|
On June 22 2015 00:54 OsaX Nymloth wrote:http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-may-not-have-the-best-graphics-but-here-/1100-6428328/Show nested quote +"Everything that we do is a balance," Hines said. "We could make the best looking game possible, but we dial some of that back in order to allow for all of these other things." Show nested quote +"If you want to pick flowers and make potions all day, then that's what you're role-playing," he said. "If you want to go shoot everybody in the head with a laser-musket, then that's what you're role-playing." What. The. Fuck. Bitchsoft really believes this is what makes a game cRPG? No wonder they have no idea what Fallout was about~~
sounds like you are the one bitching. lol...
regardless, some of you actually have valid and constructive criticisms for the fallout series. however, most of you seem to bash on the game just because it's bethesda though. that makes this thread quite unpleasant to read...
|
On June 21 2015 01:46 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 21:49 Elizar wrote:On June 20 2015 19:36 Yuna wrote:
This thread is just a continuous circlejerk of hate. It is the Fallout4 thread. People voice their opinions like you do, too. If you want a hype thread, then create one. And write in the OP: "We dont want you to say anything which is different from our opinions!" And btw.: Hating the haters will make you a hater too. Speaking about circles ... Some people have concerns, some people air their assumtions, others are looking forward to it. That´s all fine to me. And that´s why there is a thread. To talk about it and share oppinions. I´m looking for a good reason to buy it, since I like the fallout franchise a lot. But I´m not one of those guys who would camp in front of an apple store, because some product I don´t need will be sold with an apple logo on it. Same thing for fallout. It has potential, sure, but having potential is different from a guarantee. One could wonder what's the point of voicing your opinion if you're going to dislike the game no matter what though.
One could also wonder, why people would dislike the game no matter what.
And one could wonder, why criticism is a bad thing.
And if you don´t like the opinions of other people, that´s OK. Nobody has to like your opinion as well, I guess.
|
On June 22 2015 00:54 OsaX Nymloth wrote:http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-may-not-have-the-best-graphics-but-here-/1100-6428328/Show nested quote +"Everything that we do is a balance," Hines said. "We could make the best looking game possible, but we dial some of that back in order to allow for all of these other things." Show nested quote +"If you want to pick flowers and make potions all day, then that's what you're role-playing," he said. "If you want to go shoot everybody in the head with a laser-musket, then that's what you're role-playing." What. The. Fuck. Bitchsoft really believes this is what makes a game cRPG? No wonder they have no idea what Fallout was about~~
Ease up, lol. Bethesda's made similar statements of this being their stance on "roleplaying" all the way back to Oblivion.
Optimists would call this challenging genre conventions, pessimists would call it deliberately mis-marketing their game (again, I typically view Bethesda games as adventure/exploration games with RPG elements mostly because I think that's a more accurate description of their games given how far they deliberately stray from standard CRPG gameplay).
|
On June 22 2015 02:58 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 00:54 OsaX Nymloth wrote:http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-may-not-have-the-best-graphics-but-here-/1100-6428328/"Everything that we do is a balance," Hines said. "We could make the best looking game possible, but we dial some of that back in order to allow for all of these other things." "If you want to pick flowers and make potions all day, then that's what you're role-playing," he said. "If you want to go shoot everybody in the head with a laser-musket, then that's what you're role-playing." What. The. Fuck. Bitchsoft really believes this is what makes a game cRPG? No wonder they have no idea what Fallout was about~~ Ease up, lol. Bethesda's made similar statements of this being their stance on "roleplaying" all the way back to Oblivion. Optimists would call this challenging genre conventions, pessimists would call it deliberately mis-marketing their game (again, I typically view Bethesda games as adventure/exploration games with RPG elements mostly because I think that's a more accurate description of their games given how far they deliberately stray from standard CRPG gameplay).
I know, I know, but everytime I read something as stupid as this, my mind boils a bit. Howard should be banned from ever speaking publicly about cRPG, based on his history of interviews alone~~
|
Probably I'll always wonder why they didn't approach to the original creators(start with Cain and Avellone) in the first place at least in terms of story elements and handling the overall pace of the game and throw other crew members as a supplement. So they can create a title satisfying for both action seeking new generation and novel-like/gritty humour approach of the die hard fans.
