DocClox Posted April 28, 2016 Posted April 28, 2016 The Big Dig had quite a few moments where there were a few branching paths to take. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/The_Big_Dig According to the wiki page it has one branch, right at the end, which is more or less my memory of it. Is the wiki page incorrect? If so how? The Silver Shroud was also a really good quest in my opinion. I agree it was great fun. Linear as a laser beam, but fun nonetheless. It's not like FNV did not have its fair share of 'go there, kill something, get reward' quests to be fulfilled. Oh certainly. But surely you'd agree that, in general, there was a lot more complexity to the quests in NV? And a lot more quests for that matter. The chart is bonkers because if you compared a generic fetch quest from New Vegas with one of the bigger quests from FO4 New Vegas would look like the dumbed down version of a franchise many hold dear while FO4 would come off as a true successor, which it isn't. I believe I already made the point that the charts as presented were not comparing apples to apples. That said, if you really think I'm being unfair, I'll tell you how you can fix that. Find one quest in FO4 other than the main one that has half the choice of that one quest. Show me a better quest that levels the playing field and I'll withdraw the point. But you'll need to do better than The Big Dig.
GrimReaper Posted April 28, 2016 Posted April 28, 2016 I mostly agree with you. FNV was much closer to a classical cRPG than FO4, that much is certain. If you like the classical cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment chances are you won't like FO4 as much as those games. That being said, I was not overly fond of FNV because they tried a tad bit too hard to make it look like it had depth when there really wasn't that much of it to be found. Lots of dialogue, lots of options but most of it was pretentious and empty, at least it always felt to me that way. I mean, you can convince the fiends inside Bunker 3 that you are delivering drugs but had to murder your way through the guards that were outside of the bunker. Is every drug courier forced to kill the guards outside to deliver the drugs? Why is Caesar, who is depicted as a smart and charismatic leader content with some rumbling beneath his feet instead of checking if you really destroyed the bunker that holds House's army of Securitrons? FO4 is a lot more straight forward with its design and the philosophy attached to it. It is better in some places and worse in others. I don't consider FO4 the anti-christ for the Fallout franchise though because it is a mediocre game in a series of mediocre games.
Sybian Posted April 28, 2016 Posted April 28, 2016 When I think of classic RPGing I think of Daggerfall and Oblivion and the Fallout series, along with of course Baldur's Gate, Zelda and the Dragonwarrior series, then later Final Fantasy. Skyrim seemed to uphold many of the RPG elements of previous games but it also focused heavily on modern graphics which certainly must have cut into the RPG budget. That problem seems intensified in FO4, which is extremely weak in RPG and relies heavily on the implementation of FPS and Minecraft-like settlement building. I've been looking over Metacritic and although I know that users took a giant dump on Fallout 4, it definitely shows Beth dropped a turd in the RPG community. As a game it's highly playable (114 hours since Nov. 10) but the RPG community haven't enjoyed the narrowed choices (4 per NPC max) and the linear storylines. As pointed out in many FO4 reviews, it often doesn't matter what the fuck you even do, the results are the exact same. For instance, when you're asked to side with the mayor of Diamond City or Piper, either choice gets you into the city and both act the exact same way toward you. On Metacritic Fallout 4 gets an 84/100 which is decent but not only is it not Game of the Year it's not even RPG of the Year: Witcher 3: 93/100 Pillars of Eternity: 89/100 Amazingly, the RPG community has even turned their backs on major titles with great graphics for better storylines such as Undertale (93/100). I wonder if Elder Scrolls 6 will be a return to classic RPGing or whether Beth will continue to develop these graphics intensive FPS games where your choices don't matter and they've already decided who you are (mother or father looking for your son) and what you must do. No. They are in-between major engines. Fallout 4 is restricted by the engine. It's still good. but they could not give the higher ends of rpg that people want without making it more unstable. They will be announcing a retooling/updated engine with morrowind and/or oblivion sometime in the near future 90% certain. This will be based on the new updated fallout 4 engine which is the skyrim engine boosted. (Skyrim might even get the update but doubtful.) Their new elderscrolls game will be based on the same engine but the 3.0 version and will be a massive update in regards to how the data is handled like scripts. The main issue is they are still a small studio compared to other games. Bless for example has over 500 staff working on the game. Bethesda at this time last year had around 95, plus support staff bring it around to 110. The question of "how much more polish" can you add to a game like fallout and skyrim? Almost endless. I mean look at mods. And as long as they keep giving us the tools to build I will keep buying their games. I can't do the things I want in ANY RPG that ANY studio releases.... in skyrim I can, but only because of modders. The on rails limited story that you get from the witcher series is a throw away. I still play Skyrim. I don't still play witcher 1, 2 or 3... They are good for about 30 hours then your done. and frankly I HATE playing as an old white dude. It's dumb. The new elderscrolls game will be great, and it'll be 100% better with mods.... just like oblivion, fallout 3, fallout nv, skyrim, fallout 4. because the modders get it.
