Has Beth lost its edge on RPG gaming?

[Rorschach666]

...people are looking for much more than is actually present.

[tsnootch]

It's all good now. I mean I managed to finally get it working after taking that break my first month. It was just a heavy ass burden in the beginning. And I just can't bring myself to go through that again with their games. Almost through threw this collection set on craiglist to desperately sell it.

 

To a fault, I have a weak spot for Alpha games on Steam and have been screwed, thus far, repeatedly by Alpha games.  I wonder if that is because Bethesda "weened" me off the notion that all games should work when released to play.  I understand they're Alpha and not finished products, but still...I'm able to "play" them.  The more this discussion goes on, the more "abused" I feel concerning Bethesda....lol.

[Guest endgameaddiction]

Get out before your brain gets tainted. I've become a nagging bitch because of this. lol

[Rorschach666]

 

It's all good now. I mean I managed to finally get it working after taking that break my first month. It was just a heavy ass burden in the beginning. And I just can't bring myself to go through that again with their games. Almost through threw this collection set on craiglist to desperately sell it.

 

To a fault, I have a weak spot for Alpha games on Steam and have been screwed, thus far, repeatedly by Alpha games.  I wonder if that is because Bethesda "weened" me off the notion that all games should work when released to play.  I understand they're Alpha and not finished products, but still...I'm able to "play" them.  The more this discussion goes on, the more "abused" I feel concerning Bethesda....lol.

 

 

just dont play dayz, just dont touch it in its "current" state

[tsnootch]

 

 

It's all good now. I mean I managed to finally get it working after taking that break my first month. It was just a heavy ass burden in the beginning. And I just can't bring myself to go through that again with their games. Almost through threw this collection set on craiglist to desperately sell it.

 

To a fault, I have a weak spot for Alpha games on Steam and have been screwed, thus far, repeatedly by Alpha games.  I wonder if that is because Bethesda "weened" me off the notion that all games should work when released to play.  I understand they're Alpha and not finished products, but still...I'm able to "play" them.  The more this discussion goes on, the more "abused" I feel concerning Bethesda....lol.

 

 

just dont play dayz, just dont touch it in its "current" state

 

 

I have 3000+ hours in Arma 2 DayZ mods like DayZ mod, Epoch and Overpoch and about 400 in Arma 3 mods.  I'm used to buggy messes.  But, I won't even touch DayZ standalone.

[TheOzoneHole]

It has always been like that. Perhaps the FO series tend to be a little more heavy handed when it comes to focusing the main in general the same was for FO3 (look for dad) and to a certain extend NV (who shot you), but even Morrowind and Oblivion weren't really off the hook, a hero reincarnate and a prisoner of fate in the emperor's dream ended up being a daedric prince.

 

These games haven't really change much for both better or worse. They are the same janky mess, same flatline story, same throwaway characters all in a massive world held together by duct tape that occasionally split out something interesting without blowing up.

 

Again the concept of "what is a rpg" is still a question for the ages when we look at games that identify as rpgs there is a wide spectrum of them, and where is the point when the technical aspect becomes a subjective aspect.

 

Part of being a game (with a few exceptions (maybe)) is that the player has to do "The Thing".  What is "The Thing"?  "The Thing" is whatever is supposed (in the game not in the player's head) to motivate the player from having their character stand around and pick their nose all day.  In a FPS game like Halo, "The Thing" is to kill the bad guys and advance through the missions.  In a game like SM's Civilization, "The Thing" is to build up your Civ and wipe out the other players in some way.  RPG style game usually have two kinds of "Thing"; they have "The Thing", which is big and important, and they have "things", which aren't as big or important but still there.  "The Thing" is meant to be the kick in the pants that sends you out the door. Some times the kick in the pants is done well (Mass Effect 1 or Morrowind). Other times, "The Thing" is done poorly (Skyrim and FO4). Morrowind gets props here from me for the reason that it didn't try and convince you right from the get go that YOU the player are important. That starting quest was a delivery job, what we could even refer to as a fetch quest in reverse.  Post-vault FO4 isn't overly "bad" for all of one mission. After that...well things change.  Has BGS "lost it"? To me, yes. When they pulled away from pen&paper style RPGs and into a more video game style RPG, yes. One thing I remember from Oblivion is that the player would run into other adventurers; they were worthless, but they popped up once in a while. In Skyrim the only people you ever find in ruins are people who want, eventually, to kill you.  

