars encourage mindshare and Marketing have the final sign-off on the story, so that's all right.

 

Finally, Alduin offers to let you assume the Mantle of the World Eater and personally take on the burden of destroying-the-world-well-not-really-ok-maybe-a-little-bit and are forced to decide between honoring his wishes or helping the Thieves or Companions bring about Great Collapse II: The Sequel and drown the rest of Winterhold, College included, beneath the Sea of Ghosts.

 

Also, it really, really is role-playing because you can make your Imperial character have Big Tits, and that's all that really matters right?

 

 

You should try to sell those ideas to Bethesda for the upcoming "Skyrim: New Rorickstead"? 

 

However you are giving a very good idea for a killer-mod for Skyrim. I was planning on making a mod where the PC becomes Talos (because you get to be everybody's boss anyways, that seemed a logical conclusion). But the ultimate bad-ass "ultimate power" mod would be the PC actually becoming the World Eater and actually destroying the world. It can be a spectacular ending of an evil playthroug and after that the player can legitimately say "I've finished the game "...

 

 

In my post I was trying to stay out of the specific plot or game-related aspects of the two games and only compare the low-level basic ways the two "open worlds" work. How does the open world interact with the PC and vice-versa, what is the environment - friendlies, neutrals, enemies, how are they introduced to the player. How is the player kept motivated for whatever they do in that world. How much freedom does the player have to influence the PC and the other people in that world and vice-versa. The basic setup for the open world - things that are likely to persist in future open world games - regardless of any specific plot, factions and other custom logic.

 

But the way you put the FO4 plot in the Skyrim settings does a good job in helping people actually feel how bad it is.

 

[Veta]

Of course it was a success to the old and new fans. A lot of new people got into Fallout because of New Vegas.

 

But if you want to know, here's why.

 

 

 

Main Story

 

Introduction = weak. I don't see how some little town doctor has the capability to save someone from a gunshot to the head. And if he can, I'm surprised the protagonist walked away without any brain damage.

 

If miracles do exist, fine. The protagonist got extremely lucky. However, what doesn't fit in my mind is how this Courier decides to take this as a personal vendetta and go all rambo in search for this person in a checkered suit not only for revenge, but reacquire the platinum chip again, which is stupid. It was just a delivery boy at the wrong place, wrong time. This typical story is what you get in some mediocre action film along with the whole vendetta thing. It's not stupid, but it's stupid because it's played out. And it's not that I can't accept it, but the way they have interpreted it doesn't do it for me. As I said, I just can't fit in my mind why some Courier would go through all that trouble to reacquire the platinum chip after nearly being killed. What makes this chip so goddamn important worth risking your life again? The fact you've been shot in the head was nothing but a fucking miracle. So, why is it the Courier wants to recover this platinum chip as if it had any kind of sentimental value?

 

The blank slate background of this protagonist wasn't intriguing, but it seems many people love this because it is better for roleplaying purpose. They feel a protagonist with a back story is not much for RP. I disagree. I like to know some sort of back story of the protagonist. I like to know where the protagonist comes from because it helps me identify the protagonist. Where they come from and what their motives are. From the moment I start the game, I can completely change that like I did with the Lone Wanderer. And I was able to create their personality in Vault 101 like having the dialogue options when talking to Amata at your 10th birthday. And also when Amata was being bullied by the Tunnel Snakes. And also by the time she woke me up. I didn't have to play as a goody two-shoes in Vault 101. I could of been a cynical prick if that's what I wanted to. And that pretty much defied my character from the moment I left Vault 101. Or, I could of been a loving sweet person. But either choice, my character was going to change the moment I walked into the wasteland.

 

In New Vegas, you don't really shape your character, you're just a wasteland courier doing your little job and had an unfortunate incident. There's no room that allows you to shape your character through dialogue. When you wake up in Doc Mitchell's home, you don't have any options to be an arse to him. You only get to be thankful. Same with Victor when you step out in Goodsprings and run into him.

 

The only thing I liked out of that story from start up to encountering Benny was the option to sleep with him, (as a female character of course), fucking his brains out and putting a bullet to his dome. That was a very nice option. Even if it was a black screen moment. Just imagining it is enough for me.

 

The whole ting with Mr. House, well I did a few of his quests. Up to the vault where you enter and you speak to him again and he has his army robots in there. I decided I just couldn't continue it no more, but not only that. The game would crap out to that point so I gave up.

 

You know what got to me with the Lone Wanderer? Was when the protagonist spoke to their father, James and James had told his child about the things they knew what they did. It reminds me of Rick and TWD. How at the start he was a cop and a pretty stand up guy and throughout the story from season 1 through 3 you see how the world changes him. How he's not the same person he used to be, but that person is still in there. Inside of him. But because he has had to face the world for what it has become. The people who are willing to kill him to take what his and his group have. And how he loses it. I picture the Lone Wanderer in a similar situation. Growing up in Vault 101, you know a perfect world out of harms way. Only to be forced out into the real world and see and experience it yourself. Not having any other choice because you can't turn back. So one way or the other this world changes you, but you have that choice to stay who you are, or make decisions based on your roleplay like blowing up Megaton.