New Vegas already proved how the game should be done(old crew) and Mr. Howard also proved that he couldn't manage create a decent cRPG.
|
On June 22 2015 21:03 Laserist wrote:
Probably I'll always wonder why they didn't approach to the original creators(start with Cain and Avellone) in the first place at least in terms of story elements and handling the overall pace of the game and throw other crew members as a supplement. So they can create a title satisfying for both action seeking new generation and novel-like/gritty humour approach of the die hard fans.
New Vegas already proved how the game should be done(old crew) and Mr. Howard also proved that he couldn't manage create a decent cRPG.
Because the die-hard fans are too few and far between to justify the expense of hiring two (expensive) consultants and rewriting the game.
Their research will most likely also have shown that gamers anno 20xx prefer video games they way Fallout 3 was done opposed to how Fallout 1 and 2 were done.
Companies like bethesda aim to sell as many copies as possible, and do this by developing their game for the masses, not for niche groups, unless one of those niche groups is large enough to warrant a couple of years of development (such as the Dark Souls series).
|
On June 22 2015 23:06 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 21:03 Laserist wrote:
Probably I'll always wonder why they didn't approach to the original creators(start with Cain and Avellone) in the first place at least in terms of story elements and handling the overall pace of the game and throw other crew members as a supplement. So they can create a title satisfying for both action seeking new generation and novel-like/gritty humour approach of the die hard fans.
New Vegas already proved how the game should be done(old crew) and Mr. Howard also proved that he couldn't manage create a decent cRPG. Because the die-hard fans are too few and far between to justify the expense of hiring two (expensive) consultants and rewriting the game. Their research will most likely also have shown that gamers anno 20xx prefer video games they way Fallout 3 was done opposed to how Fallout 1 and 2 were done. Companies like bethesda aim to sell as many copies as possible, and do this by developing their game for the masses, not for niche groups, unless one of those niche groups is large enough to warrant a couple of years of development (such as the Dark Souls series).
And Dark Souls took years to catch on and reach the level that it did. I remember when Giant Bomb imported Demon Souls and everyone was just confused(the Japanese’s added to the confusion). The Souls games have grown due to the community making it easier and easier for new people to appreciate them and the developers also changing it up with other games like Blood Bourne. I would never have gotten into Dark Souls if I didn't have a little help from the internet at large. And through that they have gotten bigger and bigger budgets.
And it’s not like people are not making games in the style of Fallout 1-2 for PC. Those games exist. It’s just now with the Fallout IP. Its why I roll my eyes when people complain about Fallout 3-4 being more accessible.
|
On June 22 2015 23:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 23:06 maartendq wrote:On June 22 2015 21:03 Laserist wrote:
Probably I'll always wonder why they didn't approach to the original creators(start with Cain and Avellone) in the first place at least in terms of story elements and handling the overall pace of the game and throw other crew members as a supplement. So they can create a title satisfying for both action seeking new generation and novel-like/gritty humour approach of the die hard fans.
New Vegas already proved how the game should be done(old crew) and Mr. Howard also proved that he couldn't manage create a decent cRPG. Because the die-hard fans are too few and far between to justify the expense of hiring two (expensive) consultants and rewriting the game. Their research will most likely also have shown that gamers anno 20xx prefer video games they way Fallout 3 was done opposed to how Fallout 1 and 2 were done. Companies like bethesda aim to sell as many copies as possible, and do this by developing their game for the masses, not for niche groups, unless one of those niche groups is large enough to warrant a couple of years of development (such as the Dark Souls series). And Dark Souls took years to catch on and reach the level that it did. I remember when Giant Bomb imported Demon Souls and everyone was just confused(the Japanese’s added to the confusion). The Souls games have grown due to the community making it easier and easier for new people to appreciate them and the developers also changing it up with other games like Blood Bourne. I would never have gotten into Dark Souls if I didn't have a little help from the internet at large. And through that they have gotten bigger and bigger budgets. And it’s not like people are not making games in the style of Fallout 1-2 for PC. Those games exist. It’s just now with the Fallout IP. Its why I roll my eyes when people complain about Fallout 3-4 being more accessible.
I wouldn't have gotten into Dark Souls either if it weren't for the Internet, but you should take into account Dark Souls' game mechanics as well: 3D real-time sword-based combat based entirely around the player having full control over his character, and stamina management paired with an atmosphere-rich world and a story players had to piece together themselves using their imagination. This is a stark contrast to going back to isometric 2D games with 90ies game mechanics (as well as the usual fantasy tropes that have been done to death by now). Pillars of Eternity and Divinity: Original Sin might have breathed some new life into the CRPG genre, but they're still niche titles that required crowd funding to be made in the first place (I go by the assumption that developers only resort to crowdfunding if they can't find enough investors for their projects).
