Has Beth lost its edge on RPG gaming?

[DocClox]

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.

It is possible to have a sensible discussion on the relative merits of a game without it descending into semantic hair-splitting, you know. That's the entire basis of literary criticism. Admittedly, it doesn't happen as often as we might like, but that shouldn't stop us from trying.

 

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.

 

On the other hand, I think there are legitimate concerns about the direction Bethesda has taken with recent games, tending to greater levels of hand-holding and requiring less mental engagement from the player. They may be moving towards more profitable games, but it seems to be at the expense of features that many of love. That seems like a valid topic for discussion to me.

 

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.

How do you get from role playing to mod support? I know the term means different things to different people, but I have to say, that's a new one.

 

RPG is in and of itself a narrative whether it be linear or otherwise TL:DR end.

Of course, with that definition, it's hard to imagine anything that isn't an RPG.I mean Chess has a narrative: two armies fight, one is forced to surrender when the death of their king becomes inevitable. Does that make it an RPG? If all you need is a narrative, then books and films are exercises in roleplaying. If you insist on that definition then every computer apart from the most determinedly abstract becomes a roleplaying. But then the term becomes so broad as to be practically meaningless. Certainly it no longer describes the concerns that prompted this thread.

 

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.

Sure. I mean an illustrated book is still illustrated whether it has a picture on every page, or just a single diagram as a frontspiece. But you wouldn't really say the single-diagram book was "no less illustrated" than the one with a picture on every page. In fact most people would probably say that the single-diagram book wasn't really illustrated at all, except perhaps in a very narrow, legalistic sense, and if they'd bought the book expecting lush and lavish pictures on every page, you can't really blame them if they feel disappointed.

 

Similarly, the complaint here is not so much that Bethesda has expunged every trace of "RPGness" (to coin a phrase) from Fallout 4, but rather that there is quite a lot less of it than we have come to expect from this particular company. More worryingly still, this appears to many of us to be a trend in their last few games. Hence "losing their edge".

 

Interestingly, you would seem to agree with the thread proposition after all. I'm quite surprised.

[GrimReaper]

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.

 

My post was not directed at anyone particular, just injecting my general thoughts. I agree with what you say about Skyrim, and it is not only the bard's college that suffers from bad progression. Pretty much every quest chain has lightning fast progression where at the end, you are suddenly arch mage or some such, without being any good in what this organization specializes in.

 

That being said, I never considered Bethesda games good RPGs. All the games I played were more or less a theme park with many side attractions, but your choice was always limited or artificial. I'd say that this comes from the fact that your interactions with the world themselves are limited, you can either smack things or talk. Many pieces of dialogue can create the illusion that you can actually affect things, but I'd rather like it if the game showed me the consequences of my actions rather than tell me about them. A celebration about the defeat of Alduin would be much better than people just saying how great you are for defeating the world-eater and then simply walking away, minding their own business. If the game shows you what you did, you don't need to be remembered about what you did by NPCs commenting on what you did. That gets old fast, no matter how many variations of it you hear.

 

If you however actually see how you made the life of many people better or worse, that's a different story.

 

[Aria]

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.

 

That is the problem i have with them in general.

Most of the stuff they do in their games is just goldfoil, once you unwrap it, there is nothing there of worth, just like with the bards quest.

And just like the "RPG" side of their games, its only purporse is to throw you a goldfoil, giving you the illusion that something interesting is going to happen but all you end up doing is killing everything in sight.

There is nothing there, no interesting decisions, no interesting spells/skills/abilities, no interesting loot, no interesting characters.

Everything is just a scratch on the surface that doesnt go deeper and the worst thing is they do this over and over while peeling off more and more from the depth their games once had.

Its a damn shame, it really is.

 

[Guest endgameaddiction]

 

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.

 

That is the problem i have with them in general.

Most of the stuff they do in their games is just goldfoil, once you unwrap it, there is nothing there of worth, just like with the bards quest.