 

The reason why Fallout 3 had a better story was because I found the protagonist finding their father had more of a purpose than some stupid platinum chip. I found it more intriguing living in a pretentious perfect world out of harms way only to step out into a world you know nothing of except rumors and stories. If even that.

 

As a courier living in this "wasteland", you'd think you'd know the tricks and trades already. But it seems Obsidian delivered a virgin to the story and now you have to figure out which way the condom goes on.

 

 

The World

 

The world was not a wasteland. There were only a few patches in the game world where it felt dangerous. The rest of it was repetitive flat land or hills with bushes, rocks, cactus and dirt, and more bushes, rocks, cactus and dirt.

 

Not once did I step into a world that felt threatening. Hence, why many people (including myself) refer this game as a cowboy shooter game. And the thing is, it's not that you can't mix cowboys and a post-nuclear world together. It can work. But their implementation of it was so lackluster.

 

The world looked like a modern world of poverty. Nothing more. Whereas, Fallout 3 did lack in it's own way, but DC was hit real bad so they were exposed to more radiation. And that's why New Vegas wasn't a wasteland. They weren't hit as bad and that's where they messed up. Funny how Mr. House was able to stop bombs from dropping on New Vegas, but the outskirts didn't really look like it took much damage. Even Hoover Dam for that matter.

 

The wasteland is supposed to be a depressive world. When people complain about that, a post-apocalyptic world game isn't for them. And New Vegas didn't deliver that. I wasn't reminded not once about what the world has become and what it used to be. People are trying to hang on to what they have left and it isn't much but they are making it the best they can. Even if it's a smile that is keeping them together. Or even if it's those classic tunes on the radio that is lifting their spirits, which was perfectly fine in both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Despite I wasn't fond of the radio disc jockey in New Vegas, but it fit well for it's theme.

 

They could of made the world look more like a wasteland. Give off that vibe while interpreting the western theme in it, too. They could of added more flavor to the landscape to make it feel more dangerous by making raider settlements look a bit more organized. Making them look like they live in a junkyard, or military base camps of a sort and have traps spread out in the landscape not only for the player, but for others too like wastelanders and NCR.  Anybody really because raiders don't really get along with anyone.

 

If I designed the world, I would of want you in a world where you feel you need to watch your every move. It's supposed to feel that way. It supposed to be a world of only the strong survive. You either adapt to it quickly, or you die.

 

 

Factions

 

Factions were fine, I guess. I'm not a fan of NCR or Legion. The whole Roman costume thing just didn't do it for me, but what ever. The war between them was fine, but what annoyed me was the war being shoved in my face. Forcing me to give a shit about something that I don't want to. And like BSG stories (including Fallout 3) it's another ultimate chosen one to save the world, which has gotten so old.

 

Anyways, What didn't make sense was the way some factions played out. The places they were put in this "wasteland". For instance: I would of put Great Khans in Vault 3 and around the premises where the Fiends are. Why? Well, it makes more sense that Great Khans would have a personal vendetta against NCR for what happened at Bonnie Springs. But not only that. Because Great Khans were hit really bad and lost a lot of people. Including children in the crossfire, Vault 3 would of been a place where they can re-establish. They could of used their leverage on chems on NCR like having connections with some soldiers to sell them chems and this could of been leverage to make NCR weak. Like how weak they are in New Vegas spending funds on gambling while a war is being prepared. And this is why I hoped NCR would fall. But I had no love for Legion anyways. Both factions were just meh...

 

The Fiends, I would of placed them around the outskirts of New Vegas and Mojave like you see Jackals and Viper Gunslingers. I would of had them patched in small settlements around the outskirts like you see Jackals and Viper Gunslingers. I would of had them raiding settlements and NCR and even Legion if paths were crossed. That would of made the world a bit more dangerous.

 

The fact that they were chemed out freaks made sense. But what made no sense was they complaining about wanting more chems to sate their addiction. You can only go for so long without drugs being addicted before your body starts to wear down and you start to feel like crap. So what made no sense to me is Fiends with plasma and laser guns. Especially being accurate as they are when either their chemed the hell out, or they are suffering from their addiction. You can hear it from them when they talk, craving for chems and their bloodshot eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

New Vegas just didn't do it for me. I've tried, but it just never could get to me. I just don't see how many people find this to be one of the best RPGs.

 

 

 

So despite the fact that you haven't even finished the game once you complain about what a flop it was and how you associated yourself more with characters and story from a different game .

The story is not focused on the chip it is one about revenge and the chips comes second with many possible choices on both how to get it and what to do with it .

While I did kind of like F3 (despite it ending) it is nowhere close to NV. The very point of the story of New Vegas was giving you choice, sure you may start as a courier with no laid out backstory ,no father to rescue and no 5 timeskips through your life up to the start of the game  however you get a much greater control over the player after that and it also let you choose your own story and playstyle leading to a great replay value .