Fallout 4 is going to be like Fallout 3, but with some elements added to it. It will never return to its roots, so complaining about that is rather pointless in my opinion. Even the Dark Souls series is getting increasingly polished as its popularity increases: sure it's still nailbitingly difficult, but Bloodborne is not nearly as opaque as Dark Souls (or Demons' Souls) was, both in terms of its story as well as gameplay mechanics. By taking away shields and dual wielding, and by limiting the amount of weapons, Bloodborne is remarkably straightforward actually (you'll end up leveling up the same stats regardless). Dark Souls, on the other hand, can be a completely different experience depending on your build: dex, str, shield, no shield, pyro, caster .... Right now I'm doing a 2-handed scimitar run and it's been a fun ride, completely different from my previous run, which was a tank build.
Personally I welcome the changes to the Souls formula. Dark Souls 2's combat was smoother and, in my opinion, better than its predecessor's, and allowed for more variety, while Bloodborne shook things up significantly by blatantly taking away shields (playing BloodBorne defintiely made me a better souls player). Dark Souls 3 looks to switch things up again with the introduction of Sword Arts, and I'm really looking forward to it.
|
On June 22 2015 23:32 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 23:19 Plansix wrote:On June 22 2015 23:06 maartendq wrote:On June 22 2015 21:03 Laserist wrote:
Probably I'll always wonder why they didn't approach to the original creators(start with Cain and Avellone) in the first place at least in terms of story elements and handling the overall pace of the game and throw other crew members as a supplement. So they can create a title satisfying for both action seeking new generation and novel-like/gritty humour approach of the die hard fans.
New Vegas already proved how the game should be done(old crew) and Mr. Howard also proved that he couldn't manage create a decent cRPG. Because the die-hard fans are too few and far between to justify the expense of hiring two (expensive) consultants and rewriting the game. Their research will most likely also have shown that gamers anno 20xx prefer video games they way Fallout 3 was done opposed to how Fallout 1 and 2 were done. Companies like bethesda aim to sell as many copies as possible, and do this by developing their game for the masses, not for niche groups, unless one of those niche groups is large enough to warrant a couple of years of development (such as the Dark Souls series). And Dark Souls took years to catch on and reach the level that it did. I remember when Giant Bomb imported Demon Souls and everyone was just confused(the Japanese’s added to the confusion). The Souls games have grown due to the community making it easier and easier for new people to appreciate them and the developers also changing it up with other games like Blood Bourne. I would never have gotten into Dark Souls if I didn't have a little help from the internet at large. And through that they have gotten bigger and bigger budgets. And it’s not like people are not making games in the style of Fallout 1-2 for PC. Those games exist. It’s just now with the Fallout IP. Its why I roll my eyes when people complain about Fallout 3-4 being more accessible. I wouldn't have gotten into Dark Souls either if it weren't for the Internet, but you should take into account Dark Souls' game mechanics as well: 3D real-time sword-based combat based entirely around the player having full control over his character, and stamina management paired with an atmosphere-rich world and a story players had to piece together themselves using their imagination. This is a stark contrast to going back to isometric 2D games with 90ies game mechanics (as well as the usual fantasy tropes that have been done to death by now). Pillars of Eternity and Divinity: Original Sin might have breathed some new life into the CRPG genre, but they're still niche titles that required crowd funding to be made in the first place (I go by the assumption that developers only resort to crowdfunding if they can't find enough investors for their projects). Both games received raving reviews, but expecting a AAA developer like Bethesda to make a game like that is a stretch. That will never happen. It would be the same as asking Bethesda to make TES VI like Morrowind again, i.e. largely text-based instead of using voice-overs, a guiding compass or any hint at all as to how the game systems actually work.
Exactly. AAA development needs to reach a large audience to justify its budget. That is the nature of the beast. Expecting anything niche out of those games is just setting yourself up for disappointment. Even games like Souls won’t need to sell as much as Fallout 4 is going to need to.
And there is also the issue that the people who made the games we love might want to try new things. It’s like music. You might not enjoy every album from a band, but they need to do new things to keep music interesting for them. Otherwise it won’t be fun and no one wants to play a game made by someone who isn’t into it.
|
On June 22 2015 23:06 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 21:03 Laserist wrote:
Probably I'll always wonder why they didn't approach to the original creators(start with Cain and Avellone) in the first place at least in terms of story elements and handling the overall pace of the game and throw other crew members as a supplement. So they can create a title satisfying for both action seeking new generation and novel-like/gritty humour approach of the die hard fans.
