1378 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

my assumption is

 

Spoiler

He's essentially a clone of Shaun.  All the gen-3 synths are "organic synthetics" and as such should have all the characteristics of organic life unless specifically designed otherwise (such as being created in an adult form)  My belief is this child-synth was created to give the Sole Survivor a chance to raise the son he/she never had the chance to, as well as to give "Shaun" the childhood he never had.  And as such, will grow up as any other child would

 

 

Spoiler

 

Big emphasis on "Shaun" getting the childhood he never had.

 

There's significant indicators that the entire story- at least the Sole Survivor's ressurection- are a result of Shaun having an end-of-life crisis and regrets over what he never had, and trying to clear up loose ends. While he's clearly invested in the Institute, it's also clear he wanted revenge against Kellog for the death of the spouse, and wanted to see what the Sole Survivor would do/go through to find him.

 

I imagine that, had lil' Shaun had the right reaction in that reveal encounter, he wouldn't have revealed himself at all.

 

[Iakus]

Spoiler

 

Big emphasis on "Shaun" getting the childhood he never had.

 

There's significant indicators that the entire story- at least the Sole Survivor's ressurection- are a result of Shaun having an end-of-life crisis and regrets over what he never had, and trying to clear up loose ends. While he's clearly invested in the Institute, it's also clear he wanted revenge against Kellog for the death of the spouse, and wanted to see what the Sole Survivor would do/go through to find him.

 

I imagine that, had lil' Shaun had the right reaction in that reveal encounter, he wouldn't have revealed himself at all.

 

 

Spoiler

 This part is absolutely true.  He all but outright tells the Sole Survivor he set up Kellog to be found by him/her so he'd be killed

[Giantdeathrobot]

Not sure if this quest exists for female protagonists(they let you in based on your military history) but the robots on the USS constitution is just a really funny side quest. Crap like that really adds to the game. I think it handled the idea that the world exists without you with different quests going on in the side without you constantly being randomly attacked by monsters. Though I like constant attacks anyways. Makes it feel like a hostile apocalyptic wasteland or something.

 

I liked that quest a lot. It was goofy, but the right kind of goody. It's also the only one in that game that allows you to use a SPECIAL stat to solve a problem, so there's that too.

[Sidney]

I laughed at VATs being core to the FO experience.
 
I disagree that SPECIAL was broken. I'd argue FO3 and FO4 had far more broken systems since there was pretty clear dominant stats (Intelligence alone trumpiing most stats by virtue of talent points, while stats like Perception or Charisma were effectively dump stats.)
 
Plot... I won't argue if your comparison is FNV, except in so much that the Institute gets better development as a viable alternative than Caesar, but it's certainly a good deal better than FO3. Not only does it avoid some stupid forced delimmas or railroading sequences (the capture by the Enclave, the lack of an Enclave option, the final choice), but it delivers a far more effective plot twist to the player in the form of Shawn. That was something FNV lacked, though FNV made up for it in a better balance-of-power dynamic with faction reputations.
 
Power-armor- power armor was probably a change for the best, at least in terms of gameplay. In most respects, power armor has been consistently broken: with extremely few exceptions (such as stealth builds), power armor's been the dominant armor. Once you had the training, and the item, there was almost no reason NOT to use it- and using it was superior to everything else. Most people would put it on and never take it off. The power core mechanic is a better balance overall- power cores are findable, but limited, and so it's a balance of limited fuel/ammo (gattling laser). That- and the development of customization- makes for better gameplay investment and cost-benefit than the power armors of FNV, FO3, and from what I've heard FO2 and FO1. 'Lore breaking', for a minor element of lore regarding the power source, and by ignorring the FO3-invented 'must require training' requirement- was probably an improvement.
 
Settlement can use a lot of touchup, to be sure, but hard to argue it's not a net plus for the franchise.
 
Leveling up being too fast? Eh- there's a the balance factor of the fact that there's no level cap, and that the special-perk system is leveled in a way that each perk has multiple levels.
 