 

 

 

Hell I don't even care about the RPG aspect or whatever on has as  a definition. They can't even have a decent character development and engaging story. So regardless of RPG, not RPG, etc. The story is weak, the radiant quest are quite repetitive.. more so than before and then finally the technical aspects and glitches. People accepted and even enjoyed the previous version of games even with the glitches. This is I believe because the story engaged the player. More flack is given (someone stated it lost the GOTY status) because they have declined way more than before. I hope this is a wake up call for them but I don't believe they hit rock bottom yet so the worst is still yet to come. Perhaps the next TES version will be crappier than FO4.. maybe then the fan base will realize that Bethesda has truly lost their way.

 

 

 

Character development of minor characters, and often even the protagonist, is not something you are going to find in a single video game. Mass Effect got good character development because the kept most of the same characters for three games.  How much free form questing did Dragon Age: Origins sacrifice to give "good" character development?  After playing Oblivion for hours that was my main complaint with DA:O, was that I didn't give a shit about the NPCs, I wanted to explore!  For players (like me) who do not use companions, who do not want companions, we tend not to care about the development of npc characters or how much they like the PC.  Morrowind and previous TES titles got reasonable NPC character development as they were text based and text options produced semi-random responses, all of which are relatively easy to program and implement.  

 

 

I've seen several comments on mods/no mods, and the quality of the game itself.   When I played FO:NV on Xbox360, it crashed pretty much daily. On PC without mods no real difference, and adding mods almost always makes it worse.

Skyrim was a bug filled mess that would have problems mods or no mods.  Fallout 4 has crashed on me 4 times, and only after I started adding mods to it.  BGS appears to have learned a lesson about killing bugs, if not before release then with post release patches. I feel that the real tests will come once the modding tools are released and the first bits of DLC come out.  Is FO4 a good RPG? No.  Is it a good game? Eh, not any worse than Mass Effect 3.

[afa]

That's just games with main quests and side quests, I don't think every games with main quests and side quests are rpg, GTA, Saints Row, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry and the latest Metal Gear V all fits the bill, but I don't think they are rpgs with some elements maybe.

 

As for good vs bad, to be honest I absolutely don't get why people put Morrowind on a pedestal, I was there, it was my first TES game, first bethesda game, but other than the cool open world it did nothing for me back then, and it absolutely does nothing for me now as compare to Oblivion, Skyrim, and FO. I mean there are elements of Morrowind that I like which the later games didn't have namely multiple multi-parts cities and towns, but other than that nothing. It isn't bad, but I don't find it to be any better than the later ones.

 

And Mass Effect...well the character portion of the series is strong, probably its strongest suite and the part that I enjoy most, and that leads to me liking ME2 the most and some parts of ME3 stands out. Even without the player choice thing I think it would have worked for me since I tend to look at player choice in games as an academic exercise anyways. The actual main story is sort of whatever, don't feel strongly about it one way or another. ME1 and ME2 both had some interesting side quest scenarios and flavor text that are kind of fun. I like the series as a whole, but it is at best a second tier of game for me.

[RitualClarity]

 

even if people get burn there's no real data to turn the ship around until the next one flops.

Just because sales are good don't mean they (Besthesda) isn't watching the public opinion. I am sure they have a team looking at it. They might not "turn the ship around" but that don't mean they won't take some of the stuff they learn forward.

 

Character development of minor characters, and often even the protagonist, is not something you are going to find in a single video game. Mass Effect got good character development because the kept most of the same characters for three games.  How much free form questing did Dragon Age: Origins sacrifice to give "good" character development?  After playing Oblivion for hours that was my main complaint with DA:O, was that I didn't give a shit about the NPCs, I wanted to explore!  For players (like me) who do not use companions, who do not want companions, we tend not to care about the development of npc characters or how much they like the PC.  Morrowind and previous TES titles got reasonable NPC character development as they were text based and text options produced semi-random responses, all of which are relatively easy to program and implement.