DocClox Posted April 28, 2016 Posted April 28, 2016 I mostly agree with you. FNV was much closer to a classical cRPG than FO4, that much is certain. If you like the classical cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment chances are you won't like FO4 as much as those games. Funny thing, you know? I'm not that big a fan of New Vegas either. I mean Obsidian did a lot of things well, and a lot of what I don't think worked was clearly well-intentioned, but I'm really not trying to hold up New Vegas as The Perfect Game. My personal "best of breed" for this class of game is Morrowind. But yeah, I don't like FO4 very much. Some of that is personal taste, certainly. But I don't seem to be the only who feels that way, somehow... That being said, I was not overly fond of FNV because they tried a tad bit too hard to make it look like it had depth when there really wasn't that much of it to be found. Lots of dialogue, lots of options but most of it was pretentious and empty, at least it always felt to me that way. No, I get what you mean. I always had difficulty believing anyone could take a bunch of tribals from Suilk and Grampy Bone to "Ave Caesar!" and "Ring-a-ding-ding, baby" inside a single lifetime. Still, for all its perceived flaws, I always felt that in NV, Obsidian were trying to make the best game they could. By contrast FO4 feels lazy and formulaic, leaning far too much on hamster wheel activities to pad out the content and throwing in $TRENDY_FEATURE here and there at random without giving any real thought as to whether the changes fit the thematic whole of the game. I think that, more than anything else is why I feel so disappointed in this one; Bethesda are better than that. Or at least they used to better than that. Maybe they want to change their business model. FO4 is a lot more straight forward with its design and the philosophy attached to it. It is better in some places and worse in others. I don't consider FO4 the anti-christ for the Fallout franchise though because it is a mediocre game in a series of mediocre games. FO1 & 2 were all right. Overall, I'd sooner play Arcarnum for that engine, but I had a good time with both games. FO3 was good enough that I forgave Bethesda for Arena and played Oblivion, Morrowind and Skyrim. I wasn't disappointed there. FO4 ... whatever it has, it's lacking something I expected to see. Kind of sad, but there it is.
Trykz Posted April 28, 2016 Posted April 28, 2016 In my own humble opinion, Bethesda has fallen COMPLETELY out of touch with RPG gaming. Playing FO4 feels like I'm playing someone else. A particular type of person actually. NOT like I'm playing the person I'd want to be in the given setting. It's bland and boring. And with patches like this "survival overhaul" intent on further ruining the experience, I'm fast becoming VERY disenfranchised with not just FO4, but Bethesda as a whole. My game is completely broken after today's patch. And as I sit here watching it re-download in it's entirety, I find myself considering cancelling the download given the overall experience I've had with the game even before today. That's pretty fucking sad if you ask me...... Trykz
ANGRYWOLVERINE Posted April 29, 2016 Posted April 29, 2016 Because the chart is not fact, it is but an "opinion" of 2 Companies and their Games. It may be correct to you but not to me only because we have differing opinions of the games. the chart in and of itself is a bias opinion and not fact. With or without mods I enjoy FO4 as it is, it isn't perfect but what is?. I did not enjoy NV to me it was nothing more then a revenge game and that's as deep as it went (for me), but that is MY opinion and not fact. but because I did not enjoy NV doesn't mean I'm going to waste all my time condemning it and trying to get others to not enjoy it. that's as much a waste of time as the 30 plus threads here on LL made for no other reason then to bitch about FO4 and Mainly Bethesda. I just feel time would have been better served if all these complaints had been made to Beth.net and not cluttering up LL's forums. But...not my monkey...not my circus. So... you gave only an opinion, which is going all about Beth-hate, corp-hate and not the game itself. People made the chart not because it's true, but only because they hate Beth and want to shame it? Before saying an opinion, I believe it's necessary to address the opposite sides' first. If Fallout 4 is not a Fallout, no one would have had expectation of a Fallout on it. Fallout 4 uses the name of Fallout, yet it fails to give what a Fallout should give by limiting the freedom and roleplayability. That's the problem. If Beth was not ready to make a sequel for Fallout yet, they basically shouldn't make an entirely different game using Fallout's name. Tell you what? Fallout without roleplaying freedom is like The Witcher without monster hunting, World of Warcraft without story, Dragon Age without characters, and Skyrim without mods. well said. I believe the complaints about Beth are entirely justified.I realize there is a portion of the fanbase that is satisfied and will always be satisfied with anything Beth produces regardless of its quality and that of course is their right. But likewise players who are dissatisfied have a right to complain whether it be here , in the Nexus forms , Gamefaqs forums, or even Beth's own forums.That is their right. Eventually the law of diminishing returns will catch up with Beth and a sizeable portion of the fanbase will refuse to buy a game they make and then they will realize they've gone too far downhill.
