Double save is working well enough at the moment. Here's hoping the corruption doesn't start cascading.
The game is overall better written than FO3 that's for certain (not that it's much of an achievement but still). I can't remember anything from that game beyond the silly bits that made me facepalm like Little Lamplight, the Tenpenny Towers quest and how stupid the existence of Megaton is.
FO4 has a few nice, Bioware-eque companions (Piper, Cait, Nick, Hancock, I also like Codsworth) and some of the NPCs are fairly well written and voice acted, such as Maxson and Father. The central conflict between the factions is very New Vegas-esque, which is nice, even if the factions themselves aren't that interesting apart from the ''back to the roots'' Brotherhood. The Minuteman are flat goodie two-shoes, the Institute are the Think Tank with a prettier face, and the Railroad are just lame, who cares about android rights in a post-apocalyptic wasteland anyway.
I also like how many companions have numerous environmental comments. They react to your explorations quite a lot, which is very nice, and some decisions will earn their disapproval.
Unfortunately a lot of that is hamstrung by a PC that is not allowed to emote often enough, especially considering the traumatic events they live, the awful dialog system, janky and bad looking pseudo-cutscenes, companions liking or disliking you for mundane actions (Cait literally fell in love with me because I lockpicked enough stuff and took drugs, that's even worse than DA:O's gifts), and ye olde Bethesda problem where you're encouraged to ignore the main story entirely in favor of going who knows where doing who knows what for the lulz, even if your primary objective is quite urgent and important.
It's a good effort in terms of writing, honestly. Definitely Beth's best written game in terms of characters at least. It's just that typical Bethesda idioms get in the way of the story's enjoyment. Dragon Age: Inquisition had this problem too, but nowhere near to the same degree if you ask me. At least even mundane quests in that game helped the Inquisition, setting up a farm for 2 generic NPCs in the middle of nowhere doesn't help me finding my son.
I agree that FO4 is a good step or three forward for Bethesda.
Far better in nearly every respect and mechanic than FO3, and arguably a peer competitor for FNV. FNV is 'sharper' in some ways- a bit more on-punch in the writing, a bit more developed in the companions, and a better reputation system overall- but FO4 is no slouch. Not only did it innovate and improve upon the crafting system, and innovate the settlement system, but there's a respectable balance overall between the factions.
While I miss the factional reputation system of FNV- I think it would have worked well in the context of the multi-faction cloak-and-dagger quests where outright conflict was hidden- the handling of the Institute overall was a good attempt. Not flawless by any means, but far, far better than the handling of Caesar's Legion in FNV. As a designated 'evil' joinable faction, Caesar's Legion had almost nothing to speak for it- it offered one sort of security (safety from raiders) that every other faction did, and many significant harms as well. The Institute has crimes as well- but few as serious, none as deliberatly cruel, and offers real and practical potential for public good depending on player action.
FO4 has a good balance of factions, which I heartily approve. There's merits for, and flaws against, each and every faction- both moral, ideological, and pragmatic.
The Institute is the epitomy of Ivory Tower intellectual elitism and disconnect from the world, for good and ill. It is misunderstood- but for both better and worse.
The Brotherhood of Steel offers real protection for the Wastelanders, at the cost of racist hostility against a minority (non-feral ghouls) and the worrying establishment of a conquering empire.
The Railroad is moral conviction, but ultimately indifferent to the fate of everyone and self-destructive of their own cause. They have no plan for the future, existing only for a specific cause of the now.
The Minute Men are are force for good... for the moment, and have a weak organizational purpose or resiliance.
Thus far all it affects is my ability to hit "Continue" at the main menu. The game does a save before I shut down and that save is always corrupt. If I pick the next game down, it is fine. I just have to fight a running battle vs ever growing numbers of bad saves.
When you say, "ever growing" do you mean that it did eventually start to cascade on you, or that they just could become numerous if you weren't on top of deleting them?
Just that I'm trying to be careful to delete any corrupt saves immediately, and also making sure not to overwrite any saves. I just make a new save and delete and old, because someone told me that it was a good preventative measure.
