|
On June 18 2015 17:28 Capped wrote:
Seems like that world editing / house building stuff is going to be a big part of the game...i dont want to do that shit...its not fallout-like at all :| Like, im sure it will be designed well and be fun / entertaining to play around, but in a fallout game? Not really atmospheric or mood-setting.
Yeah it sounds like it came from the mind of a marketing professional, not a game dev.
|
What would have been great is that the main character has food / water issues (like he should in this kind of setting) and the game is more about survival than is about killing monsters / doing quests. You meet people who help you survive / might not help you survive and you have to choose to trust or not trust. You may develop relationships with the people you interact with
Ammo and guns are very very scarce, and you find ways to use every heap of junk available in the game (like using a empty nuka bottle as a weapon)
Now this would be a great game..
|
I don't mind Fallout 4 not having "super awesome" graphics, in fact I'm very tolerant when it comes to graphics. But, for me, it looks even worse from the gameplay perspective.
What they revealed tells that base/house building will be a major aspect of the game and I couldn't care less about it. Same for other aspects they showed so far - dialogue wheel approach to conversations, overabundance of animations in menus/interface, combat that is neither deep like in classic RPGs, nor dynamic and challenging.
And knowing their previous game (Skyrim), we also can't expect good quests/storyline, world reactivity, choices and consequences, or other traditional features of good RPGs.
|
Also I heard Todd Howard is a nazi sympathizer and child molester
|
On June 18 2015 22:46 Greenstripe wrote:
Also I heard Todd Howard is a nazi sympathizer and child molester
That is the sort of monster that would ruin the Fallout series and dumb it down for babies. /s
|
On June 18 2015 22:12 parkufarku wrote:
What would have been great is that the main character has food / water issues (like he should in this kind of setting) and the game is more about survival than is about killing monsters / doing quests. You meet people who help you survive / might not help you survive and you have to choose to trust or not trust. You may develop relationships with the people you interact with
Ammo and guns are very very scarce, and you find ways to use every heap of junk available in the game (like using a empty nuka bottle as a weapon)
Now this would be a great game..
It's really risky to put survival mechanics into a non-permadeath game due to the possibility of a player accidentally playing themselves into a corner where their last save isn't close enough to a a sustainable resource income, forcing them to lose hours and hours of progress, if not restart entirely.
With a roguelike, people will come to terms with restarting from the get-go, but for a non-roguelike, being unprepared and getting forced into a corner like that without expecting it can be really off-putting. It wouldn't make sense for Bethesda to push the game in that direction.
|
On June 18 2015 23:10 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 22:12 parkufarku wrote:
What would have been great is that the main character has food / water issues (like he should in this kind of setting) and the game is more about survival than is about killing monsters / doing quests. You meet people who help you survive / might not help you survive and you have to choose to trust or not trust. You may develop relationships with the people you interact with
Ammo and guns are very very scarce, and you find ways to use every heap of junk available in the game (like using a empty nuka bottle as a weapon)
Now this would be a great game.. It's really risky to put survival mechanics into a non-permadeath game due to the possibility of a player accidentally playing themselves into a corner where their last save isn't close enough to a a sustainable resource income, forcing them to lose hours and hours of progress, if not restart entirely. With a roguelike, people will come to terms with restarting from the get-go, but for a non-roguelike, being unprepared and getting forced into a corner like that without expecting it can be really off-putting. It wouldn't make sense for Bethesda to push the game in that direction.
I don't see any reason why they wouldn't have a "hardcore" mode like they did in New Vegas (and Fallout 3? I can't remember) that requires you to manage hunger, thirst, etc. It should definitely not be part of the default experience, for the very reasons you mentioned, but they have included something like it before.