Anbeegod Posted April 29, 2016 Posted April 29, 2016 Eventually the law of diminishing returns will catch up with Beth and a sizeable portion of the fanbase will refuse to buy a game they make and then they will realize they've gone too far downhill. Last I check, EA is still doing pretty well though. Unless it's an extremely epic failure in both the story and gameplay sectors such as the WoD expac of WoW, a large fanbase wouldn't have any significant change.
Miin Posted April 29, 2016 Posted April 29, 2016 Look at what happened to bioware, I bought their new game (Dragonage inqusition) installed it and tried to play it on a PC. One hour later I gave up, and for the first time ever returned the game. Will I even look at other games they will release? Now take a look at Bethseda, the only thing Fallout 4 has going for it right now is the CK and what moders can do to the game (fix rebindable keys for the love of G**). But the big question is, Can moders fix all the things that Fallout 4 is lacking at the moment? It is called Fall of duty for a reason.... My opinion is that the lack of ways too complete quests is the big culprit, go there kill, go there kill, go there kill. What happened too stealth or dialogue ways of dealing with quests?
Guest Mogie56 Posted April 29, 2016 Posted April 29, 2016 Because the chart is not fact, it is but an "opinion" of 2 Companies and their Games. It may be correct to you but not to me only because we have differing opinions of the games. the chart in and of itself is a bias opinion and not fact. With or without mods I enjoy FO4 as it is, it isn't perfect but what is?. I did not enjoy NV to me it was nothing more then a revenge game and that's as deep as it went (for me), but that is MY opinion and not fact. but because I did not enjoy NV doesn't mean I'm going to waste all my time condemning it and trying to get others to not enjoy it. that's as much a waste of time as the 30 plus threads here on LL made for no other reason then to bitch about FO4 and Mainly Bethesda. I just feel time would have been better served if all these complaints had been made to Beth.net and not cluttering up LL's forums. But...not my monkey...not my circus. So... you gave only an opinion, which is going all about Beth-hate, corp-hate and not the game itself. People made the chart not because it's true, but only because they hate Beth and want to shame it? Before saying an opinion, I believe it's necessary to address the opposite sides' first. If Fallout 4 is not a Fallout, no one would have had expectation of a Fallout on it. Fallout 4 uses the name of Fallout, yet it fails to give what a Fallout should give by limiting the freedom and roleplayability. That's the problem. If Beth was not ready to make a sequel for Fallout yet, they basically shouldn't make an entirely different game using Fallout's name. Tell you what? Fallout without roleplaying freedom is like The Witcher without monster hunting, World of Warcraft without story, Dragon Age without characters, and Skyrim without mods. well said. I believe the complaints about Beth are entirely justified.I realize there is a portion of the fanbase that is satisfied and will always be satisfied with anything Beth produces regardless of its quality and that of course is their right. But likewise players who are dissatisfied have a right to complain whether it be here , in the Nexus forms , Gamefaqs forums, or even Beth's own forums.That is their right. Eventually the law of diminishing returns will catch up with Beth and a sizeable portion of the fanbase will refuse to buy a game they make and then they will realize they've gone too far downhill. It's not about being satisfied or always satisfied with a game or the company that made it, it's the shear amount of pissing and moaning that goes on for decades after a game is made and the company that made it. putting a game that was made by said company 14 years ago on a bloody pedestal by which to judge all other games by this company after that. judging their latest game by someone else's game and pissing and moaning about it in over 30 bloody threads. A moderator started a discussion about the game and the same group of people turned it into a shit slinging contest and the moderator stopped posting. More then one moderator has cautioned against all the shit slinging bethesda bashing BS but so far they've been ignored . more then one thread has already been locked because of it but no one seems to give a fuck because they are going to have their bloody "OPINION" forced down everyone else's throat no matter what, Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they are usually full of shit. you cannot state your opinion without it being dissected and thrown back at you completely out of context just for force feed another opinion as if any of them bloody mattered.