New Vegas already proved how the game should be done(old crew) and Mr. Howard also proved that he couldn't manage create a decent cRPG. Because the die-hard fans are too few and far between to justify the expense of hiring two (expensive) consultants and rewriting the game. Their research will most likely also have shown that gamers anno 20xx prefer video games they way Fallout 3 was done opposed to how Fallout 1 and 2 were done. Companies like bethesda aim to sell as many copies as possible, and do this by developing their game for the masses, not for niche groups, unless one of those niche groups is large enough to warrant a couple of years of development (such as the Dark Souls series).
I don't see why grabbing the original developers cost more than Todd Howard if not cheaper. I still believe it is possible to develop a game both can target casual & hardcore fans at the same time.
At least they can try to "write" something interesting this time. Bethesda really lacks interesting/creative writing especially in their latest releases.
|
On June 22 2015 23:48 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 23:06 maartendq wrote:On June 22 2015 21:03 Laserist wrote:
Probably I'll always wonder why they didn't approach to the original creators(start with Cain and Avellone) in the first place at least in terms of story elements and handling the overall pace of the game and throw other crew members as a supplement. So they can create a title satisfying for both action seeking new generation and novel-like/gritty humour approach of the die hard fans.
New Vegas already proved how the game should be done(old crew) and Mr. Howard also proved that he couldn't manage create a decent cRPG. Because the die-hard fans are too few and far between to justify the expense of hiring two (expensive) consultants and rewriting the game. Their research will most likely also have shown that gamers anno 20xx prefer video games they way Fallout 3 was done opposed to how Fallout 1 and 2 were done. Companies like bethesda aim to sell as many copies as possible, and do this by developing their game for the masses, not for niche groups, unless one of those niche groups is large enough to warrant a couple of years of development (such as the Dark Souls series). I don't see why grabbing the original developers cost more than Todd Howard if not cheaper. I still believe it is possible to develop a game both can target casual & hardcore fans at the same time. At least they can try to "write" something interesting this time. Bethesda really lacks interesting/creative writing especially in their latest releases.
Casual and hardcore at the same time doesn't work. What you'll inevitably get is difficulty sliders that artificially increase difficulty by lowering the player character's damage output while increasing the damage output, armor and HP of enemies (à la The Witcher 3). Hardcore fans are people who are willing to pour a lot more time into learing a game's mechanics than casual players, who usually want to just relax and have fun without having to think too much. They're two completely different audiences that require two completely different design philosophies.
|
On June 22 2015 23:48 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 23:06 maartendq wrote:On June 22 2015 21:03 Laserist wrote:
Probably I'll always wonder why they didn't approach to the original creators(start with Cain and Avellone) in the first place at least in terms of story elements and handling the overall pace of the game and throw other crew members as a supplement. So they can create a title satisfying for both action seeking new generation and novel-like/gritty humour approach of the die hard fans.
New Vegas already proved how the game should be done(old crew) and Mr. Howard also proved that he couldn't manage create a decent cRPG. Because the die-hard fans are too few and far between to justify the expense of hiring two (expensive) consultants and rewriting the game. Their research will most likely also have shown that gamers anno 20xx prefer video games they way Fallout 3 was done opposed to how Fallout 1 and 2 were done. Companies like bethesda aim to sell as many copies as possible, and do this by developing their game for the masses, not for niche groups, unless one of those niche groups is large enough to warrant a couple of years of development (such as the Dark Souls series). I don't see why grabbing the original developers cost more than Todd Howard if not cheaper. I still believe it is possible to develop a game both can target casual & hardcore fans at the same time. At least they can try to "write" something interesting this time. Bethesda really lacks interesting/creative writing especially in their latest releases.
They can't just "grab people" to work for them. Tim Cain works for another company and lives in another state. I am pretty sure he has a family and isn't just going to uproot them to work on game for 5 years. The same with a lot of the staff that made the early Fallout games. And Todd Howard has been with Bethesda for years and has shipped games that sell millions of copies. They are not going to remove him just because hardcore Fallout 1-2 fans don't like him.
|
Can we at least all agree bethasde shouldn't have kept the numbering going ?
And that New Vegas is pretty sweet ?