 

 

As for your complains about the world , the nuclear war started in (cyberpunk!) 2077 and NV starts in 2281 thats a full 211 years since the war so most of what wasn't destroyed by the nukes had crumbled and turned into dust and the people dont know how the world used to be that's why you weren't reminded of how it was and in that time there is bound to be some development and growth in civilization and while it isn't a desolate ,depressing ,empty place with no people it certainly is a post-nuclear game , just one that focuses on the hardships of life in such a world .

 

 

 

and just so you know It's  could have not could of

[DocClox]

In my post I was trying to stay out of the specific plot or game-related aspects of the two games and only compare the low-level basic ways the two "open worlds" work. How does the open world interact with the PC and vice-versa, what is the environment - friendlies, neutrals, enemies, how are they introduced to the player. How is the player kept motivated for whatever they do in that world. How much freedom does the player have to influence the PC and the other people in that world and vice-versa. The basic setup for the open world - things that are likely to persist in future open world games - regardless of any specific plot, factions and other custom logic.

 

But the way you put the FO4 plot in the Skyrim settings does a good job in helping people actually feel how bad it is.

Actually, I thought you were spot on. I just wanted to join in

[fdummies]

Making RPGs isn't something you can lose your edge at, most of you don't seem to understand that this is business; they want to sell to the largest possible amount of people and so they try not to make something to niche and try to appeal to the largest audience, they saw skyrim sold a lot and made skyrim with guns and different setting. I've seen people say that bethesda are bad at making games as a whole, it's false in my opinion, the worlds they design are great and the gameplay has gotten better since the earlier games, they only really fail at filling this world with interesting and compelling stuff. Here's how I'd describe fallout 4 : a "casual" experience that also is a great framework for hardcore modding fans. Although the quests are mostly boring and infinitely repeatable, a lot of people will see replayability and value for their money. Also, when it comes to what they removed, I think they just took out things that would confuse people even for a small amount of time(except for the actual "I want to be the bad guy conversation choices" which the only rational choice as to why they removed it would be : Too many lines to record AND they would have to design another dialogue screen).

 

I don't think bethesda lost any skill, in fact they got better, fallout just adapted to the gaming landscape, you just have to compare it to any other 3xA release to notice that.

[DocClox]

Making RPGs isn't something you can lose your edge at,

mmm... you can lose your edge at anything. EA used to make good games once upon a time.

 

most of you don't seem to understand that this is business; they want to sell to the largest possible amount of people and so they try not to make something to niche and try to appeal to the largest audience, they saw skyrim sold a lot and made skyrim with guns and different setting.

Makes perfect sense from a business point of view. Possibly a little short-termist; they're moving away from a sizable, loyal niche audience to a larger, transient, generic one. The risk is that they'll be flavour of the month for just long enough to alienate their hardcore loyal fans ... but I'm sure they've run risk and cost benefits analysis. Good luck to them.

 

I've seen people say that bethesda are bad at making games as a whole, it's false in my opinion, the worlds they design are great and the gameplay has gotten better since the earlier games, they only really fail at filling this world with interesting and compelling stuff.

They've been good at making games. They've been excellent, unparalleled maybe at making a certain sort of game. The trouble is, Fallout 4 isn't the sort of game they've been good at making.

 

The world building is still excellent, but good level design and Amusingly Posed Bears only gets them so far.

 

Here's how I'd describe fallout 4 : a "casual" experience that also is a great framework for hardcore modding fans. Although the quests are mostly boring and infinitely repeatable, a lot of people will see replayability and value for their money.

I wonder how many of those same people will still be playing in 12 months time. Their previous games have had incredible longevity. The radiant quests, while they offer the illusion of infinite replayablity, also get repetitive after a while. They're very well executed, but the game relies too far heavily on them and they don't have quite the shelf life they would have if they weren't primary gameplay.

[Mashi]

Well Doc, I can't actually think of a EA game that EA itself made that was great.  They published a lot of good games(Bullfrog, Dice, Origin, Maxis titles), they bought up a lot of good studies and published a first title for them, sometimes they would buy up those studios with "an offer they couldn't refuse.".  Usually by the sequel you're already seeing problems related to the "big, fill all the shoes, get lots of people, screw the fan base" stuff.  The Simcity 2013 release would be a good example of just how badly you can screw up with "mass market appeal."

 

The thing is with FO4, what will determine it's longevity will be the modding community.  If there's inherent problems with a game that modding can't overcome(like you mentioned with the game leaning heavily on radiant quests), then people will simply slide back to the earlier titles and say screw it.  The modding community for FO:NV for example is more vibrant then the FO3 community, I'd say even the FO4 community.  The latter might be true because of the lack of the toolkit and the general malaise people have felt over the content.  If latter content picks up and fixes the game itself though you could see a resurgence.

[Veta]

The thing is with FO4, what will determine it's longevity will be the modding community.  If there's inherent problems with a game that modding can't overcome(like you mentioned with the game leaning heavily on radiant quests), then people will simply slide back to the earlier titles and say screw it.  The modding community for FO:NV for example is more vibrant then the FO3 community, I'd say even the FO4 community.  The latter might be true because of the lack of the toolkit and the general malaise people have felt over the content.  If latter content picks up and fixes the game itself though you could see a resurgence.