Lovely Rose Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 "When I think of classic RPGing I think of Daggerfall and Oblivion and the Fallout series" same here. But minus fallout 4 from "Fallout series" lol they have lost their touch imo. They are removing alot of RPG stuff from the games and mostly seem to be focusing on graphics. Hell barly even working on the stories anymore, fallout 4 and Skyrims was so boring lol
ANGRYWOLVERINE Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 Because the chart is not fact, it is but an "opinion" of 2 Companies and their Games. It may be correct to you but not to me only because we have differing opinions of the games. the chart in and of itself is a bias opinion and not fact. With or without mods I enjoy FO4 as it is, it isn't perfect but what is?. I did not enjoy NV to me it was nothing more then a revenge game and that's as deep as it went (for me), but that is MY opinion and not fact. but because I did not enjoy NV doesn't mean I'm going to waste all my time condemning it and trying to get others to not enjoy it. that's as much a waste of time as the 30 plus threads here on LL made for no other reason then to bitch about FO4 and Mainly Bethesda. I just feel time would have been better served if all these complaints had been made to Beth.net and not cluttering up LL's forums. But...not my monkey...not my circus. So... you gave only an opinion, which is going all about Beth-hate, corp-hate and not the game itself. People made the chart not because it's true, but only because they hate Beth and want to shame it? Before saying an opinion, I believe it's necessary to address the opposite sides' first. If Fallout 4 is not a Fallout, no one would have had expectation of a Fallout on it. Fallout 4 uses the name of Fallout, yet it fails to give what a Fallout should give by limiting the freedom and roleplayability. That's the problem. If Beth was not ready to make a sequel for Fallout yet, they basically shouldn't make an entirely different game using Fallout's name. Tell you what? Fallout without roleplaying freedom is like The Witcher without monster hunting, World of Warcraft without story, Dragon Age without characters, and Skyrim without mods. well said. I believe the complaints about Beth are entirely justified.I realize there is a portion of the fanbase that is satisfied and will always be satisfied with anything Beth produces regardless of its quality and that of course is their right. But likewise players who are dissatisfied have a right to complain whether it be here , in the Nexus forms , Gamefaqs forums, or even Beth's own forums.That is their right. Eventually the law of diminishing returns will catch up with Beth and a sizeable portion of the fanbase will refuse to buy a game they make and then they will realize they've gone too far downhill. It's not about being satisfied or always satisfied with a game or the company that made it, it's the shear amount of pissing and moaning that goes on for decades after a game is made and the company that made it. putting a game that was made by said company 14 years ago on a bloody pedestal by which to judge all other games by this company after that. judging their latest game by someone else's game and pissing and moaning about it in over 30 bloody threads. A moderator started a discussion about the game and the same group of people turned it into a shit slinging contest and the moderator stopped posting. More then one moderator has cautioned against all the shit slinging bethesda bashing BS but so far they've been ignored . more then one thread has already been locked because of it but no one seems to give a fuck because they are going to have their bloody "OPINION" forced down everyone else's throat no matter what, Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they are usually full of shit. you cannot state your opinion without it being dissected and thrown back at you completely out of context just for force feed another opinion as if any of them bloody mattered. Being dissatisfied with the quality of games a company makes isn't slining.I Being dissatisfied with the quality of games a company makes isn't slining.I Being dissatisfied with the quality of games a company makes isn't slining.I Because the chart is not fact, it is but an "opinion" of 2 Companies and their Games. It may be correct to you but not to me only because we have differing opinions of the games. the chart in and of itself is a bias opinion and not fact. With or without mods I enjoy FO4 as it is, it isn't perfect but what is?. I did not enjoy NV to me it was nothing more then a revenge game and that's as deep as it went (for me), but that is MY opinion and not fact. but because I did not enjoy NV doesn't mean I'm going to waste all my time condemning it and trying to get others to not enjoy it. that's as much a waste of time as the 30 plus threads here on LL made for no other reason then to bitch about FO4 and Mainly Bethesda. I just feel time would have been better served if all these complaints had been made to Beth.net and not cluttering up LL's forums. But...not my monkey...not my circus. So... you gave only an opinion, which is going all about Beth-hate, corp-hate and not the game itself. People made the chart not because it's true, but only because they hate Beth and want to shame it? Before saying an opinion, I believe it's necessary to address the opposite sides' first. If Fallout 4 is not a Fallout, no one would have had expectation of a Fallout on it. Fallout 4 uses the name of Fallout, yet it fails to give what a Fallout should give by limiting the freedom and roleplayability. That's the problem. If Beth was not ready to make a sequel for Fallout yet, they basically shouldn't make an entirely different game using Fallout's name. Tell you what? Fallout without roleplaying freedom is like The Witcher without monster hunting, World of Warcraft without story, Dragon Age without characters, and Skyrim without mods. well said. I believe the complaints about Beth are entirely justified.I realize there is a portion of the fanbase that is satisfied and will always be satisfied with anything Beth produces regardless of its quality and that of course is their right. But likewise players who are dissatisfied have a right to complain whether it be here , in the Nexus forms , Gamefaqs forums, or even Beth's own forums.That is their right. Eventually