Bethesda Fallout 4

[jokesonm3]

Fallout 4 priorities in a nutshell.

 

[jokesonm3]

Found this on Reddit lol:

 

[James]

This games main quest is shorter than those or at least I remember those games being longer. The this games main quest felt incredibly short to me.

Ahh, I thought you'd actually got the stats on it or something. I think how it feels varies greatly from player to player, depending on how you go through the game. If you do a lot of side stuff in between main-quests, it could seem quite long. If all you do is the main story, it's going to go by quick.

Playing casually it took me almost three weeks to finish the main story, without doing much side stuff- my focus was the story. It seemed like a good length to me, and probably felt longer than Skyrim's.

(by wacky coincidence, this is my 5,111st post)

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

http://kotaku.com/fallout-4-is-not-the-fallout-fans-fell-in-love-with-1745651992

Kotaku actually hits the nail on the head.

 

[Benstamania]

Ugh, I really can't stand Kotaku. There's like TWO good legit journalists on the site... Patty is not one of them. I've said time and time again that Fallout 4 was Fallout 3 only improved. Not on EVERYTHING.. but on most.

No it's not Fallout or Fallout 2. Neither was 3 or New Vegas.. Those games are dead and gone. Time to move on.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Ugh, I really can't stand Kotaku. There's like TWO good legit journalists on the site... Patty is not one of them. I've said time and time again that Fallout 4 was Fallout 3 only improved. Not on EVERYTHING.. but on most.

No it's not Fallout or Fallout 2. Neither was 3 or New Vegas.. Those games are dead and gone. Time to move on.

Not quite, as long as the games bare the Fallout name, they will ALWAYS be compared to the originals. You are in fact incorrect, New Vegas' quest design is very much akin to what can be found in the original games.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I'm kind of in-between. It's obvious that Besthesda took the series in a very different direction than what Interplay had done with the franchise, so I think the comparison is, on one level, hard to make. But on another level, if they really wanted to distance themselves from the past games to the point where they didn't want any comparison, they probably shouldn't have called Fallout 3 by its name and renamed it something else entirely or simply "Fallout."

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

I'm kind of in-between. It's obvious that Besthesda took the series in a very different direction than what Interplay had done with the franchise, so I think the comparison is, on one level, hard to make. But on another level, if they really wanted to distance themselves from the past games to the point where they didn't want any comparison, they probably shouldn't have called Fallout 3 by its name and renamed it something else entirely or simply "Fallout."

I personally would have been more receptive of their take on the series had it been a full reboot, but they were adamant that their game was going to be a legitimate sequel to Fallout 2 during the development which it isn't.

There's also a common misconception about the old timers that our problem is solely based on the new games not being turn based and isometric, that is not and never has been the problem. Interplay's Fallout 3 was going to have a 3D camera and turned based combat was going to be optional.

Our issues are more about respecting the source material and embracing the open ended style of storytelling and character building that made the first two games great. Despite being huge open world games, they're narratively linear.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

As long as New Vegas exists with its superior characters, storyline, RPG elements, branching quests and worldbuilding, Bethesda's games will always be rightly criticised for their failures in these departments. Making Fallout 4's side quests almost entirely linear and largely concerned with fetch quests is pretty pathetics, as is the nonsensical storyline.

It's kind of sad after NV, which advanced the world and showed how it changed, that Bethesda once again pulled out their raging boners for shoot 'em up elements, faceless raiders, and shooty super mutants everywhere.

 

[zenith16]

Fallout 4's latest beta patch frees players from terminals across the Commonwealth



5 hours ago
Another Fallout 4 beta patch has appeared on Steam, promising to fix a small number of problems in the Commonwealth’s wonky wasteland.
You can...
Read more



source: PCGamesN

 

[Matt]

I personally would have been more receptive of their take on the series had it been a full reboot, but they were adamant that their game was going to be a legitimate sequel to Fallout 2 during the development which it isn't.