 

As a game developer though you shouldn't be relying on the fans to make content and fix your games , especially when you are charging a 60€ premium price .

 

[prinyo]

The problem is that some of the changes made in FO4 will make it way harder for modders to "fix" the part of the game that needs fixing the most.  

A lot have been said about the voiced PC and the dialogue system, but probably a lot more will be said in the future. 

And while we still don't know enough about the possibilities to mod the dialogue, the voiced PC is a fact. Fact that opens a lot of question for people who want to make quest mods, follower mods, or mods like "Interesting NPC" for Skyrim.

 

Looking at the Skyrim mods you can see some people made their best to make their mods blend into the game. The voice acting is considered a big plus for a mod and a lot of modders have done it really well.

Those people will be quite discouraged now. Whatever they do and no matter how much effort they put, their mods will always feel like "patch" because the developer of the game have put a clear line between "our" and "their" content. Many of those talented and ambitious mod authors will be faced with the question is it worth it spending hundreds of hours working on a big mod that can never be "done right"? And many mods that would add interesting quests and NPCs will never be made.

[DocClox]

Well Doc, I can't actually think of a EA game that EA itself made that was great.  They published a lot of good games(Bullfrog, Dice, Origin, Maxis titles), they bought up a lot of good studies and published a first title for them, sometimes they would buy up those studios with "an offer they couldn't refuse.".  Usually by the sequel you're already seeing problems related to the "big, fill all the shoes, get lots of people, screw the fan base" stuff.  The Simcity 2013 release would be a good example of just how badly you can screw up with "mass market appeal."

 

OK, I withdraw the EA comment

 

Really, I suppose the thing with Beth isn't so much "lost their edge" as "lost their way". They used to be company with a vision, and it seems like they are losing sight of that on account of all those pesky dollar bills getting in the way.

 

The thing is with FO4, what will determine it's longevity will be the modding community.  If there's inherent problems with a game that modding can't overcome(like you mentioned with the game leaning heavily on radiant quests), then people will simply slide back to the earlier titles and say screw it.  The modding community for FO:NV for example is more vibrant then the FO3 community, I'd say even the FO4 community.  The latter might be true because of the lack of the toolkit and the general malaise people have felt over the content.  If latter content picks up and fixes the game itself though you could see a resurgence.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm following the discussions still, but I have no intention of playing or modding until they get all these DLC out of the way and I have an idea of what the final game is going to look like.

 

Those people will be quite discouraged now. Whatever they do and no matter how much effort they put, their mods will always feel like "patch" because the developer of the game have put a clear line between "our" and "their" content. Many of those talented and ambitious mod authors will be faced with the question is it worth it spending hundreds of hours working on a big mod that can never be "done right"? And many mods that would add interesting quests and NPCs will never be made.

I must admit, as time goes by I'm feeling less and less enthusiastic about modding this thing. If I'm going to mod a game, I want to like it enough to play it.

[Guest Mogie56]

 

Well Doc, I can't actually think of a EA game that EA itself made that was great.  They published a lot of good games(Bullfrog, Dice, Origin, Maxis titles), they bought up a lot of good studies and published a first title for them, sometimes they would buy up those studios with "an offer they couldn't refuse.".  Usually by the sequel you're already seeing problems related to the "big, fill all the shoes, get lots of people, screw the fan base" stuff.  The Simcity 2013 release would be a good example of just how badly you can screw up with "mass market appeal."

 

OK, I withdraw the EA comment

 

Really, I suppose the thing with Beth isn't so much "lost their edge" as "lost their way". They used to be company with a vision, and it seems like they are losing sight of that on account of all those pesky dollar bills getting in the way.

 

Epic Games did the same thing when Cliffy B. was in charge of game design because of all the Microsoft money being thrown at him. they stopped making games for the PC and went total Console snubbing the PC community that got them where they were. Now that Cliffy B. is no longer with Epic games they've come to their senses and are now working "with and along side of" the PC community to bring back Unreal Tournament leaving Gears to Microsoft. I don't think Bethesda has lost there edge, more like they've lost their focus on what's really important. You can't really have a GOOD rpg on console and keep the console masses interested. most of them don't have the kind of concentration it takes to play an RPG properly. and anyone playing on console don't get your knickers in a bunch. the largest console base is under 20 years old and for the longest time it's been all about COD. that may change with the advent of MODS on Console. and I mean REAL mods not just stat and damage hikes or low gravity.

[prinyo]

Speaking about longevity - earlier today FO4 dropped below Skyrim in the number of players on Steam for some time and now they are neck to neck. 

It is a fact that in those stats Skyrim has all the years of modding as it's advantage, but it happens only a week after the release of WW that has the main purpose of keeping players involved with the FO4 world.

Looking at the history we can see that WW has some effect for several days:

 

 

The numbers can be interpreted in different ways. I'm posting them simply because I find them interesting.