the law of diminishing returns will catch up with Beth and a sizeable portion of the fanbase will refuse to buy a game they make and then they will realize they've gone too far downhill. It's not about being satisfied or always satisfied with a game or the company that made it, it's the shear amount of pissing and moaning that goes on for decades after a game is made and the company that made it. putting a game that was made by said company 14 years ago on a bloody pedestal by which to judge all other games by this company after that. judging their latest game by someone else's game and pissing and moaning about it in over 30 bloody threads. A moderator started a discussion about the game and the same group of people turned it into a shit slinging contest and the moderator stopped posting. More then one moderator has cautioned against all the shit slinging bethesda bashing BS but so far they've been ignored . more then one thread has already been locked because of it but no one seems to give a fuck because they are going to have their bloody "OPINION" forced down everyone else's throat no matter what, Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they are usually full of shit. you cannot state your opinion without it being dissected and thrown back at you completely out of context just for force feed another opinion as if any of them bloody mattered. Because the chart is not fact, it is but an "opinion" of 2 Companies and their Games. It may be correct to you but not to me only because we have differing opinions of the games. the chart in and of itself is a bias opinion and not fact. With or without mods I enjoy FO4 as it is, it isn't perfect but what is?. I did not enjoy NV to me it was nothing more then a revenge game and that's as deep as it went (for me), but that is MY opinion and not fact. but because I did not enjoy NV doesn't mean I'm going to waste all my time condemning it and trying to get others to not enjoy it. that's as much a waste of time as the 30 plus threads here on LL made for no other reason then to bitch about FO4 and Mainly Bethesda. I just feel time would have been better served if all these complaints had been made to Beth.net and not cluttering up LL's forums. But...not my monkey...not my circus. So... you gave only an opinion, which is going all about Beth-hate, corp-hate and not the game itself. People made the chart not because it's true, but only because they hate Beth and want to shame it? Before saying an opinion, I believe it's necessary to address the opposite sides' first. If Fallout 4 is not a Fallout, no one would have had expectation of a Fallout on it. Fallout 4 uses the name of Fallout, yet it fails to give what a Fallout should give by limiting the freedom and roleplayability. That's the problem. If Beth was not ready to make a sequel for Fallout yet, they basically shouldn't make an entirely different game using Fallout's name. Tell you what? Fallout without roleplaying freedom is like The Witcher without monster hunting, World of Warcraft without story, Dragon Age without characters, and Skyrim without mods. well said. I believe the complaints about Beth are entirely justified.I realize there is a portion of the fanbase that is satisfied and will always be satisfied with anything Beth produces regardless of its quality and that of course is their right. But likewise players who are dissatisfied have a right to complain whether it be here , in the Nexus forms , Gamefaqs forums, or even Beth's own forums.That is their right. Eventually the law of diminishing returns will catch up with Beth and a sizeable portion of the fanbase will refuse to buy a game they make and then they will realize they've gone too far downhill. It's not about being satisfied or always satisfied with a game or the company that made it, it's the shear amount of pissing and moaning that goes on for decades after a game is made and the company that made it. putting a game that was made by said company 14 years ago on a bloody pedestal by which to judge all other games by this company after that. judging their latest game by someone else's game and pissing and moaning about it in over 30 bloody threads. A moderator started a discussion about the game and the same group of people turned it into a shit slinging contest and the moderator stopped posting. More then one moderator has cautioned against all the shit slinging bethesda bashing BS but so far they've been ignored . more then one thread has already been locked because of it but no one seems to give a fuck because they are going to have their bloody "OPINION" forced down everyone else's throat no matter what, Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they are usually full of shit. you cannot state your opinion without it being dissected and thrown back at you completely out of context just for force feed another opinion as if any of them bloody mattered.
ANGRYWOLVERINE Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 I disagree. You can feel a company has slipped on the quality of its games and complain and where is that s...slinging ? I don't have anything personal against Todd Howard of his staff.I think the quality of their companies games have slipped.I realize some fans are satisfied despite what they say and so they don't want to hear players complain. That's too bad. There's no way to stop it and I hope no moderator of any forum tries as long as it isn't threatening or personal animus against the company being discussed. Of course the leadership of LL can do what they choose.I am not trying to tell them what to do.It is their forum. If you buy a car and you feel it is a lemon and you can't say anything. Games are products and should be treated as such.Developers should not be put on a pedestal and be immune from criticism of their company and not of them personally. And I do feel if the games continue downhill eventually most fans will stop buying their games. Some fans will stay regardless but Beth will feel the criticism in its wallet. Beth is relying on modders to fix and enhance their games for them.That is obvious to me.It is a free workforce for them . I don't understand why some players can't see that .i guess they are too enamored of Beth and can't see the forest for the trees. But as I said that is their right to feel comfortable with Beth and they can feel that way if they so choose. Even though I fail to understand why.