And just like the "RPG" side of their games, its only purporse is to throw you a goldfoil, giving you the illusion that something interesting is going to happen but all you end up doing is killing everything in sight.

There is nothing there, no interesting decisions, no interesting spells/skills/abilities, no interesting loot, no interesting characters.

Everything is just a scratch on the surface that doesnt go deeper and the worst thing is they do this over and over while peeling off more and more from the depth their games once had.

Its a damn shame, it really is.

 

 

 

I agree with you on that.

 

 

And speaking of loot. That's another big issue I see in TES and Fallout. Especially in Skyrim where you have blacksmith and you have black smith perks. When you unlock each type of armor, you are able to craft it, but as you level up, you realize that the only real purpose behind blacksmith is only to really upgrade your armors defense. That and reach the Dragon armor perk.

 

I never understood their motives with loot in game in conjunction with the black smith for weapons and armor. You can easily find this stuff as you level up and finding it in chests and snatching it off people's bodies, it doesn't really feel so rewarding anymore.

 

It doesn't feel rewarding looting all these chests to find more junk. I never really liked it. I think it really makes the game too easy and less rewarding. Even when I kill the dragon priests the masks don't even feel rewarding because their stats aren't even all that great.

 

 

 

And with Fallout, the issue I see is that they plant too many guns in the world making it to easy to have access. I'm ore of a melee person and it bothers me that they never really cared for melee combat in Fallout. And one would think in a world like Fallout where it's 200+ years after the bombs fell, most guns would have either been scavenged or weathered to the point of useless because 200+ years is a long time of exposure to sun, rain, humidity etc...

 

I never feel like I have to make a decision on the weapons I have if I should sell something or keep it for the sake of me maybe needing it until I can really find something much more stronger.

 

I get it's an open world, but it doesn't feel like s survival game when you have a bulk of weapons on you.

 

I think weapons should sell for very cheap and ammo should be very rare. And guns should be rare to come across. That way, when you do find a gun, you finally feel relieved that you have something to defend yourself with.

 

 

 

I have Resident Evil in mind where you didn't only stick with using your pistol, but you also had a knife that came in handy when you were low on ammo and didn't want to waste that last clip because you had a feeling that you will need it later.

[Aria]

 

 

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.

 

That is the problem i have with them in general.

Most of the stuff they do in their games is just goldfoil, once you unwrap it, there is nothing there of worth, just like with the bards quest.

And just like the "RPG" side of their games, its only purporse is to throw you a goldfoil, giving you the illusion that something interesting is going to happen but all you end up doing is killing everything in sight.

There is nothing there, no interesting decisions, no interesting spells/skills/abilities, no interesting loot, no interesting characters.

Everything is just a scratch on the surface that doesnt go deeper and the worst thing is they do this over and over while peeling off more and more from the depth their games once had.

Its a damn shame, it really is.

 

 

 

I agree with you on that.

 

 

And speaking of loot. That's another big issue I see in TES and Fallout. Especially in Skyrim where you have blacksmith and you have black smith perks. When you unlock each type of armor, you are able to craft it, but as you level up, you realize that the only real purpose behind blacksmith is only to really upgrade your armors defense. That and reach the Dragon armor perk.

 

I never understood their motives with loot in game in conjunction with the black smith for weapons and armor. You can easily find this stuff as you level up and finding it in chests and snatching it off people's bodies, it doesn't really feel so rewarding anymore.

 

It doesn't feel rewarding looting all these chests to find more junk. I never really liked it. I think it really makes the game too easy and less rewarding. Even when I kill the dragon priests the masks don't even feel rewarding because their stats aren't even all that great.

 

 

 

And with Fallout, the issue I see is that they plant too many guns in the world making it to easy to have access. I'm ore of a melee person and it bothers me that they never really cared for melee combat in Fallout. And one would think in a world like Fallout where it's 200+ years after the bombs fell, most guns would have either been scavenged or weathered to the point of useless because 200+ years is a long time of exposure to sun, rain, humidity etc...