There's also a common misconception about the old timers that our problem is solely based on the new games not being turn based and isometric, that is not and never has been the problem. Interplay's Fallout 3 was going to have a 3D camera and turned based combat was going to be optional.

Our issues are more about respecting the source material and embracing the open ended style of storytelling and character building that made the first two games great. Despite being huge open world games, they're narratively linear.

It is a reboot though. So was Fallout 2, to Fallout 1, in essence. You act as if there is some huge degree of continuity between 1 and 2. Aside from the player characters being related, its not as if there was this tight, running storyline that Bethesda abandoned or anything like that. A couple characters here and there, but nothing really connecting them. Fallout 3 is the same. It is set in a different place, but so what? Is your problem that it isn't in California? That would get awfully dull if they just kept going back there.

Yes, Bethesda changed the gameplay. So what? Fallout's gameplay needed updated. Open world RPG suits it incredibly well.

I honestly don't see what your gripe is. You just seem determined to dislike the games.

 

[James]

It is a reboot though. So was Fallout 2, to Fallout 1, in essence. You act as if there is some huge degree of continuity between 1 and 2. Aside from the player characters being related, its not as if there was this tight, running storyline that Bethesda abandoned or anything like that. A couple characters here and there, but nothing really connecting them. Fallout 3 is the same. It is set in a different place, but so what? Is your problem that it isn't in California? That would get awfully dull if they just kept going back there.

Yes, Bethesda changed the gameplay. So what? Fallout's gameplay needed updated. Open world RPG suits it incredibly well.

I honestly don't see what your gripe is. You just seem determined to dislike the games.

Aside from the continuity between games, which doesn't bother me in the least, I don't think any of that is why Jon, among others, is irritated with Bethesda's direction. The main thing, and this is something I'm disappointed in too, is that Bethesda made a comparatively linear game compared to previous versions, especially following on the heels of New Vegas.

It's like I've said before, while I love Fallout 4 and continue to play it with great excitement, I did fully expect them to follow New Vegas' example and have multiple ways to finish quests, effect the world and, as one New Vegas developer said around the time of it's release "...go through the entire game killing everyone with a flamethrower and still be able to complete the story." It was surprising to me that Bethesda didn't go in that direction.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

It is a reboot though. So was Fallout 2, to Fallout 1, in essence. You act as if there is some huge degree of continuity between 1 and 2. Aside from the player characters being related, its not as if there was this tight, running storyline that Bethesda abandoned or anything like that. A couple characters here and there, but nothing really connecting them. Fallout 3 is the same. It is set in a different place, but so what? Is your problem that it isn't in California? That would get awfully dull if they just kept going back there.

Yes, Bethesda changed the gameplay. So what? Fallout's gameplay needed updated. Open world RPG suits it incredibly well.

I honestly don't see what your gripe is. You just seem determined to dislike the games.

There is continuity between both games. The events of the first game directly impact the events and locations of the second game. Locations play a far bigger role in those games.

The issue is that Fallout games are supposed to be open and dynamic in their quest structure with multiple solutions to situations. Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and New Vegas do this very well. Bethesda's games do not. You have one primary solution to quests and objectives in Bethesda's games and that is kill, more so in Fallout 4 than any other Fallout game to date.

Passing a speech check in the original games and in New Vegas usually lead to other options and could prevent combat situations.Passing a speech check in Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 usually just leads to ending the conversation so you can shoot something.

Two-Face=Badass nailed what is wrong with their approach when he compared the openings to New Vegas and Fallout 4:

Compare New Vegas in which it was a surprise if missions only had one resolution, and even more than that there were multiple branching ways to reach final decisions.

Just look at the different between the first two main missions of the games. In Fallout 4 you go to Concord, and are tasked with clearing out the Raiders. You have no choice to side with the Raiders, you have no choice in how you go about clearing them up, and ultimately the game railroads you into saving the Minutemen and sending them to Sanctuary.