Quest numbers- pretty sure you'd find that there were more than FO3. FO4 certainly does far better in sending and directing you to the various regions of the map than FO3 did, No one beats FNV's interstate-organized map system... but, well, not much butt to it. Still, FO4 has a respectable, even if they can be harder to ferret out.
 
Bugs are a Bethesda engine tradition, so no lost love for them in FNV.

VATS is core if you consider the whole combat system from 1 and 2 a core mechanic and I do. The only reason it was there in 3 was as a nostalgia play for how the game used to work. Now it doesn't even do that since it is really just a badly done bullet time which, since you have long run animations it results in you taking a lot of fire you shouldn't take not to mention the issues while trying to "target" the right body parts. The FO3 system was at least an attempt at a compromise...this system not so much.

They broke SPECIAL by allowing you to level up stats as well as perks. You are basically crazy to not dump everything into INT early on. Given how fast you level up with the higher INT you will be able to level up pretty darn much everything on your stats and stil fill in any perks you want. It makes it way too easy for your character to have it all instead of making the trade offs SPECIAL used to ask you to make.

I thought the twist was something anyone should have seen a mile away but that is personal. I didn't like the factions because you basically had good guys with no plan or ideology (railroad and Minutemen) versus bad guys with a plan and a vague ideology (BOS and Institute). There is a lot of interesting discussion to be had if the Minutemen for example were more explicitly for freedom and democracy and the BOS and their security and stability first plan and the connections and trade offs. That isn't there so there's no real subtlety or interest to these bunches.

Power armor has always been broken but it has always been very rare and a goal. The cores are needed because they made the suit so common. What I disliked is that it was still immensely powerful so any plot quest basically meant wear the armor while nothing much else required it -- and the mobility issues and UI in it made me only wear it if I had to.

Settlement as an idea is a net plus. The implementation of the idea isn't. Impossible to know what settlers are doing, a settlement status screen that is just flat out lying to you a lot of the time. A mostly impenetrable happiness system and a build UI that is just nine kinds of wrong. Toss in that in gameplay terms more settlements actually make your life harder and not easier.

There are a lot of quests but if you strip the various procedural out I'm not sure there are. I felt like I burned through a hub like Diamond City amazingly fast and there wasn't any similar other hub site that gave out volumes of quests.

[ZombiePopper]

I agree 100% on settlements,
I do think, in the end, it is a plus.
Yeah, I hate that settlements can't defend themselves AFTER you set them up.
And I hate that the system can't keep the info correct on the screen/happiness; beds, food, water. But I quick pop-in to the settlement sorts it out.

Overall I like the power armor change.
It was ridiculous to think you could sleep, sit etc in power armor and wear it 24/7. Now, with the limited power source and mobility limitations, you need to pick-and-choose when and when not to use it. So while Power armor has ALWAYS been OP, it's now limited, which is a big +.
I've tracked down every suit of power armor in the game, and I only have 30 suits (including the set from the first mission and the set you're given by BoS.) in my book, that's not a lot when you consider they were WIDELY used, all over, for military applications.
Quite honestly,
there should be bunkers or warehouses with these things just racked up, since they were issued, maintenance, spares, manufacturing, etc. So I'd argue that they should actually be MORE common. But when you factor in raiders and gunners, etc possessing them, and the suits destroyed, it does make sense, for me anyway.

I only put points into INT thru out the entire game, by level 80 my INT was only 8. It helped reduce my leveling. But I'd agree, that the new SPECIAL system does away with spreading the points around, for the most part. But there are still perks worth selecting so you'd need to place points accordingly.

I'd also agree that the main hubs have limited missions, BUT, almost all of the sales people provide missions, if you ask.
For example, goodneighbor,
If you ask the people in dialogue, about work, you're given new missions. So make sure before just hitting the barter button, hit the work button.

As far as VATS, I just don't use it that much. For me, in alllll the FO's, selecting a specific body parts has always been a PITA. FO4 VATS isn't different in that regard.

[ladyvader]

Hopefully they already learned their lesson chasing after Bethesda with DAI resulting in a pretty lackluster game.  If they return to focus on storytelling with in depth characters and a satisfying conclusion (see DAO and ME2) it should be fine.  If they try to cram in a bunch of FO4 successful innovations in the last year they'll repeat the mistakes of DAI.