 

I never feel like I have to make a decision on the weapons I have if I should sell something or keep it for the sake of me maybe needing it until I can really find something much more stronger.

 

I get it's an open world, but it doesn't feel like s survival game when you have a bulk of weapons on you.

 

I think weapons should sell for very cheap and ammo should be very rare. And guns should be rare to come across. That way, when you do find a gun, you finally feel relieved that you have something to defend yourself with.

 

 

 

I have Resident Evil in mind where you didn't only stick with using your pistol, but you also had a knife that came in handy when you were low on ammo and didn't want to waste that last clip because you had a feeling that you will need it later.

 

 

Yeah the loot, i cant count how many times i was so pissed dragging myself through another dungeon just to loot a chest with an iron dagger and 5g.

Same with blacksmithing and all of the perks, nothing but goldfoils.

This is nothing but lazy design that is based on whats popular, they see lots of games have crafting, so they throw in some crafting, then they see people like to build stuff so they throw in settlemnets, same with romances and companions, but none of these ideas are expanded beyond the basic starting design, nor are they really intergrated deeper into the world to give them any meaningfull presence.

 

I cant really comment on FO4 since i didnt bought it, but watching lots of streams and vids, the first thing that struck me also is, how the hell this can be 200 years later.

Just by knowing human nature, everything would have been picked clean..everything, but then i realized this is just Bethesda doing thier usual thing, all the talk about fallout and post-apocalyptic world are just carrots so they can send you to kill something.

I also like to play melee but again they do everything based on whats popular, hence why they didnt bother expanding the combat to anything but guns in FO4.

Its pure salesman design.

 

[Guest Mogie56]

If you watch your perks melee can be damn near as devastating as any range type weapon in the game. even VATS works with melee. as far as weapons being time and weather damaged that's why you have pipe weapons, rusted pieces of junk that they are they work. may not be the most realistic things in the world but they are functional and have plenty of upgrades. granted most people don't even bother with them when they can get their hands on better manufactured weapons, but they are there and plentiful. raiders and gunners use then. the 10mm's you get during your evac. from 111 most will hold onto and upgrade rather then use pipe. but to say they didn't expand on combat for anything other then guns is not true at all. Sure guns are a main focus, it's just that type of world, no one thought hey they should of expanded on combat for Skyrim to have guns it's just not that type of world.

[Aria]

If you watch your perks melee can be damn near as devastating as any range type weapon in the game. even VATS works with melee. as far as weapons being time and weather damaged that's why you have pipe weapons, rusted pieces of junk that they are they work. may not be the most realistic things in the world but they are functional and have plenty of upgrades. granted most people don't even bother with them when they can get their hands on better manufactured weapons, but they are there and plentiful. raiders and gunners use then. the 10mm's you get during your evac. from 111 most will hold onto and upgrade rather then use pipe. but to say they didn't expand on combat for anything other then guns is not true at all. Sure guns are a main focus, it's just that type of world, no one thought hey they should of expanded on combat for Skyrim to have guns it's just not that type of world.

 

You missing the point of what endgameaddiction ment me thinks.

 

Im not angry as much at the fact that they stray away from the rpg part, as that its replaced by nothing.

I love action games, when the combat is good, when you have lots of weapon type choices, lots of ways to approach your opponents and active skills that add another layer to the combat, i dont feel the need for amazing quests since the combat makes up for it.

But there is nothing, besides lazy passive skills, you either swing your melee wep or fire gun and thats it, there is no active approach to make the skills interesting, no creativity.

And this is in all of their games when it comes to combat.

Also it doesnt make sense to say "its that type of the world", dont you think that in a post-apocalyptic world the most used weapons would actually be melee?

Its exactly as endgameaddiction said, the ammo would be scarce, so the use of melee weapons would be the most logical thing, while saving ammo and guns for situations where melee weapons wont help...i mean isnt that the part of surviving in post-apoc world, making tough choices, especially how you handle your equipment, since everyhting is vital for your survival?