[Lendova]

 

 

Well Doc, I can't actually think of a EA game that EA itself made that was great.  They published a lot of good games(Bullfrog, Dice, Origin, Maxis titles), they bought up a lot of good studies and published a first title for them, sometimes they would buy up those studios with "an offer they couldn't refuse.".  Usually by the sequel you're already seeing problems related to the "big, fill all the shoes, get lots of people, screw the fan base" stuff.  The Simcity 2013 release would be a good example of just how badly you can screw up with "mass market appeal."

 

OK, I withdraw the EA comment

 

Really, I suppose the thing with Beth isn't so much "lost their edge" as "lost their way". They used to be company with a vision, and it seems like they are losing sight of that on account of all those pesky dollar bills getting in the way.

Epic Games did the same thing when Cliffy B. was in charge of game design because of all the Microsoft money being thrown at him. they stopped making games for the PC and went total Console snubbing the PC community that got them where they were. Now that Cliffy B. is no longer with Epic games they've come to their senses and are now working "with and along side of" the PC community to bring back Unreal Tournament leaving Gears to Microsoft. I don't think Bethesda has lost there edge, more like they've lost their focus on what's really important. You can't really have a GOOD rpg on console and keep the console masses interested. most of them don't have the kind of concentration it takes to play an RPG properly. and anyone playing on console don't get your knickers in a bunch. the largest console base is under 20 years old and for the longest time it's been all about COD. that may change with the advent of MODS on Console. and I mean REAL mods not just stat and damage hikes or low gravity.

 

 

I dont have any kind of console nor I play any mobile games, so I have no idea what kind of games you can play on those. My tablet is a document reading tool, internet access platform and a Twitch screen. But...

 

I'm aint sure, you have that on PC as well. Or their ability to focus on anything is the problem.

I played a lot some multiplayer games, like Battlefield series, WoW PvP/PvE, StarCraft 2 etc, and what I saw, the avarage player have problems to understand the basics of these games, even if its very simple and they already spent dozens or hundreds of hours with them.

 

What I feel or think most of the time, they simply immune to any kind of input unless something is flashing on the screen.

 

[chipstick]

Of course it was a success to the old and new fans. A lot of new people got into Fallout because of New Vegas.

 

But if you want to know, here's why.

 

 

 

Main Story

 

Introduction = weak. I don't see how some little town doctor has the capability to save someone from a gunshot to the head. And if he can, I'm surprised the protagonist walked away without any brain damage.

 

If miracles do exist, fine. The protagonist got extremely lucky. However, what doesn't fit in my mind is how this Courier decides to take this as a personal vendetta and go all rambo in search for this person in a checkered suit not only for revenge, but reacquire the platinum chip again, which is stupid. It was just a delivery boy at the wrong place, wrong time. This typical story is what you get in some mediocre action film along with the whole vendetta thing. It's not stupid, but it's stupid because it's played out. And it's not that I can't accept it, but the way they have interpreted it doesn't do it for me. As I said, I just can't fit in my mind why some Courier would go through all that trouble to reacquire the platinum chip after nearly being killed. What makes this chip so goddamn important worth risking your life again? The fact you've been shot in the head was nothing but a fucking miracle. So, why is it the Courier wants to recover this platinum chip as if it had any kind of sentimental value?

 

The blank slate background of this protagonist wasn't intriguing, but it seems many people love this because it is better for roleplaying purpose. They feel a protagonist with a back story is not much for RP. I disagree. I like to know some sort of back story of the protagonist. I like to know where the protagonist comes from because it helps me identify the protagonist. Where they come from and what their motives are. From the moment I start the game, I can completely change that like I did with the Lone Wanderer. And I was able to create their personality in Vault 101 like having the dialogue options when talking to Amata at your 10th birthday. And also when Amata was being bullied by the Tunnel Snakes. And also by the time she woke me up. I didn't have to play as a goody two-shoes in Vault 101. I could of been a cynical prick if that's what I wanted to. And that pretty much defied my character from the moment I left Vault 101. Or, I could of been a loving sweet person. But either choice, my character was going to change the moment I walked into the wasteland.

 

In New Vegas, you don't really shape your character, you're just a wasteland courier doing your little job and had an unfortunate incident. There's no room that allows you to shape your character through dialogue. When you wake up in Doc Mitchell's home, you don't have any options to be an arse to him. You only get to be thankful. Same with Victor when you step out in Goodsprings and run into him.

 

The only thing I liked out of that story from start up to encountering Benny was the option to sleep with him, (as a female character of course), fucking his brains out and putting a bullet to his dome. That was a very nice option. Even if it was a black screen moment. Just imagining it is enough for me.

 

The whole ting with Mr. House, well I did a few of his quests. Up to the vault where you enter and you speak to him again and he has his army robots in there. I decided I just couldn't continue it no more, but not only that. The game would crap out to that point so I gave up.