And if ME:A has the same empty MMO feel of DA:l, it will end up like DA:I is at the moment, ready to download, install.

I can't play it, it's awful to me, just awful. 

[Dean_the_Young]

VATS is core if you consider the whole combat system from 1 and 2 a core mechanic and I do. The only reason it was there in 3 was as a nostalgia play for how the game used to work. Now it doesn't even do that since it is really just a badly done bullet time which, since you have long run animations it results in you taking a lot of fire you shouldn't take not to mention the issues while trying to "target" the right body parts. The FO3 system was at least an attempt at a compromise...this system not so much.

 

Fallouts 1 and 2 didn't have VATs- or rather, they didn't have the FPS-centric focus of the modern Fallout. Which, as far as FPS games went, VATS of FO3 and FNV was pretty bad at.

 

 

They broke SPECIAL by allowing you to level up stats as well as perks. You are basically crazy to not dump everything into INT early on. Given how fast you level up with the higher INT you will be able to level up pretty darn much everything on your stats and stil fill in any perks you want. It makes it way too easy for your character to have it all instead of making the trade offs SPECIAL used to ask you to make.

 

 

You could level up stats as well as perks in FO3 and FNV as well- there was just a level cap. Which made INT more broken, not less, since that meant that there were finite skill points (the real bread and butter of perks and powers) and INT was everything. In contrast, FO4 INT just helps your xp gain.

 

FO4 doesn't have a level cap, but that doesn't mean there aren't trade-offs: your tradeoffs are what you choose and prioritize in the dozens of hours it takes to get there. If you aren't the sort to grind to maximum level, you'll never hit that point of redundancy. If you are, it's a tradeoff of what you spend in the mean-time- just like choosing 'crafting' perks rather than combat perks can catch up with you being out-matched by enemies in combat.

 

 

 

I thought the twist was something anyone should have seen a mile away but that is personal. I didn't like the factions because you basically had good guys with no plan or ideology (railroad and Minutemen) versus bad guys with a plan and a vague ideology (BOS and Institute). There is a lot of interesting discussion to be had if the Minutemen for example were more explicitly for freedom and democracy and the BOS and their security and stability first plan and the connections and trade offs. That isn't there so there's no real subtlety or interest to these bunches.

 

 

So your issue was that they weren't charicatured enough? Or that the caricatures and ideologies weren't explicit enough?

 

Let's ignore the contrast to, say, FO3- where we get those wonderfully fleshed out factions of the Brotherhood or Enclave. Or FNV, where our premier bad guy faction was so over the top they literally crucify their would-be allies just to show they mean business.

 

And, of course, the truly faction-significant FO and FO2, which allowed the player to indugle in well developed ideologies.

 

 

Power armor has always been broken but it has always been very rare and a goal. The cores are needed because they made the suit so common. What I disliked is that it was still immensely powerful so any plot quest basically meant wear the armor while nothing much else required it -- and the mobility issues and UI in it made me only wear it if I had to.

 

 

Weren't you complaining about broken systems just a few points ago? Wouldn't reducing the brokenness of something- such as restricting use- be an improvement?

 

I'm not sure I'd call it 'very rare'- at least not in any sense of being 'hard' to get. In terms of prevalence, sure, but the stuff was pretty much given away to anyone who followed the relevant plotlines. FO2 has a huge exploit strategy in which you can just run off and get handed a full suit from the start. FO3 gives you training as part of the main quest, and an entire DLC, and gives you the stuff easily.

 

You also haven't pointed out why the lore being broken in this case is so important to the franchise.

 

Settlement as an idea is a net plus. The implementation of the idea isn't. Impossible to know what settlers are doing, a settlement status screen that is just flat out lying to you a lot of the time. A mostly impenetrable happiness system and a build UI that is just nine kinds of wrong. Toss in that in gameplay terms more settlements actually make your life harder and not easier.

 

 

How does this not go being personal? Plenty of people have found it quite enjoyable, and manage well enough.

 

There are a lot of quests but if you strip the various procedural out I'm not sure there are. I felt like I burned through a hub like Diamond City amazingly fast and there wasn't any similar other hub site that gave out volumes of quests.