I understand. My point is they didn't complete any part of the game strongly. OK, changing from the RPG aspect.. ok.. however they need to develop the characters. Not building the game up.. OK.. strengthen the main story arch and related radiant quest. They used the "shotgun" approach and hit it with all aspects of various game play and didn't refine any particular aspect. It is weak in many areas because of this.

 

I wanted to give it some chances. and play for well over 100 hours but soon got board. I will likely go back to play the different main episodes options but that is only a few more play though. If it was just a linear designed game.. (shooter etc) that would be fine if they developed the characters better. (like Mass Effect). The game don' t have the player character development but also don't have the deep NPC character development. You end up not really caring about anyone. (even companions if you desire to have some)

 

They didn't pick a path, they chose as many options and paths as they can in the development and now it has a feeling of being underdeveloped by most of the fans because of this.

[Sinister]

 

Would the best modders get together and make a good Fallout or Scrolls style game?

 

I would think funding would be pretty simple through kickstarter, as long as the idea for the game is sound of course and I've seen some pretty crap ideas get backing so.....

 

 

 

You mean like Unwritten: Echos of Twilight? They ran two kickstarter campaigns, and as far as I'm aware both failed.

 

 

Yeah both failed, watched both presentations, seemed interesting, but I've got to be honest and say that there wasn't anything that particularly grabbed me about it, maybe that's why they didn't get the backing they wanted.

[Shiratama]

There's one thing that Bethesda used to be good at and one thing only: world building. And that's due almost entirely to Michael Kirkbride, who started to work on Redguard. Arena was pretty much a DnD rip-off, Daggerfall was a giant map half-filled with procedurally generated bullshit and Battlespire is just a dungeon crawler about stopping Mehrunes Dagon, one of the most mustache-twirling villain in the series.

 

Reguard, and especially Morrowind (since the former is an adventure game, not a RPG) offered a setting that was simply different from the standard fare. You were thrown into weird cultures, that tended to avoid the usual black and white morality. You had a very bizarre cosmology, refreshingly neutral stances on matter like religions; the world itself was a character, and the one we would care about. When they kicked off Kirkbride, no doubt due to his planet-sized ego and his obssession with Vivec's cock (come on, we all know that's what MUATRA is all about), they started to revert to a more generic sword and sorcery setting, forsaking their only strong point.

 

As for Fallout, well, their handling of the franchise is nonsensical. You have an existing setting rooted firmly in the 50s and yet they give it a paintjob so 90s that Cable and Warchild could make a cameo without even looking out of place. I can't even begin to understand why they would do this. Fallout setting was unique in the genre, it was a strength, they didn't even need to work their ass off to create their own whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

 

TL;DR Bethesda unique "edge" was world-building and they lost it but it doesn't matter because people are sheep who pre-order anything with a good marketing campaign also I'm drunk and want to kill everything viva la revolucion

[TheOzoneHole]

That's just games with main quests and side quests, I don't think every games with main quests and side quests are rpg, GTA, Saints Row, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry and the latest Metal Gear V all fits the bill, but I don't think they are rpgs with some elements maybe.

 

As for good vs bad, to be honest I absolutely don't get why people put Morrowind on a pedestal, I was there, it was my first TES game, first bethesda game, but other than the cool open world it did nothing for me back then, and it absolutely does nothing for me now as compare to Oblivion, Skyrim, and FO. I mean there are elements of Morrowind that I like which the later games didn't have namely multiple multi-parts cities and towns, but other than that nothing. It isn't bad, but I don't find it to be any better than the later ones.

 

And Mass Effect...well the character portion of the series is strong, probably its strongest suite and the part that I enjoy most, and that leads to me liking ME2 the most and some parts of ME3 stands out. Even without the player choice thing I think it would have worked for me since I tend to look at player choice in games as an academic exercise anyways. The actual main story is sort of whatever, don't feel strongly about it one way or another. ME1 and ME2 both had some interesting side quest scenarios and flavor text that are kind of fun. I like the series as a whole, but it is at best a second tier of game for me.