And that "Fallout 4" might be the sweetest wasteland community manager ever ? 
|
On June 23 2015 06:57 HeatEXTEND wrote:Can we at least all agree bethasde shouldn't have kept the numbering going ? And that New Vegas is pretty sweet ? And that "Fallout 4" might be the sweetest wasteland community manager ever ?
Actually New Vegas is done by Obsidian not Bethesda. This is way it is way better than F3 and you can still grab the original developers to create and awesome game.
|
On June 22 2015 00:54 OsaX Nymloth wrote:http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-may-not-have-the-best-graphics-but-here-/1100-6428328/Show nested quote +"Everything that we do is a balance," Hines said. "We could make the best looking game possible, but we dial some of that back in order to allow for all of these other things." Show nested quote +"If you want to pick flowers and make potions all day, then that's what you're role-playing," he said. "If you want to go shoot everybody in the head with a laser-musket, then that's what you're role-playing." What. The. Fuck. Bitchsoft really believes this is what makes a game cRPG? No wonder they have no idea what Fallout was about~~
Do you even know what Fallout is about?
You realize that Fallout 1 is easily the best and most well written game out of the entire series (outside of New Vegas, which comes a hair short due to some plotholes and some other issues with the plot such as certain characters just being bland or weak), and yet people still hail Fallout 2 as the greatest? Fallout 2 was just a hair short of being as bad as Fallout 3's writing, the only 'smart' thing about it was that it was literally a giant pop culture reference game. The actual main plot was actually fairly weak. And all these complaints about Fallout 3's gameplay are quite hilarious, especially considering Fallout 2 had the most atrocious and tedious early game ever. In all seriousness, the plotline of Fallout 2 had almost no coherency at the beginning, and then starts to pick up and at least gets semi-interesting, then peters out at the end. Nearly as bad as Fallout 3's. Pacing was just awful in terms of gameplay, and there were very minimal options to play as a diplomat in Fallout 2 (similar to the new ones, but at least the new ones do not have nearly as tedious combat).
'Bethesda has no idea what Fallout is'
You're right, they don't, because even original creators didn't know what the fuck they were doing past Fallout 1.
So seriously, it's one thing to criticize Bethesda for things like VATs which design wise is just a bad choice for a FPS game, or the fact that they tend to lower their difficulty too much, etc. but come up with some real criticisms. Because the idea that somehow the original creators were so amazing at writing is complete horse shit, because the plot/writing of Fallout 2 is actually very weak, yet people love to prop it up as like the greatest shit on earth. Yeah, Bethesda sucks at writing a decently paced story, so did the writers/creators of Fallout 2.
|
Well Fallout 2 wasn't made by the same team as FO1 really. Well, it was, sort of, but Tim Cain left halfway through development after writing the basic plot and designing one area. The weird flow of the story can probably be attributed to the fact that a new writing team more or less had to pick up where he left off.
It's news to me that people consider FO2 to be better--I've always either seen them lumped together and treated as one game, or the first one ranked slightly higher (FO1's slightly higher metacritic scores seem to support my observation).
|
On June 23 2015 11:42 TheYango wrote:
Well Fallout 2 wasn't made by the same team as FO1 really. Well, it was, sort of, but Tim Cain left halfway through development after writing the basic plot and designing one area. The weird flow of the story can probably be attributed to the fact that a new writing team more or less had to pick up where he left off.
It's news to me that people consider FO2 to be better--I've always either seen them lumped together and treated as one game, or the first one ranked slightly higher (FO1's slightly higher metacritic scores seem to support my observation).
People tend to compare Fallout 3 to Fallout 2 and then say that Fallout 3 is utter trash, crap, etc. when Fallout 2 itself was actually not that good of a game at all, especially considering all the hilarious noob traps that were in the game, the tedious nature of the early game, the ridiculous flow/plotline, and overall stupidity of the last 1/4 of the game. Either fights were stupidly easy, or just near impossible without having prior knowledge. Essentially, people criticize Bethesda for the SAME ISSUES THAT FALLOUT 2 HAD.
Now if we were talking strictly about Fallout 1, which was a far more focused and balanced game, sure, I'd say Fallout 1 definitely was a superior game, but most people just say 'meh Bethesda shit even though I've never played Fallout 1 and I'm gonna pretend to be a hipster.' Fallout 1 was most definitely better, but not in every single respect, it too issues (mostly gameplay related).