 

You know what got to me with the Lone Wanderer? Was when the protagonist spoke to their father, James and James had told his child about the things they knew what they did. It reminds me of Rick and TWD. How at the start he was a cop and a pretty stand up guy and throughout the story from season 1 through 3 you see how the world changes him. How he's not the same person he used to be, but that person is still in there. Inside of him. But because he has had to face the world for what it has become. The people who are willing to kill him to take what his and his group have. And how he loses it. I picture the Lone Wanderer in a similar situation. Growing up in Vault 101, you know a perfect world out of harms way. Only to be forced out into the real world and see and experience it yourself. Not having any other choice because you can't turn back. So one way or the other this world changes you, but you have that choice to stay who you are, or make decisions based on your roleplay like blowing up Megaton.

 

The reason why Fallout 3 had a better story was because I found the protagonist finding their father had more of a purpose than some stupid platinum chip. I found it more intriguing living in a pretentious perfect world out of harms way only to step out into a world you know nothing of except rumors and stories. If even that.

 

As a courier living in this "wasteland", you'd think you'd know the tricks and trades already. But it seems Obsidian delivered a virgin to the story and now you have to figure out which way the condom goes on.

 

 

The World

 

The world was not a wasteland. There were only a few patches in the game world where it felt dangerous. The rest of it was repetitive flat land or hills with bushes, rocks, cactus and dirt, and more bushes, rocks, cactus and dirt.

 

Not once did I step into a world that felt threatening. Hence, why many people (including myself) refer this game as a cowboy shooter game. And the thing is, it's not that you can't mix cowboys and a post-nuclear world together. It can work. But their implementation of it was so lackluster.

 

The world looked like a modern world of poverty. Nothing more. Whereas, Fallout 3 did lack in it's own way, but DC was hit real bad so they were exposed to more radiation. And that's why New Vegas wasn't a wasteland. They weren't hit as bad and that's where they messed up. Funny how Mr. House was able to stop bombs from dropping on New Vegas, but the outskirts didn't really look like it took much damage. Even Hoover Dam for that matter.

 

The wasteland is supposed to be a depressive world. When people complain about that, a post-apocalyptic world game isn't for them. And New Vegas didn't deliver that. I wasn't reminded not once about what the world has become and what it used to be. People are trying to hang on to what they have left and it isn't much but they are making it the best they can. Even if it's a smile that is keeping them together. Or even if it's those classic tunes on the radio that is lifting their spirits, which was perfectly fine in both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Despite I wasn't fond of the radio disc jockey in New Vegas, but it fit well for it's theme.

 

They could of made the world look more like a wasteland. Give off that vibe while interpreting the western theme in it, too. They could of added more flavor to the landscape to make it feel more dangerous by making raider settlements look a bit more organized. Making them look like they live in a junkyard, or military base camps of a sort and have traps spread out in the landscape not only for the player, but for others too like wastelanders and NCR.  Anybody really because raiders don't really get along with anyone.

 

If I designed the world, I would of want you in a world where you feel you need to watch your every move. It's supposed to feel that way. It supposed to be a world of only the strong survive. You either adapt to it quickly, or you die.

 

 

Factions

 

Factions were fine, I guess. I'm not a fan of NCR or Legion. The whole Roman costume thing just didn't do it for me, but what ever. The war between them was fine, but what annoyed me was the war being shoved in my face. Forcing me to give a shit about something that I don't want to. And like BSG stories (including Fallout 3) it's another ultimate chosen one to save the world, which has gotten so old.

 

Anyways, What didn't make sense was the way some factions played out. The places they were put in this "wasteland". For instance: I would of put Great Khans in Vault 3 and around the premises where the Fiends are. Why? Well, it makes more sense that Great Khans would have a personal vendetta against NCR for what happened at Bonnie Springs. But not only that. Because Great Khans were hit really bad and lost a lot of people. Including children in the crossfire, Vault 3 would of been a place where they can re-establish. They could of used their leverage on chems on NCR like having connections with some soldiers to sell them chems and this could of been leverage to make NCR weak. Like how weak they are in New Vegas spending funds on gambling while a war is being prepared. And this is why I hoped NCR would fall. But I had no love for Legion anyways. Both factions were just meh...

 

The Fiends, I would of placed them around the outskirts of New Vegas and Mojave like you see Jackals and Viper Gunslingers. I would of had them patched in small settlements around the outskirts like you see Jackals and Viper Gunslingers. I would of had them raiding settlements and NCR and even Legion if paths were crossed. That would of made the world a bit more dangerous.

 

The fact that they were chemed out freaks made sense. But what made no sense was they complaining about wanting more chems to sate their addiction. You can only go for so long without drugs being addicted before your body starts to wear down and you start to feel like crap. So what made no sense to me is Fiends with plasma and laser guns. Especially being accurate as they are when either their chemed the hell out, or they are suffering from their addiction. You can hear it from them when they talk, craving for chems and their bloodshot eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

New Vegas just didn't do it for me. I've tried, but it just never could get to me. I just don't see how many people find this to be one of the best RPGs.