I agree that FO4 is a good step or three forward for Bethesda.
Far better in nearly every respect and mechanic than FO3, and arguably a peer competitor for FNV. FNV is 'sharper' in some ways- a bit more on-punch in the writing, a bit more developed in the companions, and a better reputation system overall- but FO4 is no slouch. Not only did it innovate and improve upon the crafting system, and innovate the settlement system, but there's a respectable balance overall between the factions.
While I miss the factional reputation system of FNV- I think it would have worked well in the context of the multi-faction cloak-and-dagger quests where outright conflict was hidden- the handling of the Institute overall was a good attempt. Not flawless by any means, but far, far better than the handling of Caesar's Legion in FNV. As a designated 'evil' joinable faction, Caesar's Legion had almost nothing to speak for it- it offered one sort of security (safety from raiders) that every other faction did, and many significant harms as well. The Institute has crimes as well- but few as serious, none as deliberatly cruel, and offers real and practical potential for public good depending on player action.
FO4 has a good balance of factions, which I heartily approve. There's merits for, and flaws against, each and every faction- both moral, ideological, and pragmatic.
The Institute is the epitomy of Ivory Tower intellectual elitism and disconnect from the world, for good and ill. It is misunderstood- but for both better and worse.
The Brotherhood of Steel offers real protection for the Wastelanders, at the cost of racist hostility against a minority (non-feral ghouls) and the worrying establishment of a conquering empire.
The Railroad is moral conviction, but ultimately indifferent to the fate of everyone and self-destructive of their own cause. They have no plan for the future, existing only for a specific cause of the now.
The Minute Men are are force for good... for the moment, and have a weak organizational purpose or resiliance.
Beautifully put, Dean. I'm more interesting in the moral questions of this game than I have been in any other Fallout installment. And it's pleasant to finally have a Fallout faction that I really like. The Minute Men are still imperfect, but they're also the only faction without a significant ideological downside. From my perspective, at least.
Beautifully put, Dean. I'm more interesting in the moral questions of this game than I have been in any other Fallout installment. And it's pleasant to finally have a Fallout faction that I really like. The Minute Men are still imperfect, but they're also the only faction without a significant ideological downside. From my perspective, at least.
The ideological downside of the Minute Men is that they have no ideology or institution worth the name. They stand for nothing in particular, and barely stand at all.
Politically, the Minute Men are a mess. Once you get past Preston's idealism, they're little more than loosely-aligned vigilantes, and they're unstable. They don't have a common ethos, or standard- they really only function effectively under the command of a strongman/de-facto (benevolent) dictator. Without the strong-man everyone respects, it's just a pack of vigilantes- not particularly reliable in the long-term.
Of course, for some this is a feature, not a bug. If I said that under the Minutemen the Commonwealth would likely be a collection of independent settlements only slowly approaching a united civilization, a lot of people would be comfortable with that. But other people want a point- a goal, a reason, or deliberate progress towards some vision of a future. The Minute Men don't offer that.
The Minute Men will protect you from raiders. Maybe. If it (and the rest of the Commonwealth) don't fall to infighting and power struggles. Again.
I still like them, though. Nothing wrong with a voluntary lack of coercive government.
When you say, "ever growing" do you mean that it did eventually start to cascade on you, or that they just could become numerous if you weren't on top of deleting them?
Just that I'm trying to be careful to delete any corrupt saves immediately, and also making sure not to overwrite any saves. I just make a new save and delete and old, because someone told me that it was a good preventative measure.
I agree that FO4 is a good step or three forward for Bethesda.
Far better in nearly every respect and mechanic than FO3, and arguably a peer competitor for FNV. FNV is 'sharper' in some ways- a bit more on-punch in the writing, a bit more developed in the companions, and a better reputation system overall- but FO4 is no slouch. Not only did it innovate and improve upon the crafting system, and innovate the settlement system, but there's a respectable balance overall between the factions.
