899 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

The dawg in trailer is mah favorite dawggy.

[Riven326]

I like how if you send Fawkes in, the narrator treats oyu like a bad guy, for sending someone who can't die from radiation....

 

Man that ending is a mess, Broken steel or no Broken steel.

Using logic and reason makes you the bad guy. lol

[Colaman172]

https://www.google.c..._c.k9VmkZ8uQ71U

 

Rumoured area. Saw it from my twitter.

If this is true, then I hope there is some kind of DLC in Plymouth. The reason?

Spoiler

Don't know...

[Barbarossa2010]

At least Bethesda didn't throw the "you troglodytes [who pay money for our games] are far to dull to get our 'artistic' ending" card, and fixed it without crying like a baby about it.

[Fast Jimmy]

My destiny... to painfully die from radiation poisoning while my (apparently jerk) super mutant friend watches on with glee? 

 

It would be one thing if Fawkes was just some random companion, who could join you (or not). But she's not... she's a main quest companion that someone would have to be dense to drop due to her awesome battle ability.

 

 

Couple that with the fact that you don't get her until the end of the game and it is basically the MOST likely companion in the entire game to reach the radiation chamber with... and Bethesda made you sacrifice yourself because ill-conceived attempts at plot. Pfah.

[Cyonan]

Honestly I found both Fallout 3's and New Vegas' endings to be stupid.

 

Fallout 3 because lack of logic and up until Broken Steel, not being able to continue afterwards.

 

New Vegas for not learning from that and not being able to continue afterwards again, and never fixing it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Honestly I found both Fallout 3's and New Vegas' endings to be stupid.

 

Fallout 3 because lack of logic and up until Broken Steel, not being able to continue afterwards.

 

New Vegas for not learning from that and not being able to continue afterwards again, and never fixing it.

 

Mods tho... amirite?

[Cyonan]

Mods tho... amirite?

 

All hail the modding community.

 

They shall save us from the stupid design decisions.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I'm honestly not sure what there is to be really excited about.I mean, what does Bethesda does better than most devs?

 

Writing? Mediocre at best, Fallout 3 level of bad at worst.

 

Graphics? If that trailer is in-game footage, well my copy of The Witcher 3 looks way better and I run it on medium settings. Modded Skyrim looks better too.

 

Gameplay? Also mediocre. Apart from exploiting the hell out of it for the lulz, no combat in any Bethesda game has ever done anything for me. And their non-combat gameplay is nothing inspiring either.

 

Coherent world building? Nope. Fallout 3 was built like a theme park, not a coherent and believable world (exhibit A: Little Lamplight). Skyrim was better, but we'll see if they improve further.

 

Exploration? A year ago I'd have said yes, but Bioware (Inquisition) and CDPR (TW3) have proved that they can make some great open worlds too, while also totally eclipsing Bethesda games in aspects such as writing. And these two companies didn't load their games to the brim with level scaling to boot.

 

So what remains? Mods, I guess, which is good but IMO nowhere near enough to be hyped about until a good year or two after release. I'm just hoping it's better than FO3 in the same way that Skyrim was better than Oblivion, but I reserve this week's hype quota for XCOM 2.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

There was nothing left to do after NV ending and there was also no motivation to continue afterward because I kicked all the baddies.

[Barbarossa2010]

And mods are the reason I'm really psyched about a new Fallout game. Can't wait to see the toolkit.

They better have reloading, workbench recipes and campfire cooking. They BETTER have learned that from New Vegas.

FO3's crafting was underwhelming...no... it was virtually non-existent with a single good craftable item.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I'm honestly not sure what there is to be really excited about.I mean, what does Bethesda does better than most devs?

 

Writing? Mediocre at best, Fallout 3 level of bad at worst.

 

Graphics? If that trailer is in-game footage, well my copy of The Witcher 3 looks way better and I run it on medium settings. Modded Skyrim looks better too.

 

Gameplay? Also mediocre. Apart from exploiting the hell out of it for the lulz, no combat in any Bethesda game has ever done anything for me. And their non-combat gameplay is nothing inspiring either.

 

Coherent world building? Nope. Fallout 3 was built like a theme park, not a coherent and believable world (exhibit A: Little Lamplight). Skyrim was better, but we'll see if they improve further.

 

Exploration? A year ago I'd have said yes, but Bioware (Inquisition) and CDPR (TW3) have proved that they can make some great open worlds too, while also totally eclipsing Bethesda games in aspects such as writing. And these two companies didn't load their games to the brim with level scaling to boot.

 

So what remains? Mods, I guess, which is good but IMO nowhere near enough to be hyped about until a good year or two after release. I'm just hoping it's better than FO3 in the same way that Skyrim was better than Oblivion, but I reserve this week's hype quota for XCOM 2.

 

Best post-apocalyptic world with great lore.

And it will be better than both FO3 and Skyrim in all aspects IMO.