 

 

 

Yes and no. The thing about procedural development is how it's used. They can be used as simple filler (such as when you go back to the same location to fight the same place), but they can also be used as the exploration-promting devices as any other quest.

 

FO4 uses procedurally generated quests as encouragements to go and find areas which typically have their own sub-story. University Point, for example, isn't a 'quest'- but it's a relevant part of the backstory of the setting. Or being sent to Jamaica Plains, which leads to uncovring the quest for the Treasure of Jamaica plains (which isn't found in a city). Fallouts have typically had an issue in which most locations not part of static quest were rarely reached- road less traveled, and so on. Radiant Quests provide a targetted incentive to go out and go to new places.

 

Moreover, radiant quests can be an effective part of the story and world-building. Minutemen have their settlement quests, which ties strongly into their story of communities coming together and forming something, as well as the expansion/re-establishment of the Minutemen. The crops quest for the Brotherhood is similar about how it establishes the tone of the Brotherhood's entry into the Commonwealth. Etc. etc. These quests may be more or less procedurally generated... but they're effective parts of conveying the factions.

 

Procedural quests also offer a significant value of continued relevance. In FNV, there are finite things to do. The city of Vegas has a lot of quests of various sizes... but once you're done, you're done. You can't even keep on gambling unless you play to lose.

[Aimi]

Yes and no. The thing about procedural development is how it's used. They can be used as simple filler (such as when you go back to the same location to fight the same place), but they can also be used as the exploration-promting devices as any other quest.
 
FO4 uses procedurally generated quests as encouragements to go and find areas which typically have their own sub-story. University Point, for example, isn't a 'quest'- but it's a relevant part of the backstory of the setting. Or being sent to Jamaica Plains, which leads to uncovring the quest for the Treasure of Jamaica plains (which isn't found in a city). Fallouts have typically had an issue in which most locations not part of static quest were rarely reached- road less traveled, and so on. Radiant Quests provide a targetted incentive to go out and go to new places.
 
Moreover, radiant quests can be an effective part of the story and world-building. Minutemen have their settlement quests, which ties strongly into their story of communities coming together and forming something, as well as the expansion/re-establishment of the Minutemen. The crops quest for the Brotherhood is similar about how it establishes the tone of the Brotherhood's entry into the Commonwealth. Etc. etc. These quests may be more or less procedurally generated... but they're effective parts of conveying the factions.
 
Procedural quests also offer a significant value of continued relevance. In FNV, there are finite things to do. The city of Vegas has a lot of quests of various sizes... but once you're done, you're done. You can't even keep on gambling unless you play to lose.

yeah but seriously Preston blows

[In Exile]

I laughed at VATs being core to the FO experience.

 

I disagree that SPECIAL was broken. I'd argue FO3 and FO4 had far more broken systems since there was pretty clear dominant stats (Intelligence alone trumpiing most stats by virtue of talent points, while stats like Perception or Charisma were effectively dump stats.)

 

The truth is, though, that in any dialogue-based game, a catch all stat for brilliance is going to be objectively superior. Because dialogue generally turns on intelligence related things. That's a problem with stat-based dialogue, and honestly why Bioware's standard "all PCs are pretty bright" works. 

[Iakus]

The truth is, though, that in any dialogue-based game, a catch all stat for brilliance is going to be objectively superior. Because dialogue generally turns on intelligence related things. That's a problem with stat-based dialogue, and honestly why Bioware's standard "all PCs are pretty bright" works. 

Hey, a low-INT character in Fallout 1 and 2 was like a whole new experience!

[Il Divo]

^Being honest, I never liked the low Int/Wis/Cha playthroughs of Planescape. I always appreciate that they were there for variety/RPG factor, but so few games offered the ability to finish entirely through dialogue that I always found myself focusing on those playthroughs. Not to mention, the dialogue is too damn good to want to lose out on. 

[SlottsMachine]

One of the inadvertantly funnier scenes I've had was coming upon a battle between the BRotherhood and some super mutants.