 

But because this is a Bethesda game and as Hines already stated that they dont want think about if stuff makes sense or not in a game with talking super mutants and gouls, it is how it is.

But this whole approach is contrary to the world they are trying to build and it shows.

 

I mean if they want to make action games, im fine with it as long as the combat has depth, but so far i seen no change, they are doing the same thing for a decade now...copy/paste the same passive perks and call it a day...its just..boring.

[Guest Mogie56]

You do have to remember that you have been asleep/frozen for 210 years, none of these people have been, and some like the Vault-Tec rep have been alive the entire time. people are much more resourceful then most give credit for. just because you came out of a Vault doesn't mean everybody else did and at the same time or that nothing would be around other then melee weapons upon your arrival. by the time you arrive they've already got forges running, makeshift pipe weapons etc. your the only one in the wasteland that was untouched by radiation until you leave the vault. But who cares right.

[Jazzman]

You do have to remember that you have been asleep/frozen for 210 years, none of these people have been, and some like the Vault-Tec rep have been alive the entire time. people are much more resourceful then most give credit for. just because you came out of a Vault doesn't mean everybody else did and at the same time or that nothing would be around other then melee weapons upon your arrival. by the time you arrive they've already got forges running, makeshift pipe weapons etc. your the only one in the wasteland that was untouched by radiation until you leave the vault. But who cares right.

Unfortunately, rearmament of the remnants of an almost infertile mankind by forging retro-style weapons out of scrap metal isn't precisely what one would expect from a postwar society once the fallout has settled, reconstruction of the infrastructure is. And that hasn't happened yet, not even after more than two centuries and thus probably never will 'cause the war has never ended and man, man never changes. Such a society is doomed, as Father quite rightly has prophesied. However, you are in game to change the inevitable against all odds as mankind's last chance to make the Commonwealth a better place, a heavy burden, indeed. What a Shakespearian tragedy, or is it?

[Aria]

You do have to remember that you have been asleep/frozen for 210 years, none of these people have been, and some like the Vault-Tec rep have been alive the entire time. people are much more resourceful then most give credit for. just because you came out of a Vault doesn't mean everybody else did and at the same time or that nothing would be around other then melee weapons upon your arrival. by the time you arrive they've already got forges running, makeshift pipe weapons etc. your the only one in the wasteland that was untouched by radiation until you leave the vault. But who cares right.

 

I never said that there would be only melee weapons, but that the part of the post-apocalyptic survival are scarce resources, including weapons and ammo.

 

200 years and you have stuff lying arround everywhere as if it was yesterday, buildings packed with junk and other stuff from what i seen... and then you say that people are much more resourceful while living in shacks, unable to build cities for more then 12 people...but who cares right?

[Guest Mogie56]

Well I'll give you that, there is a shitton of stuff scattered all over the place. most of which I use for materials/scrap. most pipe weapons aren't worth the little powder it would take to split them open upon firing. the junk packed in buildings I suppose was a result of the explosion/s but anything worth while is usually behind a lock. safe/etc. I believe survival mode is what most would be looking for as it greatly reduces anything you can find especially weapons and even scrap and drugs/Aid. then you also have hunger, etc. to deal with and stimpacks are reduced in effect and availability. But everyone has a different experience with it as with any game.

[Aria]

Well I'll give you that, there is a shitton of stuff scattered all over the place. most of which I use for materials/scrap. most pipe weapons aren't worth the little powder it would take to split them open upon firing. the junk packed in buildings I suppose was a result of the explosion/s but anything worth while is usually behind a lock. safe/etc. I believe survival mode is what most would be looking for as it greatly reduces anything you can find especially weapons and even scrap and drugs/Aid. then you also have hunger, etc. to deal with and stimpacks are reduced in effect and availability. But everyone has a different experience with it as with any game.