[L. Han]

Bethesda does really good world building. They know how to space things out so things don't feel too cluttered or too barren. Dragon Age: Inqusition felt too barren on some maps, while some others were a bit cramped.

 

That said, Bethesda seems to struggle with human interactions (NPCs) A lot of characters have very similar manners and style (doesn't help that a lot of them reuse the same voice actor).

 

I have heard from long time Fallout fans say that FO3 isn't really a fallout game due to the tone and the general direction it's going in. While FO:NV was more akin to the original Fallout as it captures the tone well and builds on the existing timeline.

[AtreiyaN7]

Cyber dog> some wasteland mutt.

Blasphemy!!!! Part of the fun of having a companion like Dogmeat <or insert name of favorite dog here> is trying to keep your squishy bio-pooch pal alive. Cyber-pooches like Rex obviously had it way too easy.

Long live Dogmeat!

[In Exile]

Bethesda does really good world building. They know how to space things out so things don't feel too cluttered or too barren. Dragon Age: Inqusition felt too barren on some maps, while some others were a bit cramped.

 

That said, Bethesda seems to struggle with human interactions (NPCs) A lot of characters have very similar manners and style (doesn't help that a lot of them reuse the same voice actor).

 

I have heard from long time Fallout fans say that FO3 isn't really a fallout game due to the tone and the general direction it's going in. While FO:NV was more akin to the original Fallout as it captures the tone well and builds on the existing timeline.

 

I don't get the world building stuff. I mean, they write semi-coherent appendixes and mediocre short stories... but that's about it. That's all the lore in TES. And in Fallout they mostly did a bad job adapting someone else's lore. 

 

Or do you mean world-building in the literal sense of being good at pacing content in an open world? Because with that I agree (though I find the content pretty to mostly underwhelming). TES and FO games are "extreme boredom" buys for me, as in, I have free time and am not in the mood to replay anything. 

[Cyonan]

I'm honestly not sure what there is to be really excited about.I mean, what does Bethesda does better than most devs?

 

Writing? Mediocre at best, Fallout 3 level of bad at worst.

 

Graphics? If that trailer is in-game footage, well my copy of The Witcher 3 looks way better and I run it on medium settings. Modded Skyrim looks better too.

 

Gameplay? Also mediocre. Apart from exploiting the hell out of it for the lulz, no combat in any Bethesda game has ever done anything for me. And their non-combat gameplay is nothing inspiring either.

 

Coherent world building? Nope. Fallout 3 was built like a theme park, not a coherent and believable world (exhibit A: Little Lamplight). Skyrim was better, but we'll see if they improve further.

 

Exploration? A year ago I'd have said yes, but Bioware (Inquisition) and CDPR (TW3) have proved that they can make some great open worlds too, while also totally eclipsing Bethesda games in aspects such as writing. And these two companies didn't load their games to the brim with level scaling to boot.

 

So what remains? Mods, I guess, which is good but IMO nowhere near enough to be hyped about until a good year or two after release. I'm just hoping it's better than FO3 in the same way that Skyrim was better than Oblivion, but I reserve this week's hype quota for XCOM 2.

 

Bethesda I think still does top notch exploration, and I'm sure they're working on improvements to their formula. You are comparing a game from 2015 to a game from either 2008(Fallout 3) or 2011(Skyrim) with a whole new console generation being released in between the two.

 

Inquisition had great looking environments, but there wasn't really a whole lot of interesting things to fill up the world. It's not like a Bethesda game where there's lots of dungeons to go into and loot. The Witcher 3 has done a great job of things, having both a well crafted world and an array good side quests to go along with it.

 

Bethesda can create a really good game world, they just need to work on filling it with more interesting characters and actual side quests.

 

As for graphics I tend to care more about aesthetics over graphical fidelity, especially in a game that's going to be modded to have higher res textures among other things. Even then, keep in mind that A. This is early game footage we're looking at and B. It's a YouTube video. Those never look as good as in-game.

 

but yeah, XCOM 2 hype train is full speed ahead.

[Akrabra]

There is alot i admire about how Bethesda operates, but i understand that it is an aquired taste in the RPG community. I feel like they speak to the explorer aspect of the rpg's without relying heavily on reason for doing so. You can just do it because you want to do it. I don't feel a pressure when playing the games, i just feel relaxed. I would be fine if Fallout 4 had no main quest or choosen one aspect, like others they have done in FO3 and TES. Just do faction quests instead and focus more on exploration and gameplay. 

[L. Han]

I don't get the world building stuff. I mean, they write semi-coherent appendixes and mediocre short stories... but that's about it. That's all the lore in TES. And in Fallout they mostly did a bad job adapting someone else's lore. 

 

Or do you mean world-building in the literal sense of being good at pacing content in an open world? Because with that I agree (though I find the content pretty to mostly underwhelming). TES and FO games are "extreme boredom" buys for me, as in, I have free time and am not in the mood to replay anything. 