 

Oblivion was my first BethSoft game, and I think that is why I like Morrowind so much more.  As Shiratama says, Beth did a great job building Vvardenfell and it felt so very different from the "usual" RPG settings as that was what really set it apart from Oblivion and Skyrim.  Todd Howard made some comments back before the release of Skyrim about capturing that feeling of being an "outsider" that was in MW with SK, but it failed. Personally, they have picked the wrong provinces for their last two games, provinces dominated by humans, when it isn't the human culture that really wants exploring. With MW, even playing as a Dunmer, you were a foreigner.  The idea that everything is alien and different really pulls the player into exploration, and in a open world style game (RPG or not) that is the feeling the player needs to have.   

 

 

 

 

Yeah both failed, watched both presentations, seemed interesting, but I've got to be honest and say that there wasn't anything that particularly grabbed me about it, maybe that's why they didn't get the backing they wanted.

 

 

I was interested, but just not interested enough to spend money on it. I contributed to one kickstarter campaign and was very unhappy with the resulting product, so I've never done that again.  I'm sorry to hear that they failed both times, it is a shame that a group of modders who produced quality mods couldn't get the funding to produce an entire game.

[GrimReaper]

As for Fallout, well, their handling of the franchise is nonsensical. You have an existing setting rooted firmly in the 50s and yet they give it a paintjob so 90s that Cable and Warchild could make a cameo without even looking out of place.

 

 

Fallout is rooted in how people in the 50s thought the future would look like, not in the actual 50s.

[Shiratama]

 

As for Fallout, well, their handling of the franchise is nonsensical. You have an existing setting rooted firmly in the 50s and yet they give it a paintjob so 90s that Cable and Warchild could make a cameo without even looking out of place.

 

 

Fallout is rooted in how people in the 50s thought the future would look like, not in the actual 50s.

 

 

Which is extremely different from what Fallout 3 and 4 put on the table. You have two major sides to the "Fallout fifties": the campy, silly science fiction and the bigoted, paranoid atmosphere of the Cold War. Bethesda failed on both points and their take on the setting is closer to a pastiche of Mad Max. The contrast is rather jarring.

[GrimReaper]

 

 

Which is extremely different from what Fallout 3 and 4 put on the table. You have two major sides to the "Fallout fifties": the campy, silly science fiction and the bigoted, paranoid atmosphere of the Cold War. Bethesda failed on both points and their take on the setting is closer to a pastiche of Mad Max. The contrast is rather jarring.

 

 

The silly science fiction where radiation and viruses are magic in disguise is present in all Fallout games, the Cold War atmosphere is only present in the pre-war society and in the vaults, not in the outside post apocalyptic world, though. Saying that Bethesda's games are an attempt to clone Mad Max while the original two games are not is a rather bold statement if you consider the fact that if you attack DogMeat in Fallout 2 if you haven't recruited him triggers the appearance of this guy. The leather armor in both games looks exactly like Mad Max's outfit, not to mention that Fallout portrays the Wasteland almost exactly like Mad Max did.

 

Speaking of which, Fallout 2 is to Fallout 1 what Scary Movie is to Scream. The first Fallout had a much darker, serious tone (but was still somewhat silly) than the sequel, which is filled to the brim with pop culture references and wacky stuff.

 

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_cultural_references

 

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_cultural_references

[Shiratama]

 

The silly science fiction where radiation and viruses are magic in disguise is present in all Fallout games, the Cold War atmosphere is only present in the pre-war society and in the vaults, not in the outside post apocalyptic world, though.

 

Eeeh, I disagree. Fallout 3 and 4 use iconic Fallout technologies and creatures more like props, without any real thought about consistency or previously established lore. Just because you put Mr. Handys and ghouls and supermutants with catchy radio tunes doesn't mean you're recreating the same atmosphere. Whether the Cold War side is pre-war or not is irrelevant, it is a part of the Fallout universe and admittedly Bethesda is better at depicting it than the post-apocalyptic part.