 

 

 

Yet for me, Fallout 3 was the flop, and NV was amazing - the best of the Fallout games for me (incl the original FO1 and 2, which I played on release). FO3 had the better world design, but I didn't care about anyone in the game. I really cared about the NPCs and the factions in NV. Funny that.

 

[DocClox]

Yet for me, Fallout 3 was the flop, and NV was amazing - the best of the Fallout games for me (incl the original FO1 and 2, which I played on release). FO3 had the better world design, but I didn't care about anyone in the game. I really cared about the NPCs and the factions in NV. Funny that.

I know what you mean. For me there were two things that kept NV from eclipsing FO3

 

One of them was the music. Well not just the music, the whole cowboys-and-mutants thing didn't really work for me. But the music is the part I noticed most, and I have never been a fan of country and western. I'll take Butcher Pete over Johnny Guitar any day of the week.

 

The other thing was the way the game tried to channel you through the same sequence at the start and the way that one cell had powder gangers but take a step to the left and it's deathclaw territory. I can see what they were trying to do, but it worked much better in 1 & 2 than it did with the Gamebryo engine.

 

Little things really. Of course, NV had all the best mods after a while, so I played a lot because of that.

[Nergui]

 

Lost its edge? no. They took advice from EA by creating shitty games and and hyping it to hell and making a killing off the hype and forcing its slave modders to fix their shit.

 

Holy shitballs, making a killing is right. Jesus fuck

 

https://medium.com/steam-spy/preliminary-results-for-steam-sales-in-2015-43bb49a767bd#.mrv50ttgb

 

They rape Witcher 3 despite being a consensus inferior product

 

 

I looked over those tables and noticed a few things.

Worldwide, Skyrim sold more copies in 2015 than TW3.

In the US, both Skyrim and FO3 had better sales.

In Russia, TW3 did better than FO4, but worse than Skyrim.

But the most notable one is Poland, where TW1 and TW2 appear on this list, however TW3 is absent. oops?

 

Personally, I believe Bethesda peaked with Skyrim and while their world building skills are still excellent and superior to most other game studios, there hasn't been much evolution in their game design.

[tazdotnet]

warning: wall of text

 

 

seems people are forgetting that bethesda is a company, as a company they have two opposing teams - management and the dev team

 

management is there to balance the books and make shareholders happy while the dev team wants to make kick ass games

 

the normal dev process beth uses is tweak the engine while making all the assets and building the quests and dialogue and such but on FO4 they decided that while converting the engine to 64bit they would add as many of the features they wanted as they could - it took longer than they expected and the game suffered but the engine is more stable than any they have ever released

 

management gave the dev team 4 years to make a game that really should have been much more fun but they did not make it. this explains all the cut content people have been bitching about (FO4 had more cut content than you would think it should have) - note: FO4 came out the day before skyrim turned 4 years old

 

the dev team pitched a rough idea of the DLC they wanted to make to management and management gave the a certain amount of time (more than expected) so the dev team decided to make more DLC because they would have time, but management decided the season pass price had to change to reflect this.

 

TL:DR people complain about beth as though the dev team is making the bad choices, but it's all the management

 

 

[chipstick]

 

I know what you mean. For me there were two things that kept NV from eclipsing FO3

 

One of them was the music. Well not just the music, the whole cowboys-and-mutants thing didn't really work for me. But the music is the part I noticed most, and I have never been a fan of country and western. I'll take Butcher Pete over Johnny Guitar any day of the week.

 

The other thing was the way the game tried to channel you through the same sequence at the start and the way that once cell had powder gangers but take a step to the let and it's deathclaw territory. I can see what they were trying to do, but it worked much better in 1 & 2 than it did with the Gamebryo engine.

 

Little things really. Of course, NV had all the best mods after a while, so I played a lot because of that.

 

 

Yeah, I really wasn't fond of the country music and western vibe - those genre's have never really done it for me. My pipboy radio was always off in NV.

 

NV also wasn't as spontaneous as FO3, which had a whole heap of random encounters. FO3 was a better playground in many ways (the creepy subways!), if often way too gimmicky in ways that rubbed me badly (e.g. the settlement populated by the nuka cola lady and her creepy admirer). It did try to hit upon interesting moral dilemmas and decisions (the Pitt), but never really fleshed those issues out satisfactorily.  Ultimately, NV was for me just way more human and better thought out. Its gameplay systems were better too. 

 

Other little things in FO3 also bugged me more than they perhaps shouldve, like how Broken steel added super mutant overlords that could singlehandedly wipe out the entire Citadel. I thought that kind of broke the illusion of a pitched war between the mutants and the BOS. Little things, like you said.

[DocClox]

management gave the dev team 4 years to make a game that really should have been much more fun but they did not make it. this explains all the cut content people have been bitching about (FO4 had more cut content than you would think it should have) - note: FO4 came out the day before skyrim turned 4 years old

 

the dev team pitched a rough idea of the DLC they wanted to make to management and management gave the a certain amount of time (more than expected) so the dev team decided to make more DLC because they would have time, but management decided the season pass price had to change to reflect this.