All I ask for is if you're going to make complaints about Bethesda and their games, come up with a legitimate point. For example, Oblivion was just a low point, Bethesda got way too ambitious, tried to fix some of the issues of Morrowind (you could metagame cheese so easily in Morrowind past a certain point, while you really can't in Oblivion unless you know the specific way to do it). The scaling enemies, the bandits in glass armor, etc. obviously was way too much, along with the other issues that plagued Oblivion. Be specific to the game itself. For example, although the weapon crafting looks interesting, the armor crafting looks pretty bland in Fallout 4. Combat seems a little too similar to NV/FO3 even though there seems to be added weight. VATS is still in the game, even though it really should have been removed. Those are real criticisms. I just hate it when people come into a Bethesda thread and just bitch, moan, and groan for no reason other than essentially nostalgia and rose tinted glasses. I'm not saying the company is perfect, not anywhere close to it, but they aren't anywhere close to the fucking devil company EA, and yet people say so just specifically because of Fallout.
|
Dude You are alone on this. Most people liked F2 a lot. Even loved. F3 feels just empty and repetitive. Its still decent game but nowhere near the level of F2. Thats just the way it is.
And even if they really had same flaws (which they dont) thats not excuse. They are separated by 10 years of game design knowledge and experience. There is no way that Bethesda should have made same mistakes as someone else 10 years before.
|
On June 23 2015 14:32 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 11:42 TheYango wrote:
Well Fallout 2 wasn't made by the same team as FO1 really. Well, it was, sort of, but Tim Cain left halfway through development after writing the basic plot and designing one area. The weird flow of the story can probably be attributed to the fact that a new writing team more or less had to pick up where he left off.
It's news to me that people consider FO2 to be better--I've always either seen them lumped together and treated as one game, or the first one ranked slightly higher (FO1's slightly higher metacritic scores seem to support my observation). People tend to compare Fallout 3 to Fallout 2 and then say that Fallout 3 is utter trash, crap, etc. when Fallout 2 itself was actually not that good of a game at all, especially considering all the hilarious noob traps that were in the game, the tedious nature of the early game, the ridiculous flow/plotline, and overall stupidity of the last 1/4 of the game. Either fights were stupidly easy, or just near impossible without having prior knowledge. Essentially, people criticize Bethesda for the SAME ISSUES THAT FALLOUT 2 HAD.Now if we were talking strictly about Fallout 1, which was a far more focused and balanced game, sure, I'd say Fallout 1 definitely was a superior game, but most people just say 'meh Bethesda shit even though I've never played Fallout 1 and I'm gonna pretend to be a hipster.' Fallout 1 was most definitely better, but not in every single respect, it too issues (mostly gameplay related). All I ask for is if you're going to make complaints about Bethesda and their games, come up with a legitimate point. For example, Oblivion was just a low point, Bethesda got way too ambitious, tried to fix some of the issues of Morrowind (you could metagame cheese so easily in Morrowind past a certain point, while you really can't in Oblivion unless you know the specific way to do it). The scaling enemies, the bandits in glass armor, etc. obviously was way too much, along with the other issues that plagued Oblivion. Be specific to the game itself. For example, although the weapon crafting looks interesting, the armor crafting looks pretty bland in Fallout 4. Combat seems a little too similar to NV/FO3 even though there seems to be added weight. VATS is still in the game, even though it really should have been removed. Those are real criticisms. I just hate it when people come into a Bethesda thread and just bitch, moan, and groan for no reason other than essentially nostalgia and rose tinted glasses. I'm not saying the company is perfect, not anywhere close to it, but they aren't anywhere close to the fucking devil company EA, and yet people say so just specifically because of Fallout.
It's called nostalgia goggles. People will always find the first game of a series they played the best because it is that game that made them fall in love with the setting, the gameplay mechanics etc.
|
On June 23 2015 15:32 Silvanel wrote:
Dude You are alone on this. Most people liked F2 a lot. Even loved. F3 feels just empty and repetitive. Its still decent game but nowhere near the level of F2. Thats just the way it is.
And even if they really had same flaws (which they dont) thats not excuse. They are separated by 10 years of game design knowledge and experience. There is no way that Bethesda should have made same mistakes as someone else 10 years before.
Empty and repetitive is exactly how I imagine a world that was nuked to shit and bathing in radiation to be like. I found Fallout 3 to be an incredibly immersive experience, especially in the beginning of the game when you were weak and seemingly always nearly out of ammo and supplies. It's a game where most things are either overtly or covertly hostile to you, where distrust is the norm rather than trust, and where humans are no longer on the top of the food chain.
Also keep in mind that what you perceive as flaws might be different than what other people perceive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