 

 

Saying that Bethesda's games are an attempt to clone Mad Max while the original two games are not is a rather bold statement if you consider the fact that if you attack DogMeat in Fallout 2 if you haven't recruited him triggers the appearance of this guy. The leather armor in both games looks exactly like Mad Max's outfit, not to mention that Fallout portrays the Wasteland almost exactly like Mad Max did.

 

You're misinterpreting. First, Fallout 2 is full of references and putting one of Mad Max is no big deal. Second, I didn't say that Bethesda was attempting to clone Mad Max, but that their setting is like a pastiche of it. To clarify, just like the movie's sequels tried to be more and more depressing, Fallout 3 and 4 depict a Wasteland unecessarily bleak and try too hard to be "gritty". Raiders and mutants everywhere without any rhyme or reason, bags of gore and almost everyone living in ruins or makeshift shacks, all of this is really out of place and more reminiscent of 90s B-movies than 50s sci-fi. Fallout always had very nightmarish parts but it wasn't plagued by general shittiness before 3.

 

Also, while it's true that Fallout 2 was much sillier, it also takes place later and it's logical that the quality of life would have improved save for an off-screen new catastrophe. And Fallout 1 wasn't even that dark.

 

Edit: Used Google Translate for certain words, sorry if they're wrong.

[Kendo 2]

Fallout is based on the old Jason Robards and Don Johnson movie 'A Boy and His Dog'.

[GrimReaper]

 

 

Eeeh, I disagree. Fallout 3 and 4 use iconic Fallout technologies and creatures more like props, without any real thought about consistency or previously established lore. Just because you put Mr. Handys and ghouls and supermutants with catchy radio tunes doesn't mean you're recreating the same atmosphere. Whether the Cold War side is pre-war or not is irrelevant, it is a part of the Fallout universe and admittedly Bethesda is better at depicting it than the post-apocalyptic part.

 

There's no extensive lore to be found in Fallout. Ghouls are the result of radiation poisoning and through magic they don't die but mutate. That's literally it. There was even some controversy between the developers of the game on what ghouls are: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Ghoul#Confusion_over_origins

 

That's not what I call consistent or established. Quite the contrary. Super Mutants are humans being exposed to the FEV, which is, alongside radiation, just a magical ingredient that serves no other purpose than to offer a half-assed explanation for the things the devs wanted to do. Deathclaws are another example that makes no sense, first they were a pre-war genetical experiment to replace human troops on the battlefield, which were later exposed to the FEV by the Master for apparently no reason because the Master makes no use of them afterwards. The devs wanted Deathclaws, their story of how they came to be was obviously just an afterthought. Which is alright, but people should stop parading around the lore of the older Fallouts like they were events that really happened and Bethesda's attempts are just bad fan-fiction. The lore was shoddily crafted from the beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

You're misinterpreting. First, Fallout 2 is full of references and putting one of Mad Max is no big deal. Second, I didn't say that Bethesda was attempting to clone Mad Max, but that their setting is like a pastiche of it. To clarify, just like the movie's sequels tried to be more and more depressing, Fallout 3 and 4 depict a Wasteland unecessarily bleak and try too hard to be "gritty". Raiders and mutants everywhere without any rhyme or reason, bags of gore and almost everyone living in ruins or makeshift shacks, all of this is really out of place and more reminiscent of 90s B-movies than 50s sci-fi. Fallout always had very nightmarish parts but it wasn't plagued by general shittiness before 3.

 

Also, while it's true that Fallout 2 was much sillier, it also takes place later and it's logical that the quality of life would have improved save for an off-screen new catastrophe. And Fallout 1 wasn't even that dark.

 

Edit: Used Google Translate for certain words, sorry if they're wrong.