In New Vegas you are tasked with resolving the Goodsprings fight. You can side with Goodsprings OR the Powder Gangers. From there, there are multiple ways to reach these goals. You can kill Joe Cobb early in the bar, thus making the conclusion easier, or you can actually go over to where they are waiting to invade and kill them all by yourself. You can rally the town in your defence by accomplishing various checks, or you can let all six of them invade and tackle them by yourself.

This then has an effect on the wider world - Goodsprings now loves you, and the Powder Gangers hate you - which then means later on you can't help them with their quests. But siding with the Powder Gangers gives you the option to later betray them to the NCR or defeat them when they attack. Multiple branching options that gives you a way to play the game differently, and allow you to roleplay effectively. But even more than that, it feels like the world is actually affected by your actions.

 

[jokesonm3]

Man you know **** is real when you have to beat a bear with a baby.

 

[Steamteck]

Not quite, as long as the games bare the Fallout name, they will ALWAYS be compared to the originals. You are in fact incorrect, New Vegas' quest design is very much akin to what can be found in the original games.

Well, I guess I prefer the new direction by an incredible margin then. NV was one of the most disappointed games I've played since,,,, Well KOTOR 2, so I guess I don't care for Obsidian's style.

 

[James]

Well, I guess I prefer the new direction by an incredible margin then. NV was one of the most disappointed games I've played since,,,, Well KOTOR 2, so I guess I don't care for Obsidian's style.

You're happy having less freedom? I wasn't a huge fan of New Vegas either, it was fun but certainly not my favourite Fallout game -but being able to change the world and complete quests in almost any way I chose definitely wasn't the reason why.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Well, I guess I prefer the new direction by an incredible margin then. NV was one of the most disappointed games I've played since,,,, Well KOTOR 2, so I guess I don't care for Obsidian's style.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but I will never understand why people prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas. The writing, RPG elements and quest structure are all better in Fallout New Vegas. The characters FO3 have no real personality and or development. The Toaster in Old World Blues has more personality than any of the characters in FO3. Fallout 3's world is more open to explore, but there are so many locations where there isn't anything to actually do, that element is wasted as well.

Fallout 4 improves on some of this, NPC's have personality and the writing has improved, but it's nowhere near as good as New Vegas.

Fallout 4's quests are my biggest issue with the game currently. It's more Borderlands than Fallout at this point.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I don't know what it is, but I'm really struggling to get into this. Not sure exactly what it is, can't put my finger on it, just feel really bored. Not done a whole lot, though, maybe it'll click once I go on a little more.

 

[Benstamania]

Hmm.. I'm not sure what it is either.

 

[TX85]

Finally got the game and I find it awesome!, The only other fallout game i've played is 3 and this one is even better than that. Apparently the other games are overall better but I don't care and this is still great.

No regrets is purchasing it..for $20 cheaper because of a gift card

 

[Tron Bonne]

Hmm.. I'm not sure what it is either.

Your smiley implies something here...

 

[ProjectPat2280]

http://kotaku.com/fallout-4-is-not-the-fallout-fans-fell-in-love-with-1745651992

Kotaku actually hits the nail on the head.

Outside of being a beacon of dishonest journalism, Kotaku isn't good at anything, so I highly doubt they've hit anything with that article.

I don't know what it is, but I'm really struggling to get into this. Not sure exactly what it is, can't put my finger on it, just feel really bored. Not done a whole lot, though, maybe it'll click once I go on a little more.

Im kind of in the same boat, I just haven't put much time into this, only about 27 hours. I mean I lost interest in the post apocalyptic world last gen, so being tired of that setting is prob a big reason why i think i haven't been super in to this game. I mean whats here is really good, but like you said, its not really 'clicking' with me.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Outside of being a beacon of dishonest journalism, Kotaku isn't good at anything, so I highly doubt they've hit anything with that article.

You should probably actually read the article.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

You should probably actually read the article.

It's a great line of reasoning isn't it? 'Kotaku is bad, ergo this article must be wrong.'

 

[TX85]

I'm I suppose to take out all robots in Fort Hager guns blazing or sneak around?