 

Yeah, but that doesnt mean people wouldnt try to get to these valuable things, geared parties would be formed trying to get to that stuff...i mean its 200 years man, even if there are defenses, i very much doubt all of them would be left intact, especially since they would be a valuable resource in wasteland.

 

All im saying is, it doesnt feel like 200 years, more like 10-20.

 

And the survival mode does sound good, but first i wanna see how they handle it, considering their execution of these ideas is always lacking.

[chipstick]

 

You do have to remember that you have been asleep/frozen for 210 years, none of these people have been, and some like the Vault-Tec rep have been alive the entire time. people are much more resourceful then most give credit for. just because you came out of a Vault doesn't mean everybody else did and at the same time or that nothing would be around other then melee weapons upon your arrival. by the time you arrive they've already got forges running, makeshift pipe weapons etc. your the only one in the wasteland that was untouched by radiation until you leave the vault. But who cares right.

 

I never said that there would be only melee weapons, but that the part of the post-apocalyptic survival are scarce resources, including weapons and ammo.

 

200 years and you have stuff lying arround everywhere as if it was yesterday, buildings packed with junk and other stuff from what i seen... and then you say that people are much more resourceful while living in shacks, unable to build cities for more then 12 people...but who cares right?

 

 

I both agree and disagree with you on this Aria. 200 years on, I would imagine that the wasteland would be more developed, that it would have evolved past scavenging as a *primary* way of surviving for the masses. Government, more agriculture and trade, the beginning of new industry and manufacturing built on the remnants of past society. This is one of the reasons I preferred NV over Beth's incarnation, as a key theme/question in NV was the shape or direction in which society should be rebuilt. The capital wasteland - everyone was content to scavenge (or be part of a tiny Brahmin caravan) for the rest of their lives it seemed.

 

But if we're going to stick with the current vision of the post-apocalypse (in which humanity seems to just stagnate in the postapocalypse - I agree with much of your criticism there), then for gameplay purposes we're going to need stuff to scavenge - ammo, weapons etc. It's not at all realistic yes - most places shouldve been picked clean long ago, but it removes a key motivator of player exploration and behaviour. Gameplay vs realism. Full realism? We'd be dead after taking the first few gunshots, given the level of medcare that seems on offer. Stimpaks exist for gameplay purposes.

 

Stuff like the size of the settlements is also reducible to technical and gameplay reasons, and I'm ready to forgive Beth for that definitely. We can't realistically manage settlements that are larger than what we have, and the game engine would probably be unable to deal with it. Plus, if we're going with the realism argument all the way, building a settlement on the larger scale would change the game entirely  - we'd need a lot more politicking, a lot more delegation of responsibilities, and hence far better writing, etc. It'd change the focus of the game entirely. Which may not be a bad game at all, but it'd be far removed from what Fallout 4 is, or indeed, what Fallout as a series has ever been about.

[Aria]

 

 

You do have to remember that you have been asleep/frozen for 210 years, none of these people have been, and some like the Vault-Tec rep have been alive the entire time. people are much more resourceful then most give credit for. just because you came out of a Vault doesn't mean everybody else did and at the same time or that nothing would be around other then melee weapons upon your arrival. by the time you arrive they've already got forges running, makeshift pipe weapons etc. your the only one in the wasteland that was untouched by radiation until you leave the vault. But who cares right.

 

I never said that there would be only melee weapons, but that the part of the post-apocalyptic survival are scarce resources, including weapons and ammo.

 

200 years and you have stuff lying arround everywhere as if it was yesterday, buildings packed with junk and other stuff from what i seen... and then you say that people are much more resourceful while living in shacks, unable to build cities for more then 12 people...but who cares right?

 

 

I both agree and disagree with you on this Aria. 200 years on, I would imagine that the wasteland would be more developed, that it would have evolved past scavenging as a *primary* way of surviving for the masses. Government, more agriculture and trade, the beginning of new industry and manufacturing built on the remnants of past society. This is one of the reasons I preferred NV over Beth's incarnation, as a key theme/question in NV was the shape or direction in which society should be rebuilt. The capital wasteland - everyone was content to scavenge (or be part of a tiny Brahmin caravan) for the rest of their lives it seemed.