 

 

Again, the 50s science-fiction applies to the pre-war world and tech like energy weapons, robots and portable nuclear reactors as the energy suppy of almost anything that requires power. Most of Fallout 1&2 looks like something that is directly inspired by Mad Max, leather armors, insane bandits and shotguns everywhere. I mean just look at the pictures:

 

 

 

 

 

[TheOzoneHole]

There's no extensive lore to be found in Fallout. Ghouls are the result of radiation poisoning and through magic they don't die but mutate. That's literally it. There was even some controversy between the developers of the game on what ghouls are: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Ghoul#Confusion_over_origins

 

 

 

 

That's not what I call consistent or established. Quite the contrary. Super Mutants are humans being exposed to the FEV, which is, alongside radiation, just a magical ingredient that serves no other purpose than to offer a half-assed explanation for the things the devs wanted to do. Deathclaws are another example that makes no sense, first they were a pre-war genetical experiment to replace human troops on the battlefield, which were later exposed to the FEV by the Master for apparently no reason because the Master makes no use of them afterwards. The devs wanted Deathclaws, their story of how they came to be was obviously just an afterthought. Which is alright, but people should stop parading around the lore of the older Fallouts like they were events that really happened and Bethesda's attempts are just bad fan-fiction. The lore was shoddily crafted from the beginning.

 

 

 

Yes, there are differences in the lore of Fallout. That said, even comparing between Fallout 3 and Fallout 4, there is little to no use of plastic or non-50's sci-fi style technology in FO3.  FO4 comes around and plastic is used constantly in every day items like bottles, plates, and containers.  Plastic did exist in the 1950's but it was not heavily used. Also, from an established FO4 lore standpoint, (as in they say it right in the game) resources, oil in particular, are now extremely rare. Why would a precious and rare resource like oil be turned into an anti-freeze container rather than being converted into something for military use?

 

Additionally, a consistent piece of lore in Fallout is that computer technology never developed in the same way, so that means no integrated chip sets. RobCo was prototyping the integrated chip with the RobCo terminals. Why do I bring this up? The use of RFID in the Railroad quest line. "RFID tags contain an integrated circuit and an antenna, which are used to transmit data to the RFID reader (also called an interrogator)." -(http://www.abr.com/what-is-rfid-how-does-rfid-work/)   

 

All of this being said, this isn't exactly one of Tolkien's works, so we do not have a complete history of technology from the divergence point up until 2077.  

 

 

And as to the "magic" of radiation and FEV:  yes, most of this isn't realistic, and just used as a convenience to justify design decisions.  A child being trapped in a refrigerator, for 210 years, and coming out of it able to walk is such a level of bullshit as to be inexcusable. 1. Radiation/ghoulification or not, he'd have died of dehydration in less than a week. 2. If he survived that, nothing shows that ghouls do not need to eat; so he'd have likely died of starvation in about a month. 3. Ghouls are basically human, so muscle atrophy would be a problem and he wouldn't be able to walk let alone run. 4. Trapped in a small, confined space, isolated from the outside world, unable to move...the kid must be some kind of fantastic because he didn't go completely crazy.  

 

"The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy.  Fiction has to make sense at least within itself and by its established internal logic.  Fallout 4, which is a continuation of previous games, and events in at least one of those games are referenced, fails to do this.  While Fallout as a whole may be very similar to Mad Max, FO4 tries a bit too hard to add Blade Runner to that mixture.  Fallout 2 had lots of little asides and in jokes, so does Fallout 4. (Links are to TV tropes.) 

 

 

Edit: And speaking of 50's space age technology, why the heck aren't these in Fallout?   

[Caliban44]

In my opinion Bethesda never could make a good RPG out of the Fallout series. I played F3 some time ago so I may miss some details, but overall it didn't seem as interesting (or complex) as side quests in F2. Although F2 was all about side quests (I think veterans can agree that the main "quest" was more of an excuse to leave that boring village).

 

[some spoilers ahead]

 

Whole F4 feels as if someone tried to cut one or two towns from F2. Excluding problems with quests that bring the player to other towns, that so narrows the narrative elements that the results are as they are in F4. It kinda feels as if during the development Bethesda decided to cut out all the possible quest givers other than in Diamond City or Goodneighbor. I mean, you got Combat Zone, perfect place to blend in with the raiders, talk with some, maybe hear some interesting stories - nope, they just go hostile on you because each raider personally now each other, right? Then you got robot races. Damn Interplay would never pass up an opportunity like that to let the player gamble their caps away, maybe buy or put up their own robot in the races. But Bethesda? Nope! Everyone goes hostile, deal with it. Deep down I just have this feeling, those places were supposed to be more complex, but at some point of development someone decided they need to cut the costs and ship F4 asap. At least the failed cashing-in-on-player-made-mods would suggest it.