 

TL:DR people complain about beth as though the dev team is making the bad choices, but it's all the management

 

The way you say that, it seems as though you're saying "it's not the dev team's fault, so therefore you're not allowed to complain about the game's shortcomings".

 

I'd agree with the first part of the sentence, but not the second.

[prinyo]

.....

management gave the a certain amount of time (more than expected) so the dev team decided to make more DLC because they would have time, but management decided the season pass price had to change to reflect this.

.....

 

As a developer/programmer myself I find this disturbing if true looking at what is actually released.

You mean the developers decided instead of several solid and stable DLC's they should release more of them but not quite finished, polished and usable...

 

I posted earlier a screenshot showing that the Wasteland Workshop DLC had (almost) no effect on the engagement of the (PC) players with the game.

In theory it should have kept people busy and entertained with the arena battles and the cages and so on. 

In practice it created mostly annoyance and disappointment. Firstly because it is even more hard and non-intuitive to use than the base building options. And second because it amplified problems that the settlement system has and that will probably be left unfixed (except by mods).

NPCs on the roof, NPCs spawning at most inappropriate places without any considerations of the structures the player have built, NPCs glitching thru walls - things that were always annoying people, but are now amplified and even more visible.

And setting up a fight using the arenas? Even people who have spent many hours in trying to make this work are still confused by it. For the average user (including me) the arena battles are a big disappointment  because they sounded quite promising  and exciting and turned out extremely complicated to set-up and ended up been more of a hassle than fun. And as some players have experienced - you spend quite a lot of time to set-up the fight and then a settler glitches thru the walls and kills the "enemy" with his gun.

 

So is WW a "ready to release product"? No. Could have  they spent some more time in order to fix it? Yes. Why haven't they - in order to release even more not-quite-done products? Time will tell... The start is not very promising.

Let's say Bethesda decided instead of more "quickies" that are charged "per piece" or used as an excuse to make the pass price higher, they would release only few DLCs - but solid, exciting and nicely playable. And let's say they have added a month to the development of the WW in order to fix the bugs and release a good product? That wouldn't have any impact on the income but would make players happy and the developers proud of their work? 

You seem to say it was the developers who made the choice, not the marketing. This is obviously illogical. And as a developer/programmer myself I actually found this quite offensive.  

[DocClox]

You seem to say it was the developers who made the choice, not the marketing. This is obviously illogical. And as a developer/programmer myself I actually found this quite offensive.

I missed that bit! Yeah, I agree. The whole things smacks of

 

Mgt: How long before it's ready?

 

Dev: It needs six weeks to get all the bugs out

 

Mgt: It's shipping on Monday. Do what you have to so that it's ready

 

butchery ensues...

 

I've worked on projects like that myself...

 

Other little things in FO3 also bugged me more than they perhaps shouldve, like how Broken steel added super mutant overlords that could singlehandedly wipe out the entire Citadel. I thought that kind of broke the illusion of a pitched war between the mutants and the BOS. Little things, like you said.

Yeah, Broken Steel broke a lot more than Liberty Prime. I could forgive it a lot for letting us see the consequences of getting the purifier actually working, but the level cap and the new enemies were a bit mad. Then again, by the time you got past level 20 you were basically the King Of The Wasteland anyway. I just felt sorry for Big Town where they had enough problems with normal radscoprion spawns, let alone giant albino ones.

[tazdotnet]

 

 

 

management gave the dev team 4 years to make a game that really should have been much more fun but they did not make it. this explains all the cut content people have been bitching about (FO4 had more cut content than you would think it should have) - note: FO4 came out the day before skyrim turned 4 years old

 

the dev team pitched a rough idea of the DLC they wanted to make to management and management gave the a certain amount of time (more than expected) so the dev team decided to make more DLC because they would have time, but management decided the season pass price had to change to reflect this.

 

TL:DR people complain about beth as though the dev team is making the bad choices, but it's all the management

 

The way you say that, it seems as though you're saying "it's not the dev team's fault, so therefore you're not allowed to complain about the game's shortcomings".

 

I'd agree with the first part of the sentence, but not the second.

 

 

 

I'm not saying don't complain, I'm saying aim it at the management - I'm not happy with the way beth did things either but if we go to extremes beth will just ignore us (like people claiming every little thing is sexist keeping the real sexism from being addressed) when game companies get run by developers they tend to have financial issues even when the games are good because game devs just want to make games not fuck with shareholders

 

last time i loaded up steam there was a DL for FO4 - i noticed an issue i was having with powered doors being powered by a circuit they were not connected to has been fixed sooo... the dev team is trying to do something to fix this fuckfest at least

[Veta]

 

Holy shitballs, making a killing is right. Jesus fuck

 

https://medium.com/steam-spy/preliminary-results-for-steam-sales-in-2015-43bb49a767bd#.mrv50ttgb

 

They rape Witcher 3 despite being a consensus inferior product

 

I honestly cannot see how Tes:V (I wont even soil my mouth with F4) could sell more than TW:3 , the  4euro discounts maybe ?

Or could adult mods have anything to do ?

Because if that's the case 

 

NSFW