 

But if we're going to stick with the current vision of the post-apocalypse (in which humanity seems to just stagnate in the postapocalypse - I agree with much of your criticism there), then for gameplay purposes we're going to need stuff to scavenge - ammo, weapons etc. It's not at all realistic yes - most places shouldve been picked clean long ago, but it removes a key motivator of player exploration and behaviour. Gameplay vs realism. Full realism? We'd be dead after taking the first few gunshots, given the level of medcare that seems on offer. Stimpaks exist for gameplay purposes.

 

Stuff like the size of the settlements is also reducible to technical and gameplay reasons, and I'm ready to forgive Beth for that definitely. We can't realistically manage settlements that are larger than what we have, and the game engine would probably be unable to deal with it. Plus, if we're going with the realism argument all the way, building a settlement on the larger scale would change the game entirely  - we'd need a lot more politicking, a lot more delegation of responsibilities, and hence far better writing, etc. It'd change the focus of the game entirely. Which may not be a bad game at all, but it'd be far removed from what Fallout 4 is, or indeed, what Fallout as a series has ever been about.

 

 

Good points!

I wasnt neccessaryly saying everything has to be ultra realistic, i was just using the knowledge of human nature in what i think would logicaly be happening, then again all i can do is asume, so yeah it doesnt mean it would happen that way.

 

Ofcourse scavenging ruins for stuff and finding nothing would take away from the fun, that much is true, though my argument was more aimed at how they managed the whole post-apocalyptic "200 years" after scenario.

Since as you said the wasteland would have been more developed after 200 years, i would have asumed that even buildings/vaults with active defenses would have been looted, not all of them ofcourse, but i have no doubt that people would be trying to get to the guarded goodies.

 

I dont like ultra realistic games, a good balance of both realism and fun is what makes games interesting to me, but there are many things from what i seen, where they didnt bother to take that same world they build, into count and just thrown stuff in like usualy.

Hence why i pointed at Hine's comment on how they dont want to think about if stuff makes sense or not in a world with talking super mutants and ghouls...wich i deem as completely contrary to the post-apocalyptic scenario as a good portion of sense is needed for you to immerse yourself in.

 

And im aware that the engine is old, but even that argument was aimed more at lazy design, then engine limitation.

 

[chipstick]

 

 

I dont like ultra realistic games, a good balance of both realism and fun is what makes games interesting to me, but there are many things from what i seen, where they didnt bother to take that same world they build, into count and just thrown stuff in like usualy.

Hence why i pointed at Hine's comment on how they dont want to think about if stuff makes sense or not in a world with talking super mutants and ghouls...wich i deem as completely contrary to the post-apocalyptic scenario as a good portion of sense is needed for you to immerse yourself in.

 

And im aware that the engine is old, but even that argument was aimed more at lazy design, then engine limitation.

 

 

 

I didn't see Hine's quote, but yes that isn't an encouraging comment to read at all. Also agreed on the main point you've made: like you, I personally wish their vision of fallout dealt more with humanity's collective attempt to rebuild, rather than scurry around like cockroaches.

 

And yes, ultra realistic games aren't always the most fun either

 

 

[bjornk]

Pre-war Jet... "Myron lied"... Tells a lot about Bethesda and their version of Fallout... and of course about their fanboys...

[Guest Mogie56]

Take what Hines says with a grain of salt, he isn't on the front line of development, most of what he does is talk out his ass, that's what he's paid for. hell even Todd Howard (Director) isn't the Designer or Writer of FO4 Emil Pagliarulo is. so he had to Direct what Emil wrote and designed, no idea what that involved and I sure as hell wouldn't want his job.

 

 

and stop with the fanboy shit, or are you just looking to cause trouble again.

[Nazzzgul666]

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.