 

Luckily, there are some thing that were probably finished before the cuts, like all the additional assets in the Institute. I must admit I was impressed to witness the entire synth-creating process. Others like the power armor usage, improved animations, settlement management, that sweet little cover system - improvements in good direction, but not everything seems finished and it doesn't quite seems memorable like buttering up to the First Citizen to become Captain of the Guard or buying the Highwayman and taking it for the first ride. Speaking of, you would think that with working power armor frames they could at least implement working motorcycles. But maybe that's why the game area is becoming more and more small.

the cover system is nothing but FPS bullsh*t, show me a fps today that does not have a cover system.

[Gameplayer]

Unrelated but I happen to have

 

Wasteland 2, boring

Divine Divinity OS and EE kinda boring

Pretty much all the Shadow Run games also boring

All the Witcher games, okish

Mass Effect Series okish

Dragon Age Series okishish er ok not really even ok...sorry.

 

But hey sure Beth lost its edge...er maybe or Naaa....

 

Face It RPGs mostly suck.

 

 

Fallout, played each one several times....

 

Really to say it doesn't have a Mad Max vibe was kinda funny.

 

Honestly as a series it always had serious problems with its own lore.

 

Half the shit people want to argue over just wouldn't even go over well with the Series if it was implemented.

 

If I go by the original Fallout there wouldn't be enough people with useful knowledge to rebuild mankind or amount to something better than living in a steel shack....Also more than half the people you meet are basically descendants from some kind of safe zone or another.

 

Yes FEV and Radiation are Magic....In fact magic and psionics exist in fallout lore..........Oh no!!!

 

Telepathy and all that other garbage its in Fallout man....People out there probably rollin their eyes.

 

 

[junkacc]

 

the cover system is nothing but FPS bullsh*t, show me a fps today that does not have a cover system.

 

 

Counterstrike or any of the classics don't have it. Cover system comes from 3rd person shooters, which has been moved over to FPS for casuals and consoletards. That makes FO4 a casual FPS and a bad RPG.

[TheOzoneHole]

https://youtu.be/ZvC9e0p8Yig

 

 

 

Someone at BGS needs to listen to what Jake Solomon says about keeping the core audience happy.

[Vacaliga]

https://youtu.be/ZvC9e0p8Yig

 

 

 

Someone at BGS needs to listen to what Jake Solomon says about keeping the core audience happy.

 

Not just what he says but how he say it, his tone of voice, his body languages, how he constantly talks in a bit of half circle. the passion is practicality bleeding through the screen.    

[afa]

Yet we have countless of people bashing XCOM as well versus the original. Now mind you, I don't typically like turn base strategy/tactic games, but I fucking love XCOM EU and have no experience with the originals read into that however you will.

Also dude seems to have aged quite a bit since the last game

 

Plus what is the core audience when you relate it back to BGS games? The very few who actually dive towards the deep end of mods, or the ones who spend some tens to hundred hours or so, go through the main quests plus a handful of side quests, and then leave and wait for the next in the series.

[Gameplayer]

Yet we have countless of people bashing XCOM as well versus the original. Now mind you, I don't typically like turn base strategy/tactic games, but I fucking love XCOM EU and have no experience with the originals read into that however you will.

Also dude seems to have aged quite a bit since the last game

 

Plus what is the core audience when you relate it back to BGS games? The very few who actually dive towards the deep end of mods, or the ones who spend some tens to hundred hours or so, go through the main quests plus a handful of side quests, and then leave and wait for the next in the series.

 

XCOM 2 is actually going to end up being more moddable as a result of the success it experienced with XCOM EU and its limited mod support.

 

Also the success that Skyrim experienced with mods is not something that can be ruled out when you can find quotes of Jake Soloman mentioning how well Skyrim modding did.

 

Also.......Fallout 4 is going to have mod support for consoles, so it would seem that the next big push is to make efforts to make mod support more mainstream with a bigger audience than it has had before.