|
On June 18 2015 23:25 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 23:10 TheYango wrote:On June 18 2015 22:12 parkufarku wrote:
What would have been great is that the main character has food / water issues (like he should in this kind of setting) and the game is more about survival than is about killing monsters / doing quests. You meet people who help you survive / might not help you survive and you have to choose to trust or not trust. You may develop relationships with the people you interact with
Ammo and guns are very very scarce, and you find ways to use every heap of junk available in the game (like using a empty nuka bottle as a weapon)
Now this would be a great game.. It's really risky to put survival mechanics into a non-permadeath game due to the possibility of a player accidentally playing themselves into a corner where their last save isn't close enough to a a sustainable resource income, forcing them to lose hours and hours of progress, if not restart entirely. With a roguelike, people will come to terms with restarting from the get-go, but for a non-roguelike, being unprepared and getting forced into a corner like that without expecting it can be really off-putting. It wouldn't make sense for Bethesda to push the game in that direction. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't have a "hardcore" mode like they did in New Vegas (and Fallout 3? I can't remember) that requires you to manage hunger, thirst, etc. It should definitely not be part of the default experience, for the very reasons you mentioned, but they have included something like it before.
Fallout 3 didn't have hardcore mode, that was original to new vegas. Which was made by obsidian, not bethesda.
|
I wondered if the 3rd person pov this time around is as good as GTAV or Witcher 3 or remains a piece of shit like in FO3/NV?
|
On June 18 2015 23:49 ref4 wrote:
I wondered if the 3rd person pov this time around is as good as GTAV or Witcher 3 or remains a piece of shit like in FO3/NV?
They always side that mode was never meant to be played in and was just for looking at your armor/load out.
|
On June 18 2015 23:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 23:49 ref4 wrote:
I wondered if the 3rd person pov this time around is as good as GTAV or Witcher 3 or remains a piece of shit like in FO3/NV? They always side that mode was never meant to be played in and was just for looking at your armor/load out.
That's a pretty poor excuse when GTAV has excellent first person and 3rd person pov mode.
|
On June 19 2015 00:18 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 23:55 Plansix wrote:On June 18 2015 23:49 ref4 wrote:
I wondered if the 3rd person pov this time around is as good as GTAV or Witcher 3 or remains a piece of shit like in FO3/NV? They always side that mode was never meant to be played in and was just for looking at your armor/load out. That's a pretty poor excuse when GTAV has excellent first person and 3rd person pov mode.
Its not an excuse, they didn't want a 3rd person mode. Working as intended.
|
|
|
I´m kinda curious: Can anyone give me some interesting facts about F4, that make me wanna buy it?
I played F1,F2, F3, F:NV, and enjoyed F1 the most, then F3 was the next enjoyable thing, because it was new mechanics-wise.
I guess, now we have buildable fortresses, which I´m not interested in.
So I guess, I better save my 60€. But I´m not sure. I really would love to like the game, but I have my doubts that I´d enjoy it.
E:Spelling
|
I'd say at this point we just dont know enough to make any judgements. The developers had enough time to show 1-2 things and they decidced to show intro and buildings, doesnt mean that fortresses are center of the game ( I sure hope theyre not)
|
On June 19 2015 04:35 Elizar wrote:
I´m kinda curious: Can anyone give me some interesting facts about F4, that make me wanna buy it?
I played F1,F2, F3, F:NV, and enjoyed F1 the most, then F3 was the next enjoyable thing, because it was new mechanics-wise.
I guess, now we have buildable fortresses, which I´m not interested in.
So I guess, I better save my 60€. But I´m not sure. I really would love to like the game, but I have my doubts that I´d enjoy it.
E:Spelling
if you enjoyed fo3, and want more of the same experience, then fo4 probably won't disappoint in giving you a similar experience.
|
I read some devs played 400hours and still dint see everything in that world lol.Hope the quality is good that big.
|
On June 19 2015 05:47 bosshdt wrote:
I read some devs played 400hours and still dint see everything in that world lol.Hope the quality is good that big.
That's not saying much. There are games that people have poured over 500 days into and still haven't seen big chunk of the world...
|
On June 19 2015 06:04 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 05:47 bosshdt wrote:
I read some devs played 400hours and still dint see everything in that world lol.Hope the quality is good that big. That's not saying much. There are games that people have poured over 500 days into and still haven't seen big chunk of the world...
Yes i know. I hope the RPG system is good in this one, Skyrim one i dint liked that much, i liked the Fallout new vegas rpg skill stats system better. I like stats :p
|
there are lots of complaints around regarding graphics... I myself think it looks perfect. And the animation on the dog is perfect
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