Ok, in that case, i totally agree, If i'm the same or another type of gamer... well, depends on. I like strategy games like sid meiers alpha centauri or starcraft, and i kept playing them most time of my life (with pauses). On the other hand, i love a good story, that's one reason i never really got into the whole super mario games or stuff like that, but i adore games like Baldurs Gate, but it's not a game i'd play every year, more like every ten years to be appropiate surprised again. Not often, but sometimes a bad memory is nice to have

 

But i'm still curious which games you wouldn't call boring after some years of playing? Just to get me right here, not seeking for a discussion, just for some great games i might have missed in my life

[bjornk]

But i'm still curious which games you wouldn't call boring after some years of playing?

Mount & Blade series, Jagged Alliance 2 and so on.

[ToJKa]

Classic Doom, still play it after 20 years

 

Looking forward to a the final episode of a level pack, actually.

[spoonsinger]

 

But i'm still curious which games you wouldn't call boring after some years of playing?

Mount & Blade series, Jagged Alliance 2 and so on.

 

 

It might be an age thing. I suspect when you are younger the yearning for a new experience is more prominent and thus they produce more vitriol to perceived dissenters. Getting older sort of puts a perspective on things.

 

I do a get glow from playing old games, (probably languid neurons kicking back in) - then realize that I'm now actually shit at them, even though they used to be a walk in the park. Modding and fiddling with mods to make a game conform to my ideal is actually more my thing nowadays. (That does rely on a base which can be freely modded in the first place though)

 

[Aria]

 

 

 

I dont like ultra realistic games, a good balance of both realism and fun is what makes games interesting to me, but there are many things from what i seen, where they didnt bother to take that same world they build, into count and just thrown stuff in like usualy.

Hence why i pointed at Hine's comment on how they dont want to think about if stuff makes sense or not in a world with talking super mutants and ghouls...wich i deem as completely contrary to the post-apocalyptic scenario as a good portion of sense is needed for you to immerse yourself in.

 

And im aware that the engine is old, but even that argument was aimed more at lazy design, then engine limitation.

 

 

 

I didn't see Hine's quote, but yes that isn't an encouraging comment to read at all. Also agreed on the main point you've made: like you, I personally wish their vision of fallout dealt more with humanity's collective attempt to rebuild, rather than scurry around like cockroaches.

 

And yes, ultra realistic games aren't always the most fun either

 

Yeah it would be a great ground for some fat rpg, but here we are

If they are going the action route, i dont mind that as long as the combat has depth, but it simply doesnt, the copy/pasted perks are just another part of lazy design.

It feels like we are playing the same game for a decade now, just visually better, but i feel no progression in how they handle the combat, quests, scripting, its all the same just coated in new paint.

Take what Hines says with a grain of salt, he isn't on the front line of development, most of what he does is talk out his ass, that's what he's paid for. hell even Todd Howard (Director) isn't the Designer or Writer of FO4 Emil Pagliarulo is. so he had to Direct what Emil wrote and designed, no idea what that involved and I sure as hell wouldn't want his job.

 

 

and stop with the fanboy shit, or are you just looking to cause trouble again.

 

You make it sound as if Howard doesnt have any saying at all and even if Hines isnt in the front line, the direction the game is going speaks for itself.

Though i agree with you, i wouldnt want to be in neither of their positions.

[Guest endgameaddiction]

I never quite understood their stance on 200+ years after the post-nuclear war. I think they choose a time where even foliage would have resurrected. I would of preferred right after the war or a decade. But we probably would have never seen ghouls, or super mutants at that time.

 

The whole 50-60s theme is perfectly fine by me. I think among any other games of the same genre, it makes it stand out. And I think that's something that should never ever stop being in Fallout sequels.

 

I personally would of preferred a Fallout New York. I'm all about subways/metros  big cities and lots of alleys. Wouldn't mind sewer tunnels as well. Though, Boston doesn't look bad, they're voiced protagonist, ME dialogue are what killed it for me and that game. And I'm glad I never bought it. It may look all fancy with hires textures, enb, armors, weapons and better looking characters, but that freedom of RP means everything to me and their game. I simply don't want to be reminded my character is a mother looking for her biological child. And I don't want to have to deal with having no options for voice options.