While I miss the factional reputation system of FNV- I think it would have worked well in the context of the multi-faction cloak-and-dagger quests where outright conflict was hidden- the handling of the Institute overall was a good attempt. Not flawless by any means, but far, far better than the handling of Caesar's Legion in FNV. As a designated 'evil' joinable faction, Caesar's Legion had almost nothing to speak for it- it offered one sort of security (safety from raiders) that every other faction did, and many significant harms as well. The Institute has crimes as well- but few as serious, none as deliberatly cruel, and offers real and practical potential for public good depending on player action.
FO4 has a good balance of factions, which I heartily approve. There's merits for, and flaws against, each and every faction- both moral, ideological, and pragmatic.
The Institute is the epitomy of Ivory Tower intellectual elitism and disconnect from the world, for good and ill. It is misunderstood- but for both better and worse.
The Brotherhood of Steel offers real protection for the Wastelanders, at the cost of racist hostility against a minority (non-feral ghouls) and the worrying establishment of a conquering empire.
The Railroad is moral conviction, but ultimately indifferent to the fate of everyone and self-destructive of their own cause. They have no plan for the future, existing only for a specific cause of the now.
The Minute Men are are force for good... for the moment, and have a weak organizational purpose or resiliance.
Strongly disagree that it reaches New Vegas. The lack of so many crucial RPG elements (skills affecting dialog, multiple outcomes for most quests, protagonist that isn't force-fed, being the big ones) means it fails at being a good RPG and a good Fallout game to me. It is an enjoyable shooter with RPG elements, with better than average writing from Bethesda and some cool ideas and moments. I loved walking around in my X-01 Power Armor and all that. But I'm probably not going to ever finish the game a second time, while I did 4 full playthroughs of New Vegas, more than any game save Dragon Age: Origins. The replay value and interesting RPG opportunities just aren't there.
It IS better than FO3, sure. But it still has some bizzare design decisions. The awful dialog wheel is a big one. So is the ******-poor interface across the board. And why bother ditching Skills, when half the perk tree is just incremental bonuses to combat and crafting abilities, AKA the exact same thing Skills did in FO3 and NV?
Gotta say, the main story arch writing surprised me having expectations akin to FO3 and Skyrim, the institute wasn't quite what I expected when I reached that point, and overall its a lot better done than FO3, even if character and individual side quest writing is still kinda flat. Overall decent twist to the end game.
Bethesda seems to take inspiration from Bioware in regard to their companion interactions. Is it just me or is Cait = Femshep and Curie = Cassandra? Asides from that, Bioware really needs to do better open world if they choose to go that route with ME. Bethesda does it better since the fest quests are a lot more interesting and integrated into the main storyline, and the stuffs you do in the sidequests have more significant than increasing Inquisition's power. While Bethesda did a good job, the game has more bugs in the game than a Hometown's salads. I had to redo several quests and didn't do certain quests waiting for them to fix it (Had to do with Danse and siding against the BoS). At least, Bioware games bugs and glitches aren't as bad in general.
While many people are opposed to it, I like how they make everyone playersexual like with Skyrim. If not, I feel like Danse would have been straight. KISA characters in Bioware games tend to lean that way, I'm guessing it's more subconscious or coincidence, but having the choice to choose who you can romance is pretty nice. I'd probably have enjoyed DAI a bit more.
I'm a bit on the fence about the characters in Fallout 4, everyone in the game are douchebags and talking down to you very often. The ones who are actually nice to you are the supposed bad guys in the game. The Institute opens you with open arms. The bother two factions I can't stand. You expect me to help when you act like your fart doesn't smell, Desdemona? You can go romance yourself. Maxson acts like a spoiled brat. Maybe it's good that it makes me feel something for the characters rather than nothing.
I agree that FO4 is a good step or three forward for Bethesda.
Far better in nearly every respect and mechanic than FO3, and arguably a peer competitor for FNV. FNV is 'sharper' in some ways- a bit more on-punch in the writing, a bit more developed in the companions, and a better reputation system overall- but FO4 is no slouch. Not only did it innovate and improve upon the crafting system, and innovate the settlement system, but there's a respectable balance overall between the factions.
While I miss the factional reputation system of FNV- I think it would have worked well in the context of the multi-faction cloak-and-dagger quests where outright conflict was hidden- the handling of the Institute overall was a good attempt. Not flawless by any means, but far, far better than the handling of Caesar's Legion in FNV. As a designated 'evil' joinable faction, Caesar's Legion had almost nothing to speak for it- it offered one sort of security (safety from raiders) that every other faction did, and many significant harms as well. The Institute has crimes as well- but few as serious, none as deliberatly cruel, and offers real and practical potential for public good depending on player action.
FO4 has a good balance of factions, which I heartily approve. There's merits for, and flaws against, each and every faction- both moral, ideological, and pragmatic.
The Institute is the epitomy of Ivory Tower intellectual elitism and disconnect from the world, for good and ill. It is misunderstood- but for both better and worse.
The Brotherhood of Steel offers real protection for the Wastelanders, at the cost of racist hostility against a minority (non-feral ghouls) and the worrying establishment of a conquering empire.
The Railroad is moral conviction, but ultimately indifferent to the fate of everyone and self-destructive of their own cause. They have no plan for the future, existing only for a specific cause of the now.
The Minute Men are are force for good... for the moment, and have a weak organizational purpose or resiliance.
And in having choices be composed of opportunities that are equalled flawed and beneficial, it falls right into the trap of ivory tower elitism where moral problems are like math problems.
It would be more interesting if they made clear good choices but hid it well so you could trap as many people in a clear moral faux-pas.
BW games do this part better, like Wrex on Vimire is supposed to bait you into killing him which is like well that was uh, wrong. If you can get people to run around defending a wrong choice, then you know you successfully created a moral dilemma.
A neat sheet of "X is good at Y, but bad at Z" and "S is good R, but bad at T" is, not reality.
That said I've been thinking about how Bethesda gets too much flak for stuff like Fallout 3/Skyrim.. I've ultimately enjoyed those games as much if not more than their supposed superior counterparts like New Vegas.
Cait = Femshep
Cait is Cait-Sith!!!!!!
..I'll go now.
Oh, so when we are purging the Wasteland of their kind by killing them indiscriminately, they are not people but when I'm eating them suddenly they are people. Make up your mind, Brotherhood of Steel, and stop judging my dietary decisions!
While many people are opposed to it, I like how they make everyone playersexual like with Skyrim. If not, I feel like Danse would have been straight. KISA characters in Bioware games tend to lean that way, I'm guessing it's more subconscious or coincidence, but having the choice to choose who you can romance is pretty nice. I'd probably have enjoyed DAI a bit more.
Eh, the Fallout 4 romance system isn't much deeper than Skyrim's. Only instead of wearing a piece of jewelry you pass a Charisma check. Heck, you can romance multiple characters at once with zero consequences! Of course, I didn't really expect much from a Bethesda romance.
Is it just me or is Cait = Femshep
Femshep is strung out on psycho? 
I would argue Bethesda has a lot to learn from BioWare about how to make engaging companions and write half-way decent dialogue. Fallout 4's companions are a rather colorless lot and there is not a Sera or Jack among them to make things interesting. Piper comes somewhat close but only somewhat.
I would argue Bethesda has a lot to learn from BioWare about how to make engaging companions and write half-way decent dialogue. Fallout 4's companions are a rather colorless lot and there is not a Sera or Jack among them to make things interesting. Piper comes somewhat close but only somewhat.
Nick Valentine's pretty entertaining as a robotic parody of Philip Marlowe.
Eh, the Fallout 4 romance system isn't much deeper than Skyrim's. Only instead of wearing a piece of jewelry you pass a Charisma check. Heck, you can romance multiple characters at once with zero consequences! Of course, I didn't really expect much from a Bethesda romance.
Eh, the Fallout 4 romance system isn't much deeper than Skyrim's. Only instead of wearing a piece of jewelry you pass a Charisma check. Heck, you can romance multiple characters at once with zero consequences! Of course, I didn't really expect much from a Bethesda romance.
Femshep is strung out on psycho?
Some people are into multiple polygamy or open relationship. They do get jealous if you flirt while in a relationship though. I think it's intentional since games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 are all about freedom to do what you want, so if you want to have multiple romances, you can. No longer you have to choose.
The romance system in FO4 isn't great, but it's definitely better than just completing a random task (like bringing that redheaded gal in Whiterun some tusks) and then wearing a necklace. It needs a lot of development if it's going to continue, but the LI's seem much more fleshed out than the random NPCs in Skyrim who could be 'romanced'. It's a nice step in the right direction though.
I actually like the companions in FO4. They aren't all great, but the ones that are good are really good in my opinion. I love Valentine, Deacon, and Curie. They are interesting and feel 'fresh'. I still haven't gotten Hancock or the Courser yet but none of the others are too bad either. Some are a little flat and one-note, but they are certainly more interesting than 80% of the Skyrim companions. Seriously, tell me one thing about Roggi Knot-Beard.......
The dialogue bits from a romanced character are rather sweet and some are very amusing like the pillow talk ones. To me, it also adds a nice bit of immersion to sleeping near a romanced follower. Not all of them are necessarily sexual lines either, I believe Hancock has a line that goes something along the lines of "Morning, sunshine". They are a neat way, in my opinion, of acknowledging the relationship in small but still noticeable ways that I'd like to see implemented in Mass Effect: Andromeda if possibly.
Danse has a line that's curious, though: "Did you know you talk in your sleep?". It's in the tone he uses when he says it. Maybe he is worried the player chracter will blurt out his secret while sleeping somewhere in certain steel-clad company.
The romance system in FO4 isn't great, but it's definitely better than just completing a random task (like bringing that redheaded gal in Whiterun some tusks) and then wearing a necklace. It needs a lot of development if it's going to continue, but the LI's seem much more fleshed out than the random NPCs in Skyrim who could be 'romanced'. It's a nice step in the right direction though.
I actually like the companions in FO4. They aren't all great, but the ones that are good are really good in my opinion. I love Valentine, Deacon, and Curie. They are interesting and feel 'fresh'. I still haven't gotten Hancock or the Courser yet but none of the others are too bad either. Some are a little flat and one-note, but they are certainly more interesting than 80% of the Skyrim companions. Seriously, tell me one thing about Roggi Knot-Beard.......
Being better than Skyrim's people is pretty much the lowest of low hanging fruit where your NPC could have been replaced with a mule.
Very true.
I actually like the companions in FO4. They aren't all great, but the ones that are good are really good in my opinion. I love Valentine, Deacon, and Curie. They are interesting and feel 'fresh'. I still haven't gotten Hancock or the Courser yet but none of the others are too bad either.
Oh, I can definitely recommend picking up Hancock as a companion. He is currently my favorite of the bunch; I really love his character both in how he acts as well as his dressing style and his backstory. His romance was also very sweet.
So far, I've really loved this batch of followers though it'll be a bit before I've gone through all of them since I like to take my time and experience them for myself... also two are dead in my first playthrough. Well, I think X-8 is dead, at least, so him and Deacon will have to wait until my second playthrough since I got a sea of saves that I'm not sailing through to find the one where they're still alive.
Being better than Skyrim's people is pretty much the lowest of low hanging fruit where your NPC could have been replaced with a mule.
I don't find them all that compelling the longer I am around them - most of them have surface interest but not a lot of depth. Cait is a drinking, fighting Irish woman ( daring choice there - and yes I know she has "issues"), Valentine is a flat Bogart rip off and the more I see of him the less I like him because it feels lazy. I think they want Valentine to be the "the guy" for players but I don't get a lot from him. Same thing I wanted to like Piper but she is what she is from the word go.
I think I like to bring femShep around because I can steal and she approves, demanding more money, and being a jerk, and if I get caught, she doesn't beat me up over some random stranger like Piper.
Retour en haut