 

^That's what I mean. They seem to know where to place hub areas, point of interests, special NPCs, and so on. They do it in an organic fashion where you can just pick a direction and continue walking and you will run across something interesting. Though they aren't flawless, they are often paired up with rather sub-par characters and wonky systems (Skyrim's compass was useless + unclimbable mountains = lots of grief).

 

I tend to play Bethesda games for the atmosphere. They are usually pretty good at making places look homey and inviting. As well as hostile and dangerous. If I was more interested in characters and interesting quests I would prefer a game by Obsidian (for Fallout anyway).

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

Have you guys heard of the leak?

 

https://np.reddit.co...from_last_year/

 

Turns out this person's been right so far and its looking more and more like she really was on the Fallout 4 team.

[In Exile]

Inquisition had great looking environments, but there wasn't really a whole lot of interesting things to fill up the world. It's not like a Bethesda game where there's lots of dungeons to go into and loot. The Witcher 3 has done a great job of things, having both a well crafted world and an array good side quests to go along with it.

Is that really good content, though? I just don't see how an individual dungeon in a Bestheda game is better than, say, that temple in the Western Approach. Bestheda has more content, and it's spaced better, but I'm just not seeing the quality. 

 

 

 

^That's what I mean. They seem to know where to place hub areas, point of interests, special NPCs, and so on. They do it in an organic fashion where you can just pick a direction and continue walking and you will run across something interesting. Though they aren't flawless, they are often paired up with rather sub-par characters and wonky systems (Skyrim's compass was useless + unclimbable mountains = lots of grief).

 

I tend to play Bethesda games for the atmosphere. They are usually pretty good at making places look homey and inviting. As well as hostile and dangerous. If I was more interested in characters and interesting quests I would prefer a game by Obsidian (for Fallout anyway).

 

I ran out of likes, so consider this reply a like.  

 

I think Obsidian was much better at making an atmospheric world. Settlements are arranged in a logical way next to water\/food, there's empty space (which is how it works IRL). It's just that atmospheric =/= good/well-paced. 

[In Exile]

Have you guys heard of the leak?

 

https://np.reddit.co...from_last_year/

 

Turns out this person's been right so far and its looking more and more like she really was on the Fallout 4 team.

Keeping in mind that even if it's true there's a big enough lag in development that a lot of things might change (see e.g. how ME1 had a tactical view with full party control during the X06 gameplay video). 

[SmilesJA]

I'm honestly not sure what there is to be really excited about.I mean, what does Bethesda does better than most devs?

 

Writing? Mediocre at best, Fallout 3 level of bad at worst.

 

Graphics? If that trailer is in-game footage, well my copy of The Witcher 3 looks way better and I run it on medium settings. Modded Skyrim looks better too.

 

Gameplay? Also mediocre. Apart from exploiting the hell out of it for the lulz, no combat in any Bethesda game has ever done anything for me. And their non-combat gameplay is nothing inspiring either.

 

Coherent world building? Nope. Fallout 3 was built like a theme park, not a coherent and believable world (exhibit A: Little Lamplight). Skyrim was better, but we'll see if they improve further.

 

Exploration? A year ago I'd have said yes, but Bioware (Inquisition) and CDPR (TW3) have proved that they can make some great open worlds too, while also totally eclipsing Bethesda games in aspects such as writing. And these two companies didn't load their games to the brim with level scaling to boot.

 

So what remains? Mods, I guess, which is good but IMO nowhere near enough to be hyped about until a good year or two after release. I'm just hoping it's better than FO3 in the same way that Skyrim was better than Oblivion, but I reserve this week's hype quota for XCOM 2.

 

Atmosphere, world building and exploration. Fallout 3 felt more like an adventure than a theme park (at least to me.) 

[spinachdiaper]

[Cyonan]

 

Is that really good content, though? I just don't see how an individual dungeon in a Bestheda game is better than, say, that temple in the Western Approach. Bestheda has more content, and it's spaced better, but I'm just not seeing the quality. 

 

It's mediocre content, but in Inquisition the good stuff is so few and far between while everything else feels much worse than what Skyrim's world is filled up with.

 

From an exploration point of view, I think Skyrim is much better than Inquisition.

 

The Witcher 3 beats both of them from what I've played of it so far and Bethesda will need to step up their game, though.

[In Exile]

It's mediocre content, but in Inquisition the good stuff is so few and far between while everything else feels much worse than what Skyrim's world is filled up with.

 

From an exploration point of view, I think Skyrim is much better than Inquisition.

 

The Witcher 3 beats both of them from what I've played of it so far and Bethesda will need to step up their game, though.

 

I'm not trying to defend DA:I. I thought it had a pretty bad open world. TW3 is a bit too much like AC for me (or RDR).