 

I play the raider/slaver type of character and the persona of the protagonist simply doesn't match my idea of my style of character. That is a huge turn off.

[Guest Vendayn]

They DO seem to be less and less RPG as they make new games. The only exception is possibly Morrowind was better (to me) than Daggerfall RPG wise.

 

Daggerfall - ALL RPG

 

Morrowind - Still a really good RPG, can't really exactly compare it to Daggerfall. But I'd say it was a better RPG with roaming NPCs and tons of lore to read...though definitely had a much smaller world (never turn off that fog, it'll ruin your immersion of how small map is ). And had less skills than Daggerfall.

 

Oblivion - An okay RPG, ruined by level scaling, instant teleport all over, no realistic traveling methods compared to Morrowind. had a much bigger game world than Morrowind...don't recall if they removed skills or not

 

Skyrim - Vastly less RPG than Oblivion, instant teleport still, BUT at least it brought back traveling methods. MUCH less skills than Oblivion, replaced mostly with a perk tree...NPC scripted AI not as good as Oblivion (for example, in Oblivion you can walk behind a certain NPC traveling from one city to the other. She doesn't disappear, teleport or anything. She visits an inn, eats/drinks, sleeps. Then continues to her destination. Then she walks all the way back to her "home". Skyrim this NEVER happens, and NPCs walking to "Solitude to meet up with the legion" for some reason are walking toward Windhelm...home of the Stormcloaks. WTF?)

 

Fallout 3 - Well, not much to compare it to. Not comparing it to fallout 1 or 2 because Fallout 3 I see as pretty much a new game, by a new company.

 

Fallout NV - Vastly better RPG than Fallout 3, lame world compared to Fallout 3

 

Fallout 4 - Vastly better...JUST KIDDING GUYS! NO MORE RPG FOR YOU!

 

However, world wise...

 

Daggerfall - best game world ever, some of those dungeons are huge

 

Morrowind - Most unique game world

 

Oblivion - Meh

 

Skyrim - They said they handmade every dungeon/prison/fort and whatever...cause people complained about it in Oblivion looking copy/paste. Except...wait...it all looks copy/paste in Skyrim too...however, I like the world more than Oblivion, and its at least bigger than Morrowind. And blackreach is AMAZING

 

Fallout 3 - out of fallout 3/NV/4, I loved fallout 3 world, only 2nd favorite though

 

NV - Linear world, with an obvious linear path to follow, good story, bad world

 

Fallout 4 - Better game world than Fallout 3, especially since most buildings you can enter their interiors and its not like that city in FO3 where it was all closed up and linear.

 

So...bethesda makes better and better game worlds (to me), but make worse and worse RPGs (to me). With exception that new vegas wasn't made by Bethesda.

[Jazzman]

For me, final statements on Bethesda games were possible first after five years in game after release in case of Morrowind, four years Oblivion, one year Skyrim, three years Fallout3, six months Fallout: NV, six months ESO. It is thus too early to close the chapter Fallout4 for I'm still in game after six months. All can say with certainty is that the very first Bethesda RPG one plays is the bar for everything that follows for it offers the most intense game experience one can get for new and, as a consequence, it gets increasingly romanticized and thus overrated over the years. More than 13 years after my landing in Seyda Neen in the heavily text-supported Morrowind I still believe that it was indeed the best of those Bethesda games I've ever played, but... it is just my subjective belief and I'm pretty sure that would I replay it tomorrow I'd never get the good feelings of back then again, not even by approximation. The excuse that I'm no longer a dreamer aged 13 isn't the best one, it'd just sound somewhat helpless. In the end much boils down to the time spent in game though. Consequently, a Bethesda game you play just for six months or still less can hardly be their best RPG of all time.