 

The mutants shot down the vertibird,  RIght on top of me

 

Piper, as the flaming vertibird crashed down on our heads:  "Oh COME ON!"

 

[Shechinah]

...

 

I love the way his head falls down and how casual Hancock strolls away from it like it has become an everyday occurance.

 

Granted, it admittedly has in my game.
 

[ComedicSociopathy]

I love the way his head falls down and how casual Hancock strolls away from it like it has become an everyday occurance.

 

Granted, it admittedly has in my game.
 

 

Hancock: Just another day in the Wasteland. 

[ZombiePopper]

Lmao

[Iakus]

^Being honest, I never liked the low Int/Wis/Cha playthroughs of Planescape. I always appreciate that they were there for variety/RPG factor, but so few games offered the ability to finish entirely through dialogue that I always found myself focusing on those playthroughs. Not to mention, the dialogue is too damn good to want to lose out on. 

Which is fine.  Since variety means different varieties of gameplay are supported (I favor intelligent/talky characters myself) 

 

But having that option available broadens appeal, and encourages role-playing styles.  Even replayability.

 

HEck I played a dumb Courier once in New Vegas just to see how much Hulk-speak there was (sadly, not as much as I would have liked)

[In Exile]

Hey, a low-INT character in Fallout 1 and 2 was like a whole new experience!

But that was even dumber, because that's not how being stupid works.

[Master Warder Z_]

But that was even dumber, because that's not how being stupid works.

That's your opinion

[In Exile]

That's your opinion

No, that part's an objectively verifiable fact. Including the language part. But especially all of the other high functioning.

[Iakus]

But that was even dumber, because that's not how being stupid works.

Elaborate please

[ZombiePopper]

With the idiot savant perk, the dumber your PC, the more xp you earn for random actions.

[Mirrman70]

With the idiot savant perk, the dumber your PC, the more xp you earn for random actions.

 

the way that perk works it is arguably still just as useful to have high intelligence because then the amount of exp you get from those random boosts is significantly higher. harder to get the boost but significantly increased reward. if you include save scumming tactics you can essentially just save before turning in a quest and just wait to get a super massive quantity of exp.

[Ahglock]

the way that perk works it is arguably still just as useful to have high intelligence because then the amount of exp you get from those random boosts is significantly higher. harder to get the boost but significantly increased reward. if you include save scumming tactics you can essentially just save before turning in a quest and just wait to get a super massive quantity of exp.

 

 

So if you abuse a system it gets abused?

 

I think some games require some level of perosnal responsibility, I don't think that is a bad thing.  Freedom sometimes cuts both ways in open world games but it still is worth it overall.

[Master Warder Z_]

No, that part's an objectively verifiable fact. Including the language part. But especially all of the other high functioning.

I'd love see you show 'citable' proof of this objective varied fact that dismisses difficulty in cognitive application in terms of articulation of thought to spoken word or internal thought being 'stupid'.

Really I would.

[Sifr]

 

Plot... I won't argue if your comparison is FNV, except in so much that the Institute gets better development as a viable alternative than Caesar, but it's certainly a good deal better than FO3. Not only does it avoid some stupid forced delimmas or railroading sequences (the capture by the Enclave, the lack of an Enclave option, the final choice), but it delivers a far more effective plot twist to the player in the form of Shawn. That was something FNV lacked, though FNV made up for it in a better balance-of-power dynamic with faction reputations.

 

The faction reputations and balance of power dynamic from FNV is part of why I preferred the ending of that game over that of FO3 and FO4.

 

While FO3 and FO4 have the better story and a better defined protagonist (FNV's protagonist is a blank slate in comparison), we did get far more freedom in FNV in terms of how we played that story. For example, FNV allowed us to use our reputation with several factions (most of whom hate each other) to gain their help during the final battle, as well as screw over all the main factions in the Wild Card ending by instead reprogramming the Securitron army to maintain a free and independent Mojave.

 

In FO3, we were limited in that there was only the Enclave or the Brotherhood we could side with to finish the Purifier, while FO4 suffers from the same problem as ME3 with the majority of endings playing out the exact same way, regardless of what faction you picked (even using the exact same cutscene).