Guest endgameaddiction Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 @ANGRYWOLVERINE No, I disagree. About the most fans will stop buying their games. It's a new generation. Tolerance has lost its edge in this day in age as well. People have settled for what Bethesda is: a money grabbing, crappy game developing team. There are plenty of things about Skyrim that make that game mediocre and I'll give you just one: Becoming a bard. Becoming a bard literally has no effect in the game whatsoever. You don't play any instrument. You don't sing. Then again, i'd be frightened to hear the dragonborn sing. The initiative of the quest is so stupid. Yes, it's completely stupid. You become a bard without actually training to be a bard. You never train to sing or use an instrument. You go and fucking fetch a stupid rotten piece of shit book with scribble lines in it and voila, your a god damn bard. Yet, everyone else (other bards) have to sit in class and train to become a bard. bethesda sucks.
Guest Mogie56 Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 Don't really know what all that is about but nowhere in anything I posted did I say that being dissatisfied with a game or it's maker was "slinging" I was talking about all the posts in this thread and 30 other threads bashing Bethesda and their games when it has nothing to do with the original post or context of the thread or it's purpose. people are free to share their thoughts on a game no matter what those thoughts may be but good lord does it always have to turn into a Bash Bethesda and their game "Slinging" contest for no other reason then to whine. It doesn't seem to matter that a question was asked only that they have an outlet for there own agenda of pissing and moaning. Get over it already, the games been out for 5 months.
DocClox Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 putting a game that was made by said company 14 years ago on a bloody pedestal by which to judge all other games by this company after that. judging their latest game by someone else's game and pissing and moaning about it in over 30 bloody threads. Actually, I probably wasn't clear there. That 14 year old game is the standard by which I judge all open world RPGs, not just Bethesda's. And honestly, if we don't compare works against the best of those that have gone before, how are we to have a meaningful discussion? Should we not listen to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band simply because the album was recorded in 1967? Should we not watch The Maltese Falcon or read The Lord Of The Rings? Is it unfair to judge a script by comparison to Shakespeare simply because he wrote some of the best plays ever? You have to have a benchmark somewhere. Mine is Morrowind. You could make a good case for Planescape: Torment or Deus Ex as being better perhaps, but I'm going to go with Morrowind. More then one moderator has cautioned against all the shit slinging bethesda bashing BS I've seen moderators cation people about bashing Bethesda in threads intended to discuss technical issues regarding the CK, and back when had "love" and "hate" threads about F4 I've seen people cautions for posting "hate" in a "love" thread. I don't think I've seen anyone get into trouble for being critical of Bethesda in a thread established for the specific purpose of discussing whether that company is losing its edge. For that matter, how do we determine if Bethesda is losing its edge without discussing earlier works by the same company? Even if they are fourteen years old in some cases
bjornk Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 The initiative of the quest is so stupid. Yes, it's completely stupid. You become a bard without actually training to be a bard. You never train to sing or use an instrument. You go and fucking fetch a stupid rotten piece of shit book with scribble lines in it and voila, your a god damn bard. Yet, everyone else (other bards) have to sit in class and train to become a bard. It's because the whole purpose of that quest and all other fetch quests in Bard's College is to send you into a dungeon and let you kill things. Typical Bethesda. You see, that chart is perfectly valid for Skyrim as well. They think people play RPGs simply to kill things... "I don't want to read through lengthy dialogues, just quickly show me what to kill"... is the type of player they have in mind. "Shoot him in the face if you want", right, Todd?
Guest endgameaddiction Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 The initiative of the quest is so stupid. Yes, it's completely stupid. You become a bard without actually training to be a bard. You never train to sing or use an instrument. You go and fucking fetch a stupid rotten piece of shit book with scribble lines in it and voila, your a god damn bard. Yet, everyone else (other bards) have to sit in class and train to become a bard. It's because the whole purpose of that quest and all other fetch quests in Bard's College is to send you into a dungeon and let you kill things. Typical Bethesda. You see, that chart is perfectly valid for Skyrim as well. They think people play RPGs simply to kill things... "I don't want to read through lengthy dialogues, just quickly show me what to kill"... is the type of player they have in mind. "Shoot him in the face if you want", right, Todd? Amen to that.
bjornk Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 To me the main issue with New Vegas is that the game was not designed to be played as a sandbox game, you are supposed to finish it, so that you can see those "endings" for various factions. I think this approach leads to an increasingly boring game. Initially, there are plenty of quests and lots of interesting things to do that are spread around the map pretty evenly, but as you wander around the map and complete those quests, the world starts to feel increasingly "empty". It's a desert, a wasteland and there's nothing to do in it, same people, same dialogues... Probably one of the most boring things imaginable... Skyrim, on the other hand, is a little bit more of a sandbox, as it doesn't have any "ending". The world doesn't change much, dungeons and places keep resetting... and it has a never ending supply of stupid radiant quests. Although TBH, once you've completed every major questline, those radiant quests won't be enough to keep you interested in the game... unless you enjoy killing things that continuously respawn... Overall, I think both games are boring, but FNV does it a bit more quickly for me... One thing FNV was kinda able to achieve, is that it allows you to handle things differently using different character builds, like you could in the original games, which is something that Bethesda doesn't seem to care...
Nazzzgul666 Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 To me the main issue with New Vegas is that the game was not designed to be played as a sandbox game, you are supposed to finish it, so that you can see those "endings" for various factions. I think this approach leads to an increasingly boring game. Initially, there are plenty of quests and lots of interesting things to do that are spread around the map pretty evenly, but as you wander around the map and complete those quests, the world starts to feel increasingly "empty". It's a desert, a wasteland and there's nothing to do in it, same people, same dialogues... Probably one of the most boring things imaginable... Skyrim, on the other hand, is a little bit more of a sandbox, as it doesn't have any "ending". The world doesn't change much, dungeons and places keep resetting... and it has a never ending supply of stupid radiant quests. Although TBH, once you've completed every major questline, those radiant quests won't be enough to keep you interested in the game... unless you enjoy killing things that continuously respawn... Overall, I think both games are boring, but FNV does it a bit more quickly for me... I disagree that the points you mentioned make those (or other) games boring. Not sure what you mean by Sandbox game they have a lack of replay factor and/or continue playing after the story is finished, but for me, well, that's how games work. So i'm really intrested in the question: which games are not boring in your opinion? Not to disagree in general, i probably won't replay them without mods, but i didn't do that with Morrowind either. I have replayed Deus Ex about 10 times i think, Never Winter Nights and Baldurs Gate at least 3 times and still loving them. My main problem with Morrowind is probably that it's too easy to get totally overpowered very fast if you know how... and i'm not really good in restricting myself. Not sure if/what other reasons there might be that i'm not really intrested in replaying them, but an awesome story like in Baldurs Gate certainly helps.
bjornk Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 Feel free to disagree there, but that's my opinion about these games and the reason why I find them boring. All things in life become boring after a while, games are no exception. Perhaps I should have said "boring after a few years of playing" to prevent misunderstandings... Replay value is probably the most important thing to me when evaluating games. The games I enjoy playing and modding stay on my PC for years. I'm not a "finish once and throw away" type of gamer.
Guest Mogie56 Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 putting a game that was made by said company 14 years ago on a bloody pedestal by which to judge all other games by this company after that. judging their latest game by someone else's game and pissing and moaning about it in over 30 bloody threads. Actually, I probably wasn't clear there. That 14 year old game is the standard by which I judge all open world RPGs, not just Bethesda's. And honestly, if we don't compare works against the best of those that have gone before, how are we to have a meaningful discussion? Should we not listen to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band simply because the album was recorded in 1967? Should we not watch The Maltese Falcon or read The Lord Of The Rings? Is it unfair to judge a script by comparison to Shakespeare simply because he wrote some of the best plays ever? You have to have a benchmark somewhere. Mine is Morrowind. You could make a good case for Planescape: Torment or Deus Ex as being better perhaps, but I'm going to go with Morrowind. More then one moderator has cautioned against all the shit slinging bethesda bashing BS I've seen moderators cation people about bashing Bethesda in threads intended to discuss technical issues regarding the CK, and back when had "love" and "hate" threads about F4 I've seen people cautions for posting "hate" in a "love" thread. I don't think I've seen anyone get into trouble for being critical of Bethesda in a thread established for the specific purpose of discussing whether that company is losing its edge. For that matter, how do we determine if Bethesda is losing its edge without discussing earlier works by the same company? Even if they are fourteen years old in some cases Well maybe I should rephrase a bit here, Discussing, answering a topics question etc. is all well and good. but 99.99% of the time there is little discussion and very few times comes an answer to a topics question. More times then not it is picking apart what others say and in turn derailing the topic at hand making the thread many times longer then need be and so far off topic it's sometimes difficult to follow at best. as is what is happening here which was not my intention. Semantics, picking apart what is said not for it's context but to argue. to put ones opinion above all others and to hell with the threads OP. I just wonder how many threads are truly needed to express ones outrage over a game or it's creators because every single thread on LL that has anything to do with Fallout 4 is by and large a copy and paste of the same people with maybe a couple strays here and there and in large part the exact same complaints over and over again. By all means "Discuss" it would be a refreshing thing to see. instead of sniping each other because our opinions differ.
DocClox Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 Well maybe I should rephrase a bit here, Discussing, answering a topics question etc. is all well and good. but 99.99% of the time there is little discussion and very few times comes an answer to a topics question. More times then not it is picking apart what others say and in turn derailing the topic at hand making the thread many times longer then need be and so far off topic it's sometimes difficult to follow at best. Well... that's a fair point. I'll admit that my comments here are more in defense of my right to be critical of Bethesda that actually making any critical points. On the other hand. that's pretty much in response to your own posts which can be read as taking the opposite viewpoint. I mean, I'm not sure the objective here is to answer the title question so much as to provoke discussion around the subject, but if that is what we're supposed to be doing ... well, complaining about all the people complaining about Bethesda isn't really helping matters, if you see what I;m saying. By all means "Discuss" it would be a refreshing thing to see. instead of sniping each other because our opinions differ. Fair enough. If I post an essay on where I think FO4 succeeds and where it fails, will you answer it in the same spirit? Without splitting semantic hairs, I mean?
Guest Mogie56 Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 That's the whole thing, I probably wouldn't even answer it other then to up vote it if I agreed, I'm not going to pick apart what you say and quote each and every thing I might take issue with. what you would post is but an opinion of your experience with the game, opinions I have no problem with they are but opinions and no one opinion greater or lessor then another. all I take issue with is all the in-fighting about Bethesda or there games. I have no great love or hate for Bethesda, they are but a game developer. some of there games I like others I do not. I just think it a waste of time and energy to put so much into trashing them when we still buy there games and play them. pointing out flaws in there games is one thing, going on endless rages about them as a company or individuals within that company is another and a waste of forum resources imho. As far as Bethesda loosing there edge on RPG I think not. but again it is nothing more then my opinion. breaking away from the limitations of the old Gamebryo engine and making the Creation Engine was only logical. basing it on Gamebro keeps US as a modding community able to still MOD their games. not many engines allow for modding and even fewer allow the kind of modding we do. yes Gamebryo was limited but it still allowed for modding on a level most engines do not have without a hella learning curve. New Engines are damn expensive to license and ever more expensive to build, then you have the modifications that have to be made if your going to allow for a modding community. then bringing all that to PS4 and XBONE off the back of PC, that in and of itself isn't easy. both consoles have their own limitations to deal with as well. then you have to try and appeal to that audience as well. maybe not as much effort was put into an "RPG" form of Fallout but imho it makes it no less an RPG just different then what we've seen so far. RPG is in and of itself a narrative whether it be linear or otherwise TL:DR end.
GrimReaper Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 I can only recommend playing a round of good old pen and paper with a somewhat decent GM. cRPGs pale in comparison to what you can do and who you can be with a simple piece of paper, a few friends and a bit of imagination. Obviously, game devs know this, so they try to at least somewhat reach the same point of interaction between player and world by including a fuckton of dialogue. I mean, imagine how any book or movie would be like if it would follow the rules of classical cRPGs. The protagonist would lead a couple of people around and asking everyone and their dog about work or information. No movie or book could work like that, yet you could easily make a good movie/book out of a good PnP adventure. RPGs have a somewhat established ruleset that stems from the fact that cRPGs can not offer you the same as a game master. They're stiff, artificial and clunky in comparison. A GM doesn't offer you a few bits of dialogue to chose from, a GM asks you what your character wants to say and as such, you don't need many words. I always wondered why people consider more text = more RPG. Praising a limitation as a defining feature is a bit weird.
Guest endgameaddiction Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 mY argument about becoming a bard isn't generally about the dialogue, but how the story entails. In a sense dialogue does have to do with it, but in general. It's about you, a nobody to them who is entrusted on a large task, only to return to become a bard without any level of training. You hold the title, but there's no meaning behind that. You are referred to as bard by NPCs, but that's it. When you start playing Skyrim and you talk to an Innkeeper, you find out about the college recruiting new members. One either gets excited by the idea if bard is something that interests them, or it doesn't. I was pretty interested in seeing how being a bard would be in Skyrim. Bard in Final Fantasy was very fun, but it has a much different purpose than what it does in Skyrim. That franchise leans more towards fantasy than it does realism, whereas TES and Fallout for that matter are both type of franchises that try to have a balance of both. I wasn't expecting to use an instrument as some sort of weapon, or tool to hypnotize others. Not anything like you see in FF games with the bard class in them. It would of been more interesting to see how being a bard could actually affect you in game. Maybe you could play at taverns and Inns as a way of means to acquire septims? Or even in small villages like Dark Water Crossing by the campfire to try and bring some excitement to folks having a tough time working the mine and sleeping outside in tents. Now that I think about it, those things I mentioned could of been a way to even boost your reputation around towns